Anarchy in Paradise: The Goa Murder and the Peril of Vigilante Justice -Sumant Parashar
Goa, a state whose identity is built on serene coastlines and a tranquil atmosphere, has been rocked by a crime of such brutality that it challenges the very notion of safety and civility. The murder of 19-year-old Kapil Chaudhary from Uttar Pradesh, allegedly at the hands of a rent-a-car owner and his associates, is not merely a story of a vehicle theft gone tragically wrong. It is a chilling and stark illustration of "mobocracy" and a complete, arrogant subversion of the rule of law. It showcases a terrifying willingness to bypass the entire state machinery—police, courts, and law—in favour of barbaric street justice.The incident's timeline reveals a catastrophic cascade of criminal decisions. It began when Chaudhary rented a Thar SUV using what reports claim was a fraudulent ID, a clear criminal act. The vehicle's owner, Gurudat Lawande, monitoring the GPS, saw the SUV cross into Maharashtra. At this moment, Lawande stood at a crossroads: one path led to the police, the other to vigilantism. He chose the latter. Instead of filing a First Information Report (FIR) and allowing law enforcement to handle the recovery, Lawande, 31, allegedly recruited his associates, Daison Agnelo Coutinho, 31, and Suraj Jotish Thakur, 21, to form a posse. This group then "hunted" Chaudhary down, intercepting him in Kankavli, Maharashtra.
This act alone—the forcible capture and transport of Chaudhary back to Goa—is not "retrieving property." It is a textbook case of a grave felony. Under the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, this act squarely falls under Section 138 (Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder), an offence that carries a punishment up to imprisonment for life.
What followed in the isolated, hilly terrain of Tivim was not an interrogation but an execution. Chaudhary was allegedly beaten relentlessly with fists, kicks, and a wooden stick until he was dead. The perpetrators then allegedly transitioned from murderers to clumsy conspirators. In a cold-blooded attempt to manufacture a false narrative, they reportedly bought a small bottle of alcohol and planted it in the victim's pocket, staging the scene to look like a drunken fall or accident. This calculated act of deception, leaving his body by the roadside with a fake PAN card, is a separate and distinct crime: Section 226 of the BNS (Causing disappearance of evidence of offence).
The legal culpability here is deep and multi-layered. The murder itself is a clear violation of Section 101 of the BNS (Murder). Critically, because this act was committed by multiple individuals in a planned manner, Section 3(1) of the BNS (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) comes into play. This principle dictates that every member of the group who shared the common intention to commit the crime is equally liable for the final act—in this case, murder—regardless of who struck the fatal blow.This entire episode is a textbook example of vigilante justice, a menace the Supreme Court of India has unequivocally and repeatedly condemned.The apex court's judgment in the landmark 2018 case of Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India serves as the definitive legal warning against such actions. While that case dealt with cow vigilantism and lynch mobs, its core principle is universal and directly applicable here. The Court declared in no uncertain terms that "horrendous acts of mobocracy cannot be permitted to inundate the law of the land" and that "no citizen can take law into his own hands." The judgment laid down specific preventive and remedial measures for states to curb lynchings, underscoring the state's absolute monopoly on law enforcement. The Goa incident, though involving a small, organised group rather than a spontaneous mob, is born from the same rot: a group of private citizens arrogating to themselves the roles of police, prosecutor, judge, and executioner.
Chaudhary's alleged crime of theft, while illegal, cannot under any legal or moral framework serve as a speck of justification for his murder. The accused had clear, lawful remedies. They had the GPS data. They had the police. Their decision to instead embark on a cross-state abduction culminating in a brutal killing is a catastrophic failure of judgment and a direct assault on the rule of law. This case must stand as a grim reminder that the judicial process, however slow or imperfect, is the only barrier separating a civilized society from absolute anarchy.
References
The Times of India. (2025, November 2). Goa horror: Rent-a-car owner catches UP teen fleeing with SUV; kills him, stages it as a drunken act.
Hindustan Times. (2025, November 1). UP tourist murdered for attempting to flee with rented SUV from Goa.
The Goan EveryDay. (2025, November 2). Goa car rental owner held for allegedly murdering client, a teen from UP; case cracked within 15 hours.
Tehseen S. Poonawalla vs. Union of India & Ors.(2018) 9 SCC 501.
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Sections 3(1), 101, 138, 226).
