Delhi HC Upholds 7-Year Terms For Five Men Convicted Of Culpable Homicide After Mob Assault Killed 22-Year-Old During 2020 Riots

The appeals arose from the appellants’ convictions under Sections 148 and 304 Part I read with Section 149 IPC for their alleged participation in a mob assault on Monish, who died from brain injuries caused by blunt-force impact during the North-East Delhi violence on 25 February 2020.

The prosecution relied principally on PW-1, who identified the appellants as members of the mob but clarified that he had not seen them strike the deceased, and police witnesses PW-10, PW-12 and PW-13, whose statements were recorded on 1 April 2020.

The appellants challenged the reliability of the identification evidence, the delay in recording witness statements, the absence of a test identification parade (TIP), and the application of Section 149 IPC.

The Trial Court had sentenced each appellant to one year’s simple imprisonment under Section 148 IPC and seven years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine under Section 304 Part I IPC, with the substantive sentences to run concurrently.

Under Section 149, individual overt acts need not be proved once an accused’s membership of an unlawful assembly and the required common object or knowledge are established; the common object may be inferred from the assembly’s conduct, weapons and circumstances (Masalti v. State of U.P., Lalji v. State of U.P.).

Mere presence in a gathering or possession of a weapon is insufficient without a finding on the nature and unlawfulness of the common object (Kuldip Yadav v. State of Bihar).

In-court identification is substantive evidence, while a TIP is ordinarily a test of identification ability; absence of a TIP affects weight, not admissibility (Malkhansingh v. State of M.P.).

Police testimony is not to be rejected solely because witnesses are police officials (Girja Prasad v. State of M.P.).

Delay in recording a Section 161 CrPC statement does not automatically invalidate testimony; its effect depends on the explanation and surrounding circumstances (State of U.P. v. Satish).

A witness’s Section 164 CrPC statement could not independently prove the appellants’ participation.

Section 304 Part I requires intention to cause death or bodily injury likely to cause death, whereas Part II concerns knowledge without that intention.

The Court treated PW-1’s evidence as identifying the appellants only as members of the mob, not as persons he had seen striking the deceased; his earlier Section 164 statement could not independently establish their participation.

It relied principally on PW-10, who claimed prior familiarity with the appellants and placed them at the front of the armed mob, exhorting others to attack, and on PW-12 and PW-13 as corroborating the occurrence and their observation of the persons pointed out by PW-10.

The Court acknowledged the substantial delay and lack of contemporaneous reporting but held that, in the circumstances of the riots and considered alongside the witnesses’ accounts, these matters did not by themselves establish false implication.

It found that the appellants’ alleged conduct, the weapons carried by the mob and the continued assault on the fallen deceased supported the finding of an unlawful common object to assault and cause bodily harm; the absence of proof identifying the person who inflicted the fatal injuries did not defeat Section 149 liability.

The Court considered the weapons, exhortations and manner of assault relevant to the intention required for Section 304 Part I, rather than treating the fact of death alone as determinative.

Pending applications were disposed of, and the judgment and Trial Court Record were directed to be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent and Trial Court.