On 3rd January, a special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court presided by Additional District Judge Vivekanand Sharan Tripathi in Lucknow sentenced 28 accused in the Chandan Gupta murder case to life imprisonment under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and other sections. Chandan was brutally murdered during violence that occurred during the Tiranga Yatra on 26th January 2018 in Kasganj, Uttar Pradesh. The accused were convicted on 2nd January 2025. OpIndia accessed multiple court documents and FIRs related to the case.

Notably, the court categorically stated that, based on legal precedents, it was evident that Muslims had perpetrated communal violence against Hindus. It further observed that seven members of the mob were armed with firearms and cartridges, while others engaged in stone-pelting and attacked Hindus with rods and sticks.

Defining communalism, the court described it as a narrow mindset where individuals or groups prioritise their religion over the broader interests of society and the nation. The court emphasised that such an outlook fosters hatred between communities and creates an environment of fear, mistrust, and danger. Highlighting the most devastating consequence of communal violence, it pointed out the loss of human life, citing Chandan’s murder at the hands of Muslim extremists in this case.

What happened on the day of the incident

According to the court documents, on 26th January 2018, at around 10:30 AM, a “Tiranga Yatra” was organised to celebrate Republic Day in Kasganj. Abhishek Gupta, alias Chandan, was one of the participants along with his brother Vivek and other friends. They marched along Tehsil Road holding the Indian flag and chanting slogans like “Bharat Mata Ki Jai” and “Vande Mataram.”

When the procession reached the gate of the Government Girls’ Inter College, a group of armed individuals ambushed them. It was revealed that they had been waiting there to attack the Tiranga Yatra. The accused, including Saleem, Wasim, Naseem (sons of Barkatullah), Zahid alias Jagga, Asif Quraishi alias Hitler, and others, blocked the path of the procession and forcibly snatched the Indian flag. They threw the flag on the ground and chanted slogans like “Pakistan Zindabad” and “Hindustan Murdabad.”

The accused then threatened the participants of the procession and demanded that they chant “Pakistan Zindabad” if they wanted to pass through that area. When Chandan opposed this, the group of assailants started pelting stones and firing shots. Some of them shouted, “Kill them,” leading to chaos. During the violence, Saleem shot Chandan with the intention to kill. Other participants of the procession were also injured in the gunfire and stone-pelting.

Chandan’s brother Vivek and some of their friends managed to escape. They rushed the critically injured Chandan to Kasganj Police Station, from where he was immediately taken to the district hospital. However, when they arrived at the hospital, doctors declared him brought dead. The incident sparked widespread outrage, leading to significant communal tension in the area. The authorities swung into action immediately, and an investigation was initiated by Kasganj Police. Two FIRs were registered in the matter, one of which provided details of the murder of Chandan Gupta.

Details of the FIR

The FIR in the Chandan Gupta murder case was based on the complaint filed by his father, Sushil Gupta. According to the complainant, Chandan, his brother Vivek, and others were participating in the Tiranga Yatra when the armed accused attacked them with a premeditated plan. They obstructed the procession, snatched the flag, and raised anti-India slogans. When Chandan resisted, the accused launched a violent attack on them, leading to his fatal injuries.

The FIR was registered under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Sections 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting with deadly weapons), 149 (unlawful assembly with a common object), 341 (wrongful restraint), 336 (acts endangering life or personal safety of others), 307 (attempt to murder), 302 (murder), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 124A (sedition). Additionally, Section 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1950, was invoked concerning the disrespect of the national flag.

The FIR was registered against Jahid alias Jagga (32), Nasruddin (68), Akram (20), Taufeeq (24), Khillan (45), Rahat (32), Mohsin alias Ali (25), Asif Jim Wala (28), Bablu (22), Wasif (25), Saleem (45), Salman (25), Waseem (28), Naseem (27), Nishu alias Zeeshan (21), Imran (28), Saqir (30), Shamshad (32), Zafar (23), Saqir (24), Khalid Parvez (23), Faizan (21), Azizuddin (55), Imran (24), Asif Qureshi alias Hitler (25), Aslam Qureshi (30), Aseem Qureshi (26), Shabab (29), Saqib (22), Munazir Rafi (32), and Aamir Rafi (42).

