Seven-Year Terms Upheld for Five Men in Delhi Riots Culpable Homicide Case, Rules Delhi High Court

Seven-Year Terms Upheld for Five Men in Delhi Riots Culpable Homicide Case, Rules Delhi High Court in Aman Kashyap v. State of NCT of Delhi

Case: Aman Kashyap v. State of NCT of Delhi and connected matters
Date of Judgment: 27 October 2026
Court: Delhi High Court
Coram: Justice Madhu Jain
Proceedings: Criminal Appeal Nos. 133, 180, 181, 185 and 289 of 2025

Court Observation

“The deceased was pursued, surrounded and assaulted even after he had fallen near the police barricades. The conduct attributed to the appellants, the weapons carried by members of the mob and the continued assault upon the deceased provide the factual basis for concluding that the assembly had an unlawful common object of assaulting the deceased and causing bodily harm to him.”

Summary

The Delhi High Court has upheld the conviction and seven-year jail terms of five men for culpable homicide not amounting to murder during the February 2020 communal violence in North-East Delhi. Dismissing their appeals, the Court held that the evidence showed more than the mere presence of the appellants in a crowd: they were at the forefront of an armed mob, exhorting others to assault the deceased.

The case arose from an incident on 25 February 2020, when a 22-year-old man, Monish, was chased and assaulted by a mob near Brijpuri and later died in hospital. The post-mortem report attributed his death to shock from ante-mortem brain injuries caused by blunt-force impact. The trial court had 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, sentencing each to one year of simple imprisonment for rioting and seven years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs 30,000 for culpable homicide, the sentences to run concurrently.

Rejecting the challenge, the Court relied on the testimony of police officials who knew the appellants through their duties and identified them in court, and held that the absence of a test identification parade goes to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.

Key Holdings

  • Mere presence in an assembly, or possession of a weapon, without the requisite common object or knowledge, is not enough for liability; but once membership of an unlawful assembly and its common object or knowledge are established, the absence of proof identifying the individual who inflicted the fatal injuries does not by itself absolve an accused under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
  • Police officials who know the accused from their duties can be reliable identifying witnesses.
  • The absence of a test identification parade is a matter of weight of evidence, not admissibility.

Background

The appeals challenged the common judgment of conviction dated 30 November 2024 and the order on sentence dated 13 January 2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, in Sessions Case No. 199 of 2021, arising out of FIR No. 87 of 2020 registered at Police Station Dayalpur. The appellants had pointed to inconsistencies in eyewitness accounts, delay in recording the statements of police witnesses, and the absence of a test identification parade. The High Court dismissed all five appeals and upheld the trial court’s judgment and sentence insofar as the appellants are concerned.

Related Articles

Disclaimer: This is a summary prepared for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should refer to the official judgment for the authoritative text.

Tags: , ,