Absence Of Proof Of Fatal Injuries Does Not By Itself Absolve Members Of Unlawful Assembly: Delhi High Court Upholds Conviction Of Five In 2020 Delhi Riots Case
The Bench noted that the absence of TIP does not render identification inadmissible, and police witnesses cannot be rejected merely for official status; upheld convictions of five in 2020 North-East Delhi riots death case.
The Delhi High Court has upheld the conviction of five men in a 2020 North-East Delhi riots death case. It held that once membership of an unlawful assembly and the requisite common object or knowledge are established, the absence of proof identifying the individual author of the fatal injuries does not by itself absolve the accused of liability under Section 149 of the IPC. The seven-year sentence was affirmed.
The Court clarified that mere presence in an assembly, without the requisite common object or knowledge, is insufficient to invoke Section 149. It held that the absence of a Test Identification Parade (TIP) does not render identification evidence inadmissible, though its value must be assessed with caution. It further held that police witnesses cannot be rejected merely because of their official status.
A Bench of Justice Madhu Jain observed, “Once the membership of the appellants in the unlawful assembly and the requisite common object or knowledge are established, the absence of proof identifying the individual author of the fatal injuries does not, by itself, absolve them of liability under Section 149 IPC. The appellants cannot claim acquittal merely because the prosecution was unable to determine which member of the mob inflicted the particular head injuries recorded in the post-mortem report. The offence must, however, be shown to have been committed in prosecution of the common object of the assembly, or to have been one which its members knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object”.
“…Mere presence in an assembly or possession of a weapon, without the requisite common object or knowledge, is insufficient. Thus, Section 149 IPC cannot be invoked merely because an offence has been committed by one or more persons forming part of a gathering”, it noted further.
Advocate Faraz Anees appeared for the appellant and Rajat Nair, Special Public Prosecutor appeared for the respondent.
The case concerns an assault on February 25, 2020 near Brijpuri, North-East Delhi, on a 22-year-old man who died at GTB Hospital. An FIR was registered on March 1, 2020, and a chargesheet was filed on June 25, 2020 against seven persons.
The Additional Sessions Judge convicted five accused on November 30, 2024 under Sections 148 and 304 Part I read with Section 149 IPC, and acquitted two. On January 13, 2025, the five were sentenced to one year’s simple imprisonment under Section 148 and seven years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs 30,000 under Section 304 Part I, to run concurrently.
The High Court noted that one eyewitness had clarified that he saw the appellants only as part of the mob, and it retained his evidence to that limited extent. A second witness did not identify any appellant. The Court relied on the beat constable, who identified all five at the forefront of an armed mob shouting “maaro maaro”, and on two other constables who corroborated the occurrence. It held that their names came from the beat constable but their accounts lent support.
On the delay in recording the police witnesses’ statements until April 1, 2020, the Court held that the explanation cannot be accepted mechanically, but that the delay did not by itself discredit the occurrence. It held that call-detail records are not independent proof, and that investigative lapses do not displace reliable ocular evidence. It found the evidence established more than mere presence and showed an unlawful common object.
The appeals were dismissed, the conviction and sentence upheld, and a copy of the judgment was directed to be sent to the Jail Superintendent and the Trial Court.
Cause Title: Aman Kashyap v. State of NCT of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:9442)
Appearances:
Appellants: Faraz Anees and Kartik Vashisht, Advocates.
Respondent: Rajat Nair, Special Public Prosecutor, Dhruv Pande, Imon Bhattacharya and Sarthak, Advocates.