Where an armed unlawful assembly causes a death, the Delhi High Court has held, it is no shield that nobody can say who struck the fatal blow. Five men’s appeals against a seven-year sentence were dismissed.
New Delhi: In a 2020 Delhi riots culpable homicide case, the Delhi High Court on October 27, 2026 dismissed five criminal appeals and affirmed the conviction of five men for culpable homicide not amounting to murder during the February 2020 communal violence in North East Delhi, leaving in place seven years of rigorous imprisonment for the death of a 22-year-old man [Aman Kashyap v. State of NCT of Delhi and connected matters].
Justice Madhu Jain reserved the judgment on October 9, 2026 and pronounced it on October 27, 2026. Advocates Faraz Anees and Kartik Vashisht appeared for the appellants, while Special Public Prosecutor Rajat Nair, with Advocates Dhruv Pande, Imon Bhattacharya and Sarthak, appeared for the State.
Common object and Section 149 IPC
The Court turned down the plea that the appellants were mere bystanders, accepting that the assembly shared an unlawful common object of assaulting the deceased, who was pursued, surrounded and assaulted even after he had fallen near the police barricades. It recorded:
PW-10 identified all five appellants at the forefront of the armed mob, exhorting others to assault the deceased.
The Court reaffirmed that mere presence in an assembly or possession of a weapon, without the requisite common object or knowledge, is insufficient. But once membership of an unlawful assembly and the common object or knowledge are established, it held, the absence of proof identifying the individual who inflicted the fatal injuries does not, by itself, absolve an accused under Section 149.
Police witnesses and the missing identification parade
The identification evidence rested on a beat constable (PW-10), who knew the appellants and identified all five, and on the corroboration of a Head Constable and another Constable. The Court found their presence at the picket supported by duty records and held that police testimony is not to be discarded for official status alone:
the testimony of a police official cannot be discarded merely because of his official status
On the missing identification parade, the Court noted that identification in court is substantive evidence and said:
The absence of a TIP does not render identification evidence inadmissible
Such identification must still be assessed with caution, it added, and the delay in recording statements did not by itself discredit the occurrence described by the witnesses or show that the appellants were falsely implicated. The testimony of PW-1 was given value only to the limited extent that he did not resile from placing the appellants in the mob, since he had not seen them beating the deceased.
The prosecution case and the trial
The case arises from FIR No. 87/2020 registered at Police Station Dayalpur, tried as Sessions Case No. 199/2021. According to the prosecution, on February 25, 2020 a mob chased and assaulted Monish, aged 22, near Peer Baba Mazar in Chand Bagh. He was taken to Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, where he died. The post-mortem report attributed the death to shock from ante-mortem brain injuries caused by blunt-force impact.
By a judgment dated November 30, 2024, the Karkardooma trial court convicted Aman Kashyap, Devinder Kumar, Pradeep Rai, Ashish and Arun Kumar under Sections 148 and 304 Part I read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. By an order of January 13, 2025 it sentenced each to one year of simple imprisonment for rioting armed with a deadly weapon and to seven years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs 30,000 for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, the sentences to run concurrently. The appeals are Criminal Appeal Nos. 133, 180, 181, 185 and 289 of 2025.
What each side argued
The appellants pointed to inconsistencies in the eyewitness accounts, the delay in recording the statements of police witnesses, the absence of a test identification parade and what they called deficiencies in the investigation. The State defended the conviction on the evidence of police officials who knew the appellants through their duties and identified them in court.
The dismissal
CRL.A. 133/2025, CRL.A. 180/2025, CRL.A. 181/2025, CRL.A. 185/2025 and CRL.A. 289/2025 are hereby dismissed.
The trial court’s conviction under Sections 148 and 304 Part I read with Section 149 IPC, and the sentences it imposed, were upheld insofar as the present appellants are concerned.
What the ruling settles
The judgment applies the settled rule that liability for a death caused by an unlawful assembly does not depend on proving who delivered the fatal blow, once the accused are shown to be part of the assembly and to share its common object. It also confirms that police officials who know the accused from their duties can be reliable identifying witnesses, and that a missing identification parade is a matter of weight, not admissibility.
Case Title: Aman Kashyap v. State of NCT of Delhi and connected matters [CRL.A. 133/2025, CRL.A. 180/2025, CRL.A. 181/2025, CRL.A. 185/2025, CRL.A. 289/2025]
Bench: Justice Madhu Jain, Delhi High Court
Date of Judgment: October 27, 2026 (reserved on October 9, 2026)
Appearances: Advocates Faraz Anees and Kartik Vashisht for the appellants; Special Public Prosecutor Rajat Nair with Advocates Dhruv Pande, Imon Bhattacharya and Sarthak for the State.