How the case was transferred from Kasganj to Etah

As the case proceeded in the Kasganj court, Sushil Gupta, father of Chandan Gupta, filed an application in the Allahabad High Court seeking the transfer of the case. In his application, he alleged that Munazir Rafi, one of the accused in the case, was pressuring him to enter into a compromise in the murder case. Furthermore, he alleged that some senior advocates in Kasganj refused to represent Chandan’s side due to Munazir’s influence and intimidation tactics.

Gupta further told the court that Munazir and his supporters, including a significant section of the local legal community, created a hostile environment for Chandan’s family, making it impossible for them to get fair legal representation. This situation left Sushil apprehensive about the possibility of an impartial trial in Kasganj.

During the hearing of the matter in the High Court, Sushil argued that his son’s murder case could not be fairly tried in Kasganj due to the hostile environment and undue influence of the accused. He highlighted that no senior advocate in the district had filed a vakalatnama on his behalf, further leaving him vulnerable in pursuing justice for his son. On the other hand, the accused’s counsel claimed that Sushil’s allegations were baseless.

After carefully examining the case, the High Court bench led by Justice Anil Kumar Ojha concluded that his apprehension of bias in Kasganj was reasonable. It noted that the influence of Munazir Rafi, combined with the refusal of senior advocates to represent Gupta, created an environment where justice would not appear to be served impartially.

On 10th March 2022, the Allahabad High Court allowed the transfer application and directed the District Judge of Kasganj to transfer the case to the District Judge of Etah within two weeks. It further instructed the District Judge of Etah to assign the case to a competent court.

How the case was transferred from Etah to Lucknow NIA Court

After the case was transferred to Etah, it took a crucial turn which necessitated another transfer. The case included charges under Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code (sedition), a scheduled offence under the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act, 2008. This provision categorises certain offences as requiring trial by a Special Court designated under the NIA Act.

As per Section 22 of the NIA Act, when an offence under Section 124-A is charged, it is mandatory for the trial to be conducted by a Special Court. The state government issued a notification transferring the case to the Special NIA Court in Lucknow. The case was then heard in the court presided over by Additional District Judge Vivekanand Sharan Tripathi from 21st April 2022 onwards.

Throughout the hearing, the accused side used every legal remedy at their disposal to delay the case. They filed petitions in the High Court as well as the Supreme Court for transfer or dismissal of the case, but the applications were dismissed by the concerned courts.

Dismissal of the application to transfer the case back to Kasganj

As the hearing commenced and the Special NIA Court reserved judgment in late 2024, the accused approached the Allahabad High Court seeking to transfer the trial back to Kasganj. They argued that the nature of the case was local, involving witnesses, evidence, and circumstances directly tied to Kasganj. They contended that holding the trial in Lucknow, far from the place of the incident, created unnecessary logistical challenges for both parties and witnesses.

They also questioned the jurisdiction of the Special NIA Court, given the stay on Section 124-A IPC by the Supreme Court in its interim order in SG Vombatkere vs. Union of India (2022).

The prosecution and counsel for the complainant strongly opposed the transfer application. They argued that the charges under Section 124-A IPC, despite being stayed, remained valid, and the transfer to the NIA Court was in accordance with the provisions of the NIA Act. The prosecution highlighted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had allowed trials under other sections to proceed if no prejudice was caused to the accused.

They contended that the NIA Court in Lucknow was well-equipped to handle the case, given its infrastructure and security provisions, and that returning the trial to Kasganj would undermine the integrity of the judicial process. They further emphasised that the case had already been transferred out of Kasganj to Etah earlier due to apprehensions of bias and influence by local individuals. Bringing the case back to Kasganj, they argued, would only revive those concerns.

The High Court bench led by Justice Rajeev Singh eventually dismissed the application on 20th December and observed that the grounds cited by the accused did not merit a transfer. The court also noted that the charges under Section 124-A IPC had necessitated the transfer to the NIA Court, and the stay on those proceedings did not invalidate the jurisdiction of the Special Court. The High Court reiterated its earlier decision that reasonable apprehensions of bias and influence in Kasganj had justified the transfer to Etah, and those concerns had not changed.

The court also rejected the claim that the NIA Court lacked jurisdiction. It clarified that under the NIA Act, the Special NIA Court was empowered to try cases involving scheduled offences, and the stay on Section 124-A IPC did not affect its authority to adjudicate connected charges. Furthermore, the court found no evidence that the accused had been prejudiced by the trial being conducted in Lucknow. It observed that they had actively participated in the proceedings and had raised no objections earlier.

