New Delhi: Delhi High Court has upheld the conviction and seven-year jail term awarded to five men for the death of a 22-year-old man during the communal riots in north-east Delhi in Feb 2020.
The high court noted that according to the prosecution eyewitness account, the men who filed appeals were at the “forefront of an armed mob and exhorted others” to assault Mohsin. It added that Mohsin was “pursued, surrounded and assaulted” even after falling near police barricades. The weapons carried by the mob, the appellants’ exhortations and the continued assault provided the factual basis for concluding that the assembly had an unlawful common object of assaulting him and causing bodily harm.
The court also considered the circumstances surrounding the assault while examining the appellants’ conviction under section 304 part I of Indian Penal Code (IPC).
“These circumstances are capable of bearing upon the inference of an intention to cause bodily injuries likely to result in death,” it said, referring to the victim being pursued by an armed mob, assaulted after falling and subjected to repeated blows, including injuries to the head.
Because the prosecution could not establish which member of the mob inflicted the fatal head injuries, rejecting their contentions, the court said they could not claim acquittal merely.
“Once the membership of the appellants in the unlawful assembly and the requisite common objective or knowledge is established, the absence of proof identifying the individual author of the fatal injuries does not, by itself, absolve them of liability under Section 149 IPC,” the court observed.
Addressing questions over identification, the court noted that the key witness, PW-10, had claimed prior acquaintance with all five appellants through his posting as the locality’s beat constable. The trial court had convicted the five men on Nov 30, 2024, under sections 304 part I and 148 IPC, sentencing them on Jan 13, 2025, to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 30,000 each. It held that delays in the case did not, by themselves, discredit the witnesses’ accounts or establish false implication.