The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur has set aside the conviction of all the accused in the 2004 Pamgarh distillery murder case, bringing an end to a long legal battle that lasted over two decades. The Division Bench comprising Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad delivered a common judgment acquitting all the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 201 of 2015 (Bhagwan Lal and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh) and Criminal Appeal No. 324 of 2015 (Radheyshyam and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh).
The appeals were filed against the 2015 decision of the Special Sessions Judge, Janjgir-Champa, which had convicted the accused under several sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Section 302 read with Section 149 (murder), and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The trial court had held them responsible for the death of Bhola Gupta, the manager of a local liquor distillery in Pamgarh, who died during a violent mob attack that took place on December 10, 2004.
The violence broke out after the mysterious death of a villager and teacher, Mahesh Khare, also known as Guruji. His body was discovered near a pond, and suspicion quickly turned toward the employees of a nearby liquor distillery. What began as a protest soon escalated into chaos. A mob of around 200 to 250 villagers stormed the distillery premises, set vehicles on fire, looted money, vandalized property, and brutally assaulted those inside. Bhola Gupta was severely beaten and later succumbed to his injuries.
After the incident, police registered an FIR based on a complaint filed by the distillery manager. A lengthy trial followed, and in 2015 the lower court convicted more than a dozen accused persons, ordering their sentences to run concurrently for various offences, including rioting, arson, and house trespass.
When the case reached the High Court, the judges undertook a detailed review of the evidence, including witness testimonies, medical and forensic reports, and the investigation record. The Court found that the prosecution’s case was riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies. Several witnesses turned hostile or failed to identify the accused. Others gave statements that did not match earlier records. The Court noted that while the incident was undoubtedly tragic, the evidence was insufficient to establish that the appellants were directly involved in the murder of Bhola Gupta.
The Bench observed that the case appeared to have been built largely on suspicion rather than proof. It noted that the alleged recovery of weapons and other seized materials could not be linked conclusively to the crime, as the blood found on them did not match the deceased. The forensic report, therefore, offered no help to the prosecution. The Court also pointed out that no Test Identification Parade was conducted, which further weakened the case.
In its detailed reasoning, the High Court drew upon several Supreme Court precedents, including Masalti v. State of U.P., Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi v. State of Gujarat (2023) 9 SCC 164, and Ranvir Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023) 14 SCC 41, which establish that mere presence in a mob is not enough to convict someone under Section 149 of the IPC. The Court emphasized that an individual’s guilt must be proved through clear and reliable evidence showing that they shared a common intention or took part in the unlawful act.
Finding no such evidence on record, the Bench concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. It held that convicting the appellants on the basis of vague and contradictory testimonies would amount to a miscarriage of justice. The Court therefore granted the benefit of doubt to all accused and ordered their acquittal from all charges, including murder, rioting, house trespass, arson, and assault.
The judgment reiterates an important principle of criminal law: that collective blame cannot replace individual proof. In cases of mob violence, courts must be cautious to ensure that innocent bystanders are not punished merely because they were present at the scene. With this ruling, the High Court restored the presumption of innocence in a case that had long symbolized the risks of overbroad criminal prosecution in group offences.
Case Details : CRA No. 201 of 2015 ( Bhagwan Lal And Ors. vs State of Chhattisgarh ) with CRA No. 324 of 2015 ( Radheyshyam And Ors. vs State of Chhattisgarh )
For respective appellants : Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Mr. Govind Ram Miri, Senior Advocates, appear along with Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, Ms. Aditi Diwan, Mr. Abhishek Banjare, Mrs. Meena Sahstri, Mr. Leekesh Kumar, Mr. Rahil Arun Kochar, Mr. U.R. Koshaley, Mr. D.D. Mahant & Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocates
For Respondent/State : Mr. Ranbir Singh Marhas & Mr. Ashish Shukla, Additional Advocate General.