The accused also approached Supreme Court in the matter but the application was dismissed by the bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B Varale.

Statements of the witnesses

Statement of Chandan’s brother Vivek Gupta

Recounting the events of 26th January 2018, Vivek said in his statement that during the procession, they encountered an armed mob near the gate of the Rajkiya Balika Inter College. He added that the individuals in the mob blocked their path, snatched their national flags, and threw them to the ground. They also raised slogans like “Pakistan Zindabad” and threatened them with firearms, demanding they chant “Pakistan Zindabad.” When Chandan objected, the mob started pelting stones and opened fire, fatally injuring him.

Statements of Ashish Gupta and Abhishek Gupta

Ashish Gupta and Abhishek Gupta, both eyewitnesses, corroborated Vivek’s account of the Tiranga Yatra and the subsequent confrontation. They confirmed that the accused, led by Salim, Wasim, and Naseem, were part of a premeditated plan to attack the procession. They also recounted how the mob used firearms and stones and specifically targeted Chandan.

Statement of Deepak Verma

Deepak Verma, another eyewitness, testified that he was present at the scene when the mob attacked. He supported the claims of national flags being snatched and desecrated by the accused. Deepak further mentioned that the mob’s actions were accompanied by chants of “Pakistan Zindabad” and threats against anyone who opposed them.

Collective statements of other witnesses

Several other witnesses, including locals present at the scene, provided similar accounts. They confirmed the desecration of the national flag, the slogans raised by the accused, and the subsequent attack on the Tiranga Yatra. These witnesses consistently identified the accused, including Salim, Wasim, Naseem, and others, as the instigators of the violence. Their statements collectively highlighted the communal and premeditated nature of the attack.

Medical evidence and post-mortem findings

Post-mortem report and findings

The medical evidence and post-mortem report of Chandan played a crucial role in corroborating the accounts of the eyewitnesses and establishing the cause of death. The report revealed that Chandan had sustained a single gunshot wound leading to his death. It confirmed that he was shot at close range in his upper torso. The report indicated that the bullet had been aimed at a vital area.

The trajectory of the bullet suggested a deliberate intent to cause maximum harm. The report further revealed that the internal damage caused by the bullet was severe, with critical organs such as the lungs and heart being punctured.

The bullet injury led to massive blood loss and instant fatality. The absence of a corresponding exit wound suggested that the bullet was lodged inside the body, which was later recovered during the autopsy and submitted as crucial evidence in the case.

Medical efforts to save Chandan

According to the report submitted by the doctors who treated Chandan, he was brought to the district hospital in critical condition. Despite immediate efforts to provide first aid and stabilise him, Chandan was declared dead upon arrival. The attending doctor noted in the medical report that the extent of internal damage caused by the bullet made it impossible to revive him.

Forensic examination of the bullet

The bullet recovered from Chandan’s body was sent for forensic analysis, which confirmed that it was fired from a country-made firearm. This matched the type of weapons reportedly used by the accused during the attack, as per witness statements. The forensic findings further solidified the link between the accused and the fatal shooting.

Cause of death

The post-mortem report concluded that the cause of death was haemorrhagic shock due to the gunshot injury, which resulted in massive internal bleeding and organ failure. The doctor conducting the post-mortem categorically stated that the injury was inflicted with the intent to kill, supporting the charges of murder (Section 302 IPC) against the accused.

Supporting medical testimonies

The doctors who conducted the post-mortem and examined Chandan’s body testified in court, providing detailed explanations of their findings. Their testimonies reinforced the prosecution’s case by establishing that Chandan’s death was not accidental but the result of a deliberate and targeted act of violence.

Argument of the accused

During the trial, the accused argued that the charges against them were fabricated and influenced by communal tensions in the aftermath of the incident. They claimed that they were falsely implicated due to their religious identity. The defence also alleged that the investigation into the matter was biased in favour of the complainant’s side.

They questioned the credibility of the eyewitness accounts and stated that there were inconsistencies in their statements. They further claimed that the statements were influenced by “personal vendettas.”

