Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 4944
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, Dharmesh Sharma, JJ
Anil Kumar Vats – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI – Respondent
CRL.A. 434/2024 | CRL.A. 720/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Abhishek Varma, Ms.Deepika Jahu, Mr. Kushal Kumar, Mr.Suryansh Gaur
For the Respondents: Mr. Ritesh Kumar Bahri, Mr. Lalit Luthra, Ms. Divya Yadav, Mr. Pradeep Yadav, Mr. Sameer Chandra, Mr. Shubham Parashar, Mr. Aryan Tomar
For criminal liability under Section 34 IPC, prosecution must establish common intention or conspiracy among accused, which was not proven.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302, 34 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374, 378 - Two appeals against conviction and acquittal - Appellant convicted of murder but acquitted after review, as prosecution failed to establish common intention or conspiracy among accused. (Para 54)
(B) Criminal Conspiracy - Key legal principle mandates proof of agreement to commit an unlawful act among offenders, necessitating prior concert for liability under Section 34 IPC. (Para 41)
(C) Evidence - The court concluded that despite the presence of multiple accused, evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate direct involvement or shared intention in the commission of the murder. (Paras 46, 52)
Facts of the case:
Anil Kumar Vats was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for murder; however, the acquittal of other accused was based on lack of evidence demonstrating common intention or conspiracy. Main issue determined was whether the prosecution could prove a pre-arranged plan among accused leading to the murder.
Findings of Court:
Ultimately, the court found insufficient prosecution evidence to link all accused equally in the crime.
Ratio Decidendi: The ruling emphasized that for Section 34 IPC, a common intention and prior concert are essential elements, which the prosecution failed to demonstrate convincingly in this case.
Result: Appeals disposed of, acquittals upheld.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case and parties involved. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of the charges against the accused. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. factual background of the incident including police response. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. summary of prosecution witnesses and their testimonies. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. trial court's findings and reasoning. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 6. grounds of appeal by the convicted appellant. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 7. court's evaluation of key testimonies and evidence. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 8. assessment of the credibility of witness statements. (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 9. analysis of cctv footage and corroborative evidence. (Para 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 10. establishment of facts beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 39 , 40) |
| 11. legal principles regarding criminal conspiracy and common intention. (Para 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 12. conclusion on the absence of conspiracy. (Para 46 , 47 , 48) |
| 13. final judgment and acquittal of the appellant. (Para 54 , 55) |
JUDGEMENT
DHARMESH SHARMA, J.
1. This common judgment shall decide the aforementioned two Criminal Appeals, which have been preferred by the appellant/convict, namely Anil Kumar Vats assailing the impugned Judgment dated 28.02.2024 followed by the order on sentence dated 08.04.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (South-West)-05, Dwarka Courts, Delhi [“Trial Court”] in case bearing Sessions Case No. 441199/2016 [CNR No. DLSW01-003174-2016] titled ‘State v. Joginder Solanki @ Ravi & Ors.’ arising out of FIR, [First Information Report] No. 64/2016 PS,
2. The second appeal has been preferred by the complainant, namely Satya Prakash bearing CRL. A. 420/2024,
THE CHARGE:
3. In the instant matter, the following accused persons have been arraigned for trial:
A-1 Joginder Solanki @ Ravi A-2 Dheeraj Vats @ Rinku A-3 Amit @ Rocky A-4 Anil Kumar Vats @ Choti A-5 Manish Solanki @ Chola It is relevant to point out here that each of the accused persons have been herein referred by their nick names as also through numbering viz., A-1 to A-5 respectively.
4. In a nutshell, A-1/Ravi; A-2/Rinku; A-3/Rocky; and A-4/Choti i.e. the appellant before this Court were charged on the allegations that on 01.02.2016 at about 01:45 p.m., [Post Meridiem], behind Maxfort School, Sector-7, Dwarka, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Dwarka South, they along with the co-accused A-5/Chola [died on 21.01.2019 and trial abated qua him] entered into a criminal conspiracy to commit murder of the deceased Nikhil S/o Mr. Satya Prakash and in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy, co-accused A-5/Chola inflicted two gunshots with an improvised Pistol upon the deceased Nikhil, who died instantaneously and in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy PW, [Prosecution Witness] 1/Gaurav Bhardwaj was also threatened with death, and thereby the accused persons, committed offences punishable under Sections 302 and 506 read with Section 120-B of the IPC besides Sections 25 /27/54/59 of the Arms Act. FACTUAL MATRIX:
5. The prosecution’s case is that on 01.02.2016 at about 02:00 p.m. a call was received by PW-7/ASI, [Assistant Sub-Inspector]Geeta Devi, PS Dwarka South from the Control Room that one boy has been fired at two rounds near Maxfort School, Sector-7, who has gotten injured, which information was sent by Ct, [Constable]. Chetan No. 1972/PCR fro
