No Iota Of Evidence As To What Sort Of Association Accused Had With One Another Prior To The Incident: Delhi High Court Acquits Man In Murder Case
|The Delhi High Court remarked that the prime objective of the criminal justice delivery system is to accord justice to all the stakeholders.
The Delhi High Court has acquitted a man of murder charges, while upholding the acquittal of the co-accused stating that there is no iota of evidence as to what sort of association the accused persons had with one another prior to the alleged incident.
The Court remarked, “It must be stated that the prime objective of the criminal justice delivery system is to accord justice to all the stakeholders-the accused, the complainant/victim, the society as well as the prosecution. There is no gainsaying that integral to such objective is a fair trial to the accused and a fair chance to prove the case to the prosecution.”
A Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Dharmesh Sharma held, “Common intention pre-supposes a prior concert, though pre-concert in the sense of a distinct previous plan is not necessary, as common intention to bring about a particular result may develop on the spot. The question whether there was any common intention or not depends upon the inference to be drawn from the proven facts and circumstances of each case. The totality of the circumstances must be taken into consideration in arriving at the conclusion, whether the accused had a common intention to commit an offence with which they could be convicted.”
Advocate Abhishek Varma appeared for the Appellant, while APP Ritesh Kumar Bahri represented the Respondent.
Brief Facts
An FIR was registered under Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC concerning the "brutal murder" of the deceased. The Trial Court had acquitted three of the co-accused, but convicted the Appellant. Both the complainant and th Appellant filed Appeals against these decisions.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court remarked, “It is well settled in criminal jurisprudence that Section 120-A is a distinct offence under the Penal Code and the very agreement, concert or league is the ingredient of the offence…The basic ingredient is agreement to do an act which is illegal and infact even some steps resorted to by one or the two conspirators without the knowledge of the others might be sufficient to impose culpability upon those who were associated with the object of the conspiracy.”
“In view of the aforesaid proposition of law, reverting to the instant matter, what is clearly discernible is that the prosecution has not been able to establish on record any facts and circumstances inviting an inference of there existing any criminal conspiracy amongst the accused persons. There is led no iota of evidence as to what sort of association the accused persons had with one another prior to the incident,” the Bench explained.
The Court stated, “In summary, what is clearly amiss in the prosecution evidence is as to what sort of conversation took place amongst the accused persons. There is no evidence of their being a common agreement, concert or league as amongst the A-4/Choti and the remaining three accused persons viz., A-1/Ravi, A-2/Rinku and A-3/Rocky so as to do any harm to the life of victim Nikhil. It clearly appears that there was no overt or covert act on the part of A-1/Ravi, A-2/Rinku and A-3/Rocky and as per the CCTV footage it appears that they were not even very close to A-4/Choti and A-5/Chola and the victim when the fire incident took place.”
“In this view of the matter, this Court has no hesitation in holding that insofar as CRL.A. 720/2024 filed by the complainant Mr. Satya Prakash is concerned, the same is devoid of any merits and the impugned Judgment dated 28.02.2024 passed by the learned Trial Court thereby acquitting A-1/Ravi, A-2/Rinku and A-3/Rocky does not suffer from any illegality, perversity or incorrect approach in law. The said appeal is accordingly dismissed,” the Bench held.
Consequently, the Court ordered, “Insofar as the CRL.A. 434/2024 is concerned, we find that the prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the same is allowed and the A-4/Choti i.e. the appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. The appellant A-4/Choti be set free, if not required in any other case.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Petition.
Cause Title: Anil Kumar Vats v. State Of NCT Of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:4440-DB)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates Abhishek Varma and Deepika Jahu
Respondent: APP Ritesh Kumar Bahri; Advocates Lalit Luthra and Divya Yadav