The High Court of Delhi has dismissed five criminal appeals, confirming the seven-year prison sentence imposed on five men convicted for their roles in the killing of a 22-year-old man during the communal violence in North-East Delhi in February 2020. Justice Madhu Jain, in a comprehensive judgment, upheld the findings of the trial court, which had found the appellants guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and rioting while armed with deadly weapons. The ruling reaffirms the legal position on constructive liability in cases involving mob violence where individual overt acts are difficult to pinpoint but collective criminal intent is clearly established through witness testimony and surrounding circumstances.

The case pertains to the death of Monish, who was fatally assaulted near Brijpuri on February 25, 2020. According to the prosecution, the victim was chased, surrounded, and beaten by a large, armed mob as riots engulfed the neighborhood. Following the attack, Monish was transported to the Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, where he succumbed to severe blunt-force head injuries. The trial court, in its judgment delivered on November 30, 2024, had sentenced the five convicts—Aman Kashyap, Devinder Kumar, Pradeep Rai, Ashish, and Arun Kumar—to seven years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹30,000 each, noting that while the specific assailant who delivered the fatal blow could not be identified, their active participation in the unlawful assembly was beyond reasonable doubt.

Eyewitness Testimony and Identification Challenges

During the appellate proceedings, the defense challenged the conviction on multiple fronts, arguing that the evidence was built upon unreliable eyewitness statements. Counsel for the appellants emphasized the significant delay in recording the statements of the police officials who were deployed at the scene, noting that these statements were only formalized more than a month after the incident. Furthermore, the defense highlighted the absence of a formal test identification parade, which they claimed prejudiced the accused during the trial.

The High Court, however, dismissed these concerns as insufficient to destabilize the prosecution’s case. Justice Madhu Jain noted that the testimonies of the police witnesses—specifically those posted at the Brijpuri T-Point at the time of the incident—provided a consistent account of the event. The Court reasoned that police witnesses, like any other, must be judged on the reliability of their narrative rather than their professional status. Regarding the identification, the Court observed that one of the beat constables had prior knowledge of the accused individuals, facilitating their identification in the field during the chaotic situation of the riots.

Addressing the broader evidentiary approach, the Court stated, "The Court must consider whether the testimony, read as a whole, appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, the Court must scrutinise the deficiencies and inconsistencies to ascertain whether they are sufficiently material to discredit the witness."

Applying Constructive Liability in Mob Violence

A central pillar of the High Court’s decision was the application of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, which establishes constructive liability for members of an unlawful assembly. The appellants had argued that their mere presence in the vicinity could not lead to a conviction for murder or culpable homicide. The High Court rejected this argument, distinguishing mere spectatorship from the actions of an armed mob.

The judgment pointed out that the appellants were not merely present; they were observed at the forefront of the mob, actively carrying weapons and shouting exhortations such as “maaro maaro” (kill them/hit them). This conduct, according to the Court, indicated that the assembly shared a clear common object of causing serious bodily harm. The Court noted that in cases of organized mob violence, the prosecution is not strictly required to prove exactly which member of the group dealt the fatal strike, provided that the common object of the assembly—to commit violence—is established through the collective behavior and weapons deployed by the group.

Regarding the nature of the offense, the judgment emphasized that the legal character of the act is dictated by the circumstances of the attack. As noted by the Court: "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 rejected the plea to mitigate the sentence based on the lack of individual direct evidence regarding the fatal blow. It held that the severity of the assault, the use of deadly weapons, and the persistence of the mob in pursuing the victim were sufficient to sustain the conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Following the dismissal of the appeals, the High Court has directed the trial court and the concerned Jail Superintendent to ensure compliance with the original sentencing order. The convicts, who had been seeking an acquittal or a reduction in sentence, will continue to serve their seven-year terms. The judgment stands as a significant judicial affirmation of the use of witness-based identification in complex cases arising from the 2020 Delhi riots, prioritizing the collective evidence of police personnel on the ground over procedural delays that did not infringe upon the fairness of the investigation.