The Delhi High Court recently acquitted a man convicted in a 1983 murder case after it held that the prosecution had failed to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt . The case was pending before the Delhi High Court since 22 years.
A Division Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja observed that the word “maro” may mean to beat and not necessarily to kill, while extending the benefit of doubt to the accused, one Mukesh Kumar. The court also observed that shouting the words “Maro Sale Ko” during a fatal altercation inside a DTC bus, holding that the phrase by itself was insufficient to establish a common intention to kill.
“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 Court said.The case stemmed from an incident that occurred on December 1, 1983, inside a Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) bus travelling on route number 431.
According to the prosecution, a group of young men allegedly misbehaved with two women passengers. When one Vinod Kumar and his friends objected, an altercation broke out inside the bus.During the incident, Vinod was allegedly stabbed by co-accused Balvinder Singh and later succumbed to his injuries. The prosecution alleged that the co-accused Mukesh Kumar, who was standing at the rear of the bus, exhorted the others by shouting “Maro Saale Ko."
As investigation began, four persons, including Mukesh Kumar were arrested. They refused to participate in a Test Identification Parade (TIP), claiming they had already been seen by witnesses.A chargesheet was subsequently filed under Sections 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder) and 34 (acts done with common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
In August 2004, a Delhi trial court convicted Mukesh and two others for the offence of murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Mukesh was sentenced to life imprisonment. He moved the High Court appealing his conviction.Before the High Court, Mukesh argued that the prosecution had failed to prove that he shared a common intention with the co-accused to commit murder. He also questioned the reliability of the identification process and pointed to contradictions in the testimonies of the eyewitnesses.The High Court found merit in these submissions.
The Bench noted serious doubts surrounding the TIP proceedings. It referred to witness testimonies indicating that the accused may have been seen by witnesses before the identification exercise was conducted. In such circumstances, the Court said, even the subsequent identification (dock identification) of Mukesh in court became unreliable.The Bench observed that there was no evidence to show that Mukesh knew the co-accused were carrying knives or that he had any prior plan with them. It also noted inconsistencies in witness testimonies regarding the timing and circumstances of the alleged exhortation.
Follow us
