The Delhi High Court acquitted Mukesh Kumar in a 43-year-old murder case, holding that the prosecution failed to prove he shared a common intention with the main accused. The Court observed that merely saying “Maro Sale Ko” does not necessarily indicate an intention to kill.
The Delhi High Court acquitted Mukesh Kumar in a 43-year-old murder case, holding that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he shared a common intention with the main accused who allegedly stabbed the victim to death inside a DTC bus in 1983.
A Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja set aside the conviction and life sentence imposed on Mukesh Kumar by a trial court in 2004. The Court observed that the evidence against him was weak and insufficient to establish his involvement in the murder of Vinod Kumar.
The case related to an incident that took place on December 1, 1983, in DTC Bus Route No. 431 near Gupta Market in Lajpat Nagar, Delhi. According to the prosecution, Vinod Kumar was travelling with his friends, including Usha, Alka, Ashok and Naginder Kumar.
During the journey, some young men allegedly began teasing Usha and Alka. When Vinod Kumar objected, one of the accused allegedly pulled out a knife and stabbed him. Usha also sustained injuries during the incident. Vinod later succumbed to his injuries.
The prosecution alleged that while other accused persons were standing near the front of the bus, Mukesh Kumar was standing at the rear and had shouted “Maro Sale Ko,” thereby encouraging the assault.
Based on this allegation, he was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Before the High Court, Mukesh Kumar argued that there were serious contradictions in the statements of the eyewitnesses regarding the sequence of events, seating arrangements, and the role of the accused persons. He also contended that he had been shown to witnesses before the Test Identification Parade (TIP), making the identification process unreliable.
After examining the evidence, the High Court found significant doubts regarding the TIP proceedings. The Court noted that some witnesses had admitted seeing the accused persons before the TIP was conducted. The judges observed that if an accused is shown to witnesses before a TIP, the identification loses its evidentiary value.
The Court relied on recent Supreme Court judgments which have held that where the fairness of a TIP is doubtful, refusal to participate in the parade cannot automatically result in an adverse inference against the accused.
The Bench further noted that the eyewitness testimonies contained several inconsistencies. It observed that the conduct of certain witnesses after the incident was unusual, particularly because some of them did not immediately approach the police despite claiming to be close friends of the deceased. Their statements were also recorded after a delay.
Importantly, the Court found that two key witnesses, Usha and Alka, had admitted that they did not actually see the person who allegedly shouted from the rear of the bus. Their evidence therefore could not conclusively establish that Mukesh Kumar was the person who made the alleged exhortation.
The High Court also examined whether the prosecution had succeeded in proving common intention under Section 34 IPC. Referring to several Supreme Court decisions, the Bench reiterated that common intention requires clear evidence showing that all accused persons shared a plan or understanding to commit the crime.
The Court noted that no overt act involving any weapon had been attributed to Mukesh Kumar. The prosecution had not proved that he knew the other accused were carrying knives or that he shared an intention to commit murder.
The judges further observed that the alleged words “Maro Sale Ko” do not necessarily indicate an intention to kill. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court held that such words can equally mean “beat him” and cannot by themselves establish a murderous intention.
The Court said,
“The use of the words ‘Maro Sale Ko’ by themselves also does not imply the intention to kill; they can also be attributed to the intention to hurt,”
The Bench also noted that evidence relating to exhortation is generally considered weak and requires strong corroboration before a conviction can be sustained.
The Court pointed out that the bus conductor, who was allegedly standing near the rear of the bus where Mukesh Kumar was said to be present, did not support the prosecution’s version. He neither stated that Mukesh Kumar entered the bus from the rear nor that he heard any exhortation or saw him assaulting anyone.
Taking all circumstances into account, the High Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish that Mukesh Kumar shared a common intention with the principal assailant. It held that the evidence did not meet the standard required for a criminal conviction.
Granting him the benefit of doubt, the Court set aside the trial court’s judgment dated August 10, 2004, and the order on sentence dated August 19, 2004. Mukesh Kumar was acquitted of all charges, his personal bond and sureties were discharged, and the appeal was allowed.
Case Title: Mukesh Kumar v. State of Delhi