Bombay High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Raj Thackeray Over 2008 Stone Pelting Incident

In a landmark decision, the Bombay High Court's Aurangabad bench has cleared Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) chief Raj Thackeray of all charges in a case related to a 2008 stone pelting incident. The verdict was delivered on April 18, 2024, marking the end of a long-standing legal challenge.

The case dates back to October 2008, when alleged MNS activists reportedly threw stones at a bus, causing damages estimated at ₹5,000. Thackeray was accused of inciting this violence through speeches targeting migrants from northern India. However, Justice Nitin B Suryawanshi found insufficient evidence linking Thackeray directly to the acts of violence, thereby nullifying the charges against him.

Background of the 2008 Stone-Pelting Incident

The court's examination highlighted significant shortcomings in the prosecution's evidence, particularly the absence of concrete proof of Thackeray's involvement and a lack of corroborative witness testimony regarding his speeches. This oversight led to a critique of the lower courts for not considering these critical gaps when denying Thackeray's discharge application earlier.

Thackeray's defence, led by Senior Advocate Rajendra Shirodkar and advocates Sayaji Nangre and Arun Shejawal, argued that mere slogans in support of Thackeray by co-accused were not enough to establish his complicity in the alleged crime. Conversely, Additional Public Prosecutor SR Wakle represented the state, maintaining the stance against Thackeray.

With this ruling, the High Court emphasized the necessity for thorough evidence scrutiny and strict adherence to legal standards in cases involving potential incitement to violence. The decision exonerates Thackeray and establishes a precedent for diligent evidence evaluation in similar legal matters.

This closure of the decade-long legal saga reinforces the judiciary's critical role in ensuring justice is served with fairness and accountability, upholding the principle that substantial evidence is paramount in accusations of incitement.