Delhi High Court Acquits Convict for Lack of Common Intention in Murder Case — “Mere Presence at the Scene, Absent Overt Acts or Shared Motive, Cannot Ground Criminal Liability Under Section 34 IPC”

Court’s Decision:

The Delhi High Court partly allowed CRL.A. 434/2024 filed by the convict (A-4/Choti) and dismissed CRL.A. 720/2024 filed by the complainant (father of the deceased). The Court acquitted Anil Kumar Vats (A-4/Choti), who had been convicted under Section 302 read with 34 IPC, on the ground that the evidence failed to establish a common intention to commit murder. Simultaneously, the Court upheld the acquittal of co-accused A-1 (Ravi), A-2 (Rinku), and A-3 (Rocky) while finding no merit in the complainant’s appeal.

“There is no evidence of their being a common agreement, concert or league as amongst the A-4/Choti and the remaining three accused persons…”

Facts:

• On 01.02.2016, Nikhil (deceased) was allegedly lured to a spot near Maxfort School, Dwarka by A-4 (Choti), where he was shot twice — on the chest and head — by A-5 (Chola), leading to his death.
• The FIR was registered based on the statement of PW-1 (Gaurav Bhardwaj), who claimed to be an eyewitness and had accompanied the deceased.
• Five accused were charged: A-1 to A-5 (with A-5/Chola dying during the trial).
• The Trial Court convicted A-4 (Choti) for murder with common intention and acquitted A-1, A-2, and A-3 due to lack of incriminating evidence.

Issues:

1. Whether the Trial Court erred in convicting A-4 under Section 302/34 IPC?
2. Whether the acquittal of A-1, A-2, and A-3 was justified or should be reversed on appeal by the complainant?
3. Whether the evidence, including CCTV footage and eyewitness testimony, proved a criminal conspiracy or common intention?

Petitioner’s Arguments (A-4’s Appeal):

• The testimony of PW-1 was riddled with contradictions and unreliable.
• The CCTV footage was not shown to PW-1 during cross-examination; thus, his version remained untested.
• No evidence of motive, animosity, or premeditation between A-4 and the deceased.
• CCTV showed that A-4 tried to stop A-5/Chola from firing the second shot and then stepped away in fear.
• Delay in recording witness statements raised questions on the integrity of the investigation.

Respondent’s Arguments (Complainant’s Appeal):

• The presence of all accused at the scene and their interactions indicated a pre-planned conspiracy.
• The accused coordinated their arrival, maintained proximity, and stood watch during the murder.
• The absence of overt acts does not negate their complicity given the totality of circumstances.

Analysis of the Law:

• The Court reiterated the legal principles from Sunil v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad that: “Common intention presupposes prior concert… The plan need not be elaborate, nor is a long interval of time required…”
• For Section 34 IPC to apply, evidence must establish:
  • Pre-arranged plan,
  • Participation in the act,
  • Shared mental element (mens rea).

Precedent Analysis:

• Relied on:
  • Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi) — hostile witnesses can still be relied upon if portions of their testimony are credible.
  • Balu v. State (UT of Pondicherry) — minds must meet for common intention; inference must arise from proven facts.

Court’s Reasoning:

• While PW-1 turned partially hostile, his earlier versions were consistent with CCTV footage.
• CCTV footage showed A-5/Chola taking the pistol from A-4 and firing twice at the deceased.
• A-4 tried to stop A-5 after the first shot, then walked away and did not assist in the second shot.
• No conclusive proof that A-4 gave the pistol to A-5 to commit murder, or that he participated in any plan.
• As for A-1, A-2, and A-3, they were present at the spot but did not perform any act or gesture suggesting shared intention or conspiracy.

Conclusion:

• CRL.A. 434/2024 (A-4’s Appeal): Allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. A-4 acquitted.
• CRL.A. 720/2024 (Complainant’s Appeal): Dismissed. Trial Court’s acquittal of A-1, A-2, and A-3 upheld.

“It clearly appears that there was no overt or covert act on the part of A-1, A-2 and A-3… the CCTV footage shows they were not even very close to A-4 and A-5 and the victim when the fire incident took place.”

Implications:

• Reinforces that mere presence at the scene, absent overt acts or shared motive, cannot ground criminal liability under Section 34 IPC.
• Emphasizes the importance of CCTV footage in corroborating or disproving witness accounts.
• Calls attention to investigative lapses, including the failure to examine material witnesses like “Suraj” present at the scene.

Also Read – Supreme Court Remands Village Recognition Matter to Nagaland State — “NOC from Parent Village Must Be Considered Before Formal Recognition”