Recently, an Additional District and Sessions court in Madhya Pradesh convicted 7 individuals in a rioting and murder incident that happened in the Narmadapuram district of Madhya Pradesh in August 2022. The incident resulted in the killing of a man named Nazeer Ahmed, while several others were seriously injured.
In a verdict passed on June 12, 2026, Additional Sessions Judge Tabassum Khan convicted seven accused, namely, Deepak alias Baba Kewat, Ajay alias Ajju Rathore, Prakash Kaushal, Pawan Bathav, Amar alias Bhola Bathav, Kanhaiya Bathav and Ballu alias Anuj Raghuvanshi, under Sections 302, 307, 148 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The judge sentenced all the convicts to life imprisonment.
While the culprits were convicted under provisions relating to murder, attempt to murder and rioting, some media outlets were quick to peddle the case as one relating to cow vigilantism merely because the incident involved a truck carrying cattle.
Several media outlets referred to the convicts as Gau Rakhshaks (Cow vigilantes), while the term is nowhere mentioned in the judgment.
Some media reports wrongly mentioned the number of convicts granted life imprisonment by the court as 14, but 7 people were convicted and sentenced by the sessions court.
Before moving on to the court’s observations and the decision in the case, let’s take a look at the incident that led to the filing of the case.
As recorded in the judgment, the incident took place around midnight on August 3, 2022, on Nandarwada Road in Barakhad village, under the Seonimalwa Police Station area, of the Narmadapuram district in Madhya Pradesh. The complainant, Sheikh Lala (a truck driver), along with his companions, Nazeer Ahmed and Sheikh Mushtaq, was travelling in a truck carrying cattle. The truck left from Nandarwada and was travelling towards Amravati in Maharashtra.
As the truck was passing near Barakhad village around midnight on the day of the incident, its occupants were attacked by 10 to 12 villagers carrying sticks. The thrashed Sheikh Lala, Nazeer Ahmed and Sheikh Mushtaq. The police arrived at the spot and rushed the victims to the Community Health Centre (CHC) Seonimalwa. Sheikh Lala and Sheikh Mushtaq sustained serious injuries, but Nazeer Ahmed passed away during treatment at the hospital.
A FIR was registered by the police at Seonimalwa Police Station against 10-12 persons under Sections 147, 148, 341, 307, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Seven of the accused were tried for the offences and convicted of some of the offences mentioned in the FIR.
The court framed seven issues for determining the commission of the offences alleged in the FIR. Out of the seven issues framed by the court, a key issue mentioned at number 3 stated whether the accused deliberately stopped the truck of the victims before launching an attack on them. This issue was crucial for establishing whether the accused had a motive behind their actions.
“Whether, at the said date, time and place, the accused persons wrongfully restrained the complainant Sheikh Lala, Nazeer Ahmed and Sheikh Mushtaq, who were travelling in truck registration number MH-40-CD-8751, by stopping/obstructing their way?” read the issue framed by the court.
After examining the evidence adduced and the arguments advanced by both sides, the court concluded that the element of wrongful restraint could not be proved against the accused. In other words, the court held that the prosecution could not prove that the accused deliberately stopped the truck of the victims before attacking them. In the absence of a motive, the misleading claims of the media portals about the attack on the victims being motivated by cow vigilantism do not hold water.
In para number 96 of the judgment, the court stated that the allegation against the accused that they wrongfully restrained the injured persons and the deceased by blocking their way was not proved. The court stated that the eyewitnesses, Sheikh Lala and Syed Mushtaq, made no statements before the court to the effect that anyone from the crowd had stopped their way by placing any vehicle in front of them. The court also pointed out that even their statements given to the police did not mention that the path of their truck had been blocked. No other evidence was submitted to the court to show that the accused blocked the truck’s path.
A plain reading of the judgment is sufficient to debunk the claims of the media portals to misrepresent the case as one of cow vigilantism. It is clear from the findings of the court that the incident did not relate to cow vigilantism and involved acts of murder, attempt to murder and rioting.
