The central legal point established in the judgment is the strict interpretation of Section 149 IPC, emphasizing the requirement of a common object and immediate connection with the common object, as well as the importance of scrutinizing witness testimonies and conduct to determine liability.

Sanjiv Khanna, J.:--

1. Appellant-Karan @ Vicky by the impugned judgment dated 11th September, 2014 stands convicted for offences under Sections 147/148 and Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short) in a charge sheet arising out of FIR No. 182/2007, Police Station Patel Nagar. By order on sentence dated 11th September, 2014, the appellant-Karan has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149, IPC. In default of payment of fine, the appellant is required to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The appellant has been also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 148, IPC.

2. Initially, the appellant had faced proceedings before the Juvenile Justice Board, but he was declared not to be a juvenile at the time of the offence and thereafter was tried in the court of the Additional Sessions Judge-02 (Central), Delhi.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 3rd September, 2014 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 356/2011, titled Ajay Malhotra and Another versus State Govt. of Delhi, filed by Ajay Malhotra and Rahul Kohli impugning their conviction in the charge sheet arising out of the same FIR bearing No. 182/2007, Police Station Patel Nagar. The Delhi High Court in their decision dated 3rd September, 2014 partly allowed the appeal filed by Ajay Malhotra @ Lucky converting the conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder and sentencing him to imprisonment for the period already undergone. The conviction of Rahul Kohli under Section 302/148/149, IPC was set aside. Thus, the appeal filed by Rahul Kohli was allowed. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant’s case is identical, if not better than the case set up by the prosecution against Rahul Kohli. It is submitted that the primary and substantive allegations were against Ajay Malhotra and as per the findings recorded in the decision dated 3rd September, 2014, this Court has disbelieved the prosecution version on application of provisions of Section 148/149, IPC in the case of Rahul Kohli.

4. In order to appreciate the contentions, we have examined the statement of witnesses, the reasoning and finding recorded in the impugned judgment dated 11th September, 2014 and the aforesaid judgment of the Delhi High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 356/2011, titled Ajay Malhotra and Another versus State Govt. of Delhi, pronounced on 3rd September, 2014. This decision dated 3rd September, 2014 was not filed or brought to the knowledge of the trial court when the impugned decision dated 11th September, 2014 was pronounced.

5. There is ample evidence and material to show that Mukesh was found lying unconscious in a street behind the Shadipur Metro Station. Constable Anil Kumar (PW-12) had deposed to the effect that he and SI Jitender Tiwari had gone to the spot after receiving the DD entry No. 37A (Exhibit PW9/A). The said DD Entry No. 37A was recorded at around 10.50 P.M. on 18th March, 2007 by SI Raj Kumar (PW-9) recording that an unknown person was lying dead in the said street.

6. Thereafter, a PCR van reached at the spot and had moved Mukesh to the Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital where he was declared ‘brought dead’ and his MLC (Exhibit PW-23/A), has been proved by Dr Shaifali (PW-25).

7. Rajnish Kumar who has deposed as PW-3 is the complainant. Statement of Rajnish Kumar (Exhibit PW-3/A) was recorded and, thereafter, the FIR (Exhibit PW-3/C) was registered. Consequent thereto, HC Amir Singh (PW-1) who was present in the Police Station Patel Nagar recorded the aforesaid FIR No. 182/2007 (Exhibit PW-3/C) at 1:10 hours on 19th March, 2007.

8. Post-mortem on the dead body of Mukesh was conducted by Dr. B.N. Mishra (PW-10), who prepared post-mortem report (Exhibit PW-10/A). External injuries as found and elucidated in