Mob lynching has emerged as one of the most disturbing manifestations of collective violence in contemporary societies. It refers to acts of violence committed by a group of individuals against a person suspected of wrongdoing without lawful authority or judicial sanction. Such incidents often arise from rumours, communal tensions, or identity-based prejudice and frequently result in severe injury or death. In recent years, India has witnessed several incidents of mob violence triggered by misinformation circulated through digital platforms and social networks. These developments have generated serious concerns regarding the adequacy of existing criminal law provisions and the ability of the criminal justice system to prevent extrajudicial punishment. This research paper examines the phenomenon of mob lynching from the perspective of criminal law and constitutional governance. The study analyses the doctrinal foundations of criminal liability in cases of collective violence, including the principles of unlawful assembly, common object, and constructive liability. It further evaluates the role of the judiciary in addressing mob violence, particularly the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India. The paper also explores recent legislative developments under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which introduces enhanced punishment for murders committed by groups motivated by identity-based factors. The research argues that although existing legal provisions provide mechanisms for prosecuting offenders, they do not fully capture the complex social and structural dimensions of mob lynching. The absence of a comprehensive statutory framework specifically addressing lynching continues to create challenges for investigation, prosecution, and prevention. The paper concludes that effective responses to mob lynching require a combination of legal reforms, institutional accountability, and broader societal awareness regarding the rule of law and constitutional values.