Despite Testimony of Injured Witness, High Court Acquits the Accused from Charges of Murder

Despite Testimony of Injured Witness, High Court Acquits the Accused from Charges of Murder

In a recent case where accused was convicted by Trial Court, HC has acquitted the accused from charges of murder. 

The case was of murder of a man Z.

In this case, in her statement, PW-5/Usha stated that she was working as a nurse in Safdarjung Hospital and was on visiting terms with the deceased. On 01.12.1983, she along with her friend PW-7/Alka had gone to Lajpat Nagar with the deceased, who was also accompanied by his two friends, PW-11/Ashok and PW-6/Naginder Kumar. They all took food and then boarded the bus route No.431 for Safdarjung. While she and PW-7/Alka sat on the ladies seat in the bus on the left hand side, the deceased sat on the side seat. Meanwhile, three persons standing on the side of the driver started talking to each other by pointing out towards them and thereafter all three of them came near their seat and started misbehaving with them. The deceased told them to behave, upon which one of those three persons took out a knife and stabbed the deceased on the back. That person proceeded towards them and when PW-5/Usha protested, the said person attacked her also with the knife and she received a scratch on left side of her chin.

As far as the law concerning TIP is concerned, it is no longer res integra that, prior to the TIP being conducted, an accused person must not be shown to the witnesses. If an accused person is shown to witnesses at any prior point of time, not only is the TIP inadmissible, even the subsequent dock identification of such an accused by witnesses is inconsequential. 

No adverse inference can be drawn against accused persons for non-participation in TIP proceedings in scenarios wherein the authenticity of the proceedings themselves are under serious doubt.

It was held that exhortation, in the very nature of things, is a weak piece of evidence.

It was also noted that the use of the words "Maro Sale Ko" cannot by themselves imply the intention to kill.

It was held that to attract the provisions of Section 34 of the IPC, it must be proved that: (i) there was common intention on the part of several persons to commit a particular crime; and (ii) the crime was actually committed by them in furtherance of that common intention. Additionally, exhortation on its own is treated as a weak piece of evidence as there may exist tendencies to implicate some persons in addition to the actual assailants, by attributing to such persons a role of an exhortation to the assailant to assault the victim. Unless the evidence in this respect is clear, cogent and reliable, no conviction for abetment can be recorded against the person alleged to have exhorted to the actual assailant.

Accused was ultimately acquitted.

Case reference is Mukesh Kumar v. State of NCTD [2026] GCtR 389 (Delhi)