Delhi Riots: High Court Upholds 7-Year Jail Term For Five Men Convicted Of Culpable Homicide
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday upheld the conviction and seven-year jail term awarded to five men for culpable homicide not amounting to murder in connection with the killing of 22-year-old man during the 2020 North-East Delhi riots.
Justice Madhu Jain dismissed the appeals filed by Aman Kashyap, Devinder Kumar, Pradeep Rai, Ashish and Arun Kumar, challenging their conviction under Sections 148 and 304 Part I read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Court held that the evidence established more than the mere presence of the appellants in a mob and that the evidence showed that they were at the forefront of an armed mob, exhorting others to assault the deceased.
“The deceased was pursued, surrounded and assaulted even after he had fallen near the police barricades. The conduct attributed to the appellants, the weapons carried by members of the mob and the continued assault upon the deceased provide the factual basis for concluding that the assembly had an unlawful common object of assaulting the deceased and causing bodily harm to him,” the Court said.
It added that once the membership of an unlawful assembly and the requisite common object or knowledge are established, the absence of proof identifying the individual who inflicted the fatal injuries does not, by itself, absolve the accused of liability under Section 149 of IPC.
The case arose from an incident on February 25, 2020, during the communal violence in North-East Delhi. According to the prosecution, Monish was chased and assaulted by a mob in the vicinity of Peer Baba Mazar, Chand Bagh. He was taken to Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries.
The post-mortem report attributed his death to shock resulting from ante-mortem brain injuries caused by blunt-force impact.
The trial court, by its judgment dated November 30, 2024, convicted the five appellants under Sections 148 and 304 Part I read with Section 149 of IPC. On January 13, 2025, they were sentenced to one year of simple imprisonment for rioting while armed with a deadly weapon and seven years of rigorous imprisonment, along with a fine of Rs. 30,000, for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.
The appellants challenged their conviction on several grounds, including inconsistencies in the eyewitness accounts, the delay in recording police witnesses' statements, the absence of a test identification parade (TIP) and alleged deficiencies in the investigation.
Rejecting these contentions, the High Court noted that a Constable, who was posted as the beat constable in the locality, had identified all five appellants and stated that he knew them before the incident through his official duties.
The Court observed that Head Constable and a Constable substantially corroborated account regarding the pursuit and assault of the deceased and the subsequent intervention by police personnel.
It further held that the testimony of police officials cannot be discarded merely because of their official status and must be assessed on its own merits.
“In the present case, the presence of the said witnesses at the police picket is supported by the duty records, and their accounts substantially correspond regarding the manner in which the deceased was pursued, assaulted and subsequently rescued. Their official status, therefore, cannot constitute an independent ground,” the Court said.
The Court also noted that the nature of the weapons carried by the mob, the exhortations attributed to the appellants and the manner in which the deceased was assaulted had to be considered together while determining the requisite intention and the applicability of constructive liability.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed all five appeals and upheld the trial court's judgment of conviction and order on sentence.