The High Court of Delhi has affirmed the conviction and seven-year prison sentence for five men implicated in the death of 22-year-old Monish during the 2020 North-East Delhi riots. In a judgment delivered by Justice Madhu Jain, the court dismissed the appeals filed by Aman Kashyap, Devinder Kumar, Pradeep Rai, Ashish, and Arun Kumar, who had challenged the lower court’s decision from November 2024. The appellants were held liable for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, alongside charges of rioting while armed with deadly weapons under the Indian Penal Code.

The case originated from a violent incident on February 25, 2020, in the Brijpuri area of North-East Delhi, a period marked by widespread communal unrest. According to the prosecution, the deceased was intercepted by a large mob near Peer Baba Mazar. Despite being identified and rushed to the Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, the victim succumbed to head injuries caused by a blunt force impact. Following an extensive investigation, the police charged seven individuals; while two were acquitted, the five appellants were found to have played a significant role in the lethal assault.

In its detailed analysis of the evidence, the High Court observed that the participation of the five appellants exceeded mere presence within a gathering. The court noted that testimonies from police witnesses, who were stationed in the vicinity, consistently identified these individuals at the forefront of the armed mob. Witnesses reported that the mob used wooden rods and iron bars to pursue and surround the victim, continuing the assault even after he had fallen near 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 stated in its judgment.

The appellants’ legal counsel had argued that discrepancies in the identification process and the absence of a test identification parade rendered the prosecution’s case fragile. They further contended that the delay in recording the statements of police witnesses, which occurred weeks after the incident, cast doubt on the accuracy of the identification. However, the High Court rejected these arguments, emphasizing that the eyewitness accounts provided by the beat constable and other deployed personnel were consistent regarding the sequence of events and the identity of the leaders of the mob.

The court further addressed the legal implications of the appellants’ collective action under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with the liability of members of an unlawful assembly. A significant portion of the defense centered on the prosecution's failure to identify which specific member of the group inflicted the fatal blow to the deceased. The High Court clarified that this specific evidentiary gap did not negate the culpability of those who led the mob.

"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," the court observed. This ruling reaffirms that when individuals are part of an assembly sharing a common objective of violence, their shared liability for the resulting consequences remains intact under the law.

The judicial scrutiny also extended to the reliability of police witnesses, whose credibility had been challenged by the defense. The court held that their official status did not disqualify their testimony and that their presence at the scene was adequately supported by duty rosters and official police communications recorded during the period of the riots. Despite the challenges caused by the high volume of emergency calls and the chaotic nature of the riots in February 2020, the court found the evidence provided by the police sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court also dismissed contentions regarding the non-production of certain CCTV footage, noting that the available electronic evidence, including hospital records, served the purpose of confirming the identity of the victim and the timeline of his hospitalization rather than identifying every individual perpetrator. The court reasoned that the failure of the investigative team to secure every piece of video evidence did not undermine the substantive ocular evidence presented before the trial court.

Furthermore, the court emphasized that the nature of the injuries sustained by the victim, which included severe blunt force trauma to the brain, pointed clearly to a violent intent on the part of the group. Under Section 304 Part I, the act of causing such bodily injury likely to result in death while part of an armed mob demonstrates an intent that carries severe criminal consequences. By upholding the seven-year sentence, the High Court has reaffirmed that participants in collective violence will be held to account for the fatal outcomes of their common objectives, regardless of which specific member delivered the final blow.

The appellants, who had been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge-03, North-East District, in January 2025, are now required to serve the remainder of their sentences in accordance with the High Court’s ruling. The judgment effectively concludes the appellate proceedings, with the court directing the jail superintendent and the trial court to ensure compliance with the order. No further relief has been granted to the appellants, and their applications have been disposed of accordingly.