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:
- Whether the Trial Court erred in convicting A-4 under Section 302/34 IPC?
- Whether the acquittal of A-1, A-2, and A-3 was justified or should be reversed on appeal by the complainant?
- 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.