Who is Munazir Rafi and why a death sentence was demanded for him

Munazir Rafi, one of the accused in the case, is currently lodged in Kasganj jail for his involvement in the Mohini Tomar murder case. Munazir is a lawyer by profession and practises in the Kasganj court. Speaking to OpIndia following Mohini’s murder, Chandan’s brother Vivek said that Munazir’s name had come up during the investigation. He was not only part of the mob that stopped the Tiranga Yatra but also part of the mob that carried out the deadly attack on the participants, leading to Chandan’s death. Vivek alleged that during the attack, Munazir was holding weapons.

Munazir was also accused of pressuring Chandan’s father, Sushil Gupta, to settle the case outside court. He used his position as a practising advocate to intimidate Sushil and create an environment where senior advocates refused to represent the Gupta family in Kasganj. This situation forced Sushil to approach the Allahabad High Court and get the matter transferred to Etah, from where it was eventually transferred to the Special NIA Court in Lucknow.

Munazir’s name surfaced in the Mohini Tomar murder case, which was mentioned in the judgment in the Chandan Gupta murder case as well. Mohini was known for her fearless advocacy. She actively opposed Munazir’s bail in Chandan’s case and was a prominent voice against him. In the complaint filed by Mohini’s husband following her disappearance in September 2024, her strong opposition to Munazir made her a target. Munazir and his associates were allegedly involved in Mohini’s murder. They reportedly hired professional killers to murder Mohini. Her dead body was recovered from a canal a day after her disappearance. Munazir is facing trial in that matter.

Concerns raised about the involvement of NGOs in communal cases in courts

The court also raised serious concerns over the influence of certain NGOs, including Alliance for Justice and Accountability (New York), Citizens for Justice and Peace (Mumbai), Indian American Muslim Council (Washington D.C.), People’s Union for Civil Liberties (New Delhi), Rihaee Manch (Lucknow), South Asia Solidarity Group (London), and United Against Hate (New Delhi). These organisations had prepared reports on the Kasganj case, alleging that police investigations were biased in favour of Hindus while falsely implicating Muslims. However, the court noted, “The defence itself acknowledged that no investigative teams visited the site to prepare these reports.”

On the issue of legal aid, the court observed that while every accused is entitled to free legal assistance under the Legal Services Authority Act and relevant provisions of the CrPC, NGOs cannot independently provide such aid. The court remarked that state-appointed defence counsels instil trust in the judiciary and the Constitution, unlike communal NGOs, which risk creating allegiance towards the organisations rather than the state.

The prosecution further highlighted that one such NGO, Jamiat-Ulema-E-Hind, had provided legal aid to 400 accused individuals in various Indian courts. The court expressed concern over the intentions of these NGOs in publishing such reports and providing legal assistance exclusively to members of the Muslim community.

In a significant directive, the court urged the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Chairman of the Bar Council of India to investigate the sources of funding for these NGOs and their collective objectives.

Judgment in Chandan Gupta murder case

In its detailed judgment, the Special NIA Court sentenced 28 out of 30 accused to life imprisonment under Section 302 of the IPC. The accused—Saleem, Wasim, Naseem, Zahid alias Jagga, Asif Kureishi alias Hitler, Aslam Kureishi, Akram, Taufeeq, Khillan, Shawab, Rahat, Salman, Mohsin, Asif Gymwala, Saqib, Bablu, Nish, Wasif, Imran, Shamshad, Zafar, Sakir, Khalid Parvez, Faizan, Imran, Sakir, Munazir Rafi, and Amir Rafi—were also fined Rs 50,000 each. In case of non-payment of the fine, they would serve an additional nine months of imprisonment.

Furthermore, they were sentenced under other sections, including Section 147 (rioting), Section 148 (rioting with deadly weapons), Section 341 (wrongful restraint), Section 336 (endangering life or personal safety), Section 307 (attempt to murder), Section 504 (intentional insult to provoke a breach of peace), and Section 506 (criminal intimidation). Punishments ranged from six months to ten years, depending on the section.

Six of the accused—Mohsin, Rahat, Wasim, Bablu, Naseem, and Salman—were sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, alongside a fine of ₹10,000. In case of non-payment, they would serve an additional three months. Saleem was specifically sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act with a ₹20,000 fine, failing which he would serve another six months.

The court clarified that all sentences would run concurrently, with the time already spent in jail deducted from the overall punishment.

This report is based on court documents from Kasganj District Court, Special NIA Court Lucknow and Allahabad High Court.