The Delhi High Court recently overturned the conviction of a man implicated in a 1983 murder incident, emphasizing that merely shouting ‘Maro Sale Ko’ during a conflict does not conclusively demonstrate an intent to kill. The case in question, Mukesh Kumar v. State of Delhi, revolved around an altercation on a Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) bus.
A Division Bench, comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja, concluded that the term ‘maro’ could mean ‘to beat’ rather than ‘to kill,’ thereby granting Mukesh Kumar the benefit of doubt. “The use of the words ‘Maro Sale Ko’ alone does not signify an intent to kill; they could equally indicate an intent to harm,” the judges remarked.
The incident occurred on December 1, 1983, on DTC bus route number 431. Prosecution reports claimed a group of young men behaved inappropriately with two female passengers. When Vinod Kumar and his friends protested, a fight ensued. During the scuffle, Vinod was allegedly stabbed by Balvinder Singh, a co-accused, and later succumbed to his injuries. Mukesh Kumar, the prosecution alleged, was at the back of the bus and incited others by yelling ‘Maro Saale Ko.’
Following the incident, four individuals, including Mukesh Kumar, were apprehended. They declined to partake in a Test Identification Parade (TIP), asserting prior exposure to the witnesses. Subsequently, a chargesheet was filed under IPC Sections 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder), and 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention).
In August 2004, a Delhi trial court found Mukesh and two others guilty of murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, sentencing Mukesh to life imprisonment. He appealed the conviction in the High Court.
More Read
Before the High Court, Mukesh argued that the prosecution did not demonstrate his shared intent with the co-accused to murder. He challenged the identification process’s credibility and highlighted inconsistencies in eyewitness testimonies.
The High Court found these arguments compelling. The Bench identified significant doubts about the TIP process, with witness statements suggesting that the accused were visible to witnesses before the TIP occurred. Under these circumstances, the court considered even the subsequent dock identification unreliable.
Furthermore, no active participation involving a weapon was attributed to Mukesh. The prosecution’s primary argument was his use of the phrase ‘Maro Saale Ko.’ Analyzing whether this phrase sufficed to invoke Section 34 IPC, the court determined that the prosecution failed to prove Mukesh shared a common intent with the co-accused to commit murder.
The Bench observed a lack of evidence indicating Mukesh’s knowledge of knives or prior plans with the co-accused. It also noted discrepancies in witness accounts regarding the timing and context of the alleged incitement. Consequently, the court vacated his conviction and acquitted him of all charges.
This case had lingered before the Delhi High Court for 22 years. Mukesh was represented by Advocates Himanshu Anand Gupta, Mansi Yadav, Karan Jain, Mike Desai, and Shekhar Anand Gupta. The State’s representation included Additional Public Prosecutor Aman Usman, Advocates Manvendra Yadav, and Atiq Ur Rehman.
