Ashok Babu v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi — (CRL.A. 141/2024 & CRL.A. 143/2024) (Neutral Citation No.: 2025:DHC:7506)

It is entirely in the fitness of things and perfectly in order that the Delhi High Court, while fastening liability even on those who merely stand on guard or omit to act when someone else commits an offence, in a learned and recent judgment titled Ashok Babu vs State Govt of NCT of Delhi (CRL.A. 141/2024 & CRL.A. 143/2024; Neutral Citation No.: 2025:DHC:7506) — which was reserved on 28.08.2025 and pronounced on 29.08.2025 — made it clear in unequivocal terms that merely standing guard or omitting to act when someone else commits an offence in furtherance of a common intention is sufficient to attract liability under Section 34 IPC.

The Bench, however, added an important caveat: “However, the common intention, as well as some participation, both need to be proved.” Notably, the Delhi High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellants because the prosecution failed to prove the existence of a common intention to cause grievous hurt to the complainant. The prosecution also failed to detail any act, overt or covert, by the appellants that aided the furtherance of such a common intention — a point the High Court highlighted decisively.

Judgment overview and procedural posture

At the outset, the Single Judge Bench of Hon’ble Mr Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri set the ball in motion by noting the appellants sought to assail the conviction dated 17.10.2023 and the order on sentence dated 18.01.2024 in Session Case No.110/2019 arising out of FIR No. 301/2016 (registered under Sections 323/341/506/34 IPC at P.S. Karawal Nagar, Delhi).

“By way of present appeals, the appellants seek to assail the judgement of conviction dated 17.10.2023 and order on sentence dated 18.01.2024 in Session Case No.110/2019 arising out of FIR No. 301/2016 registered under Sections 323/341/506/34 IPC at P.S. Karawal Nagar, Delhi. Vide the impugned judgement, appellants stand convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 325/34 IPC and vide order on sentence, the appellants were sentenced to undergo RI for 6 months with fine of Rs.20,000/- each, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for 3 months. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. was given to the appellants.”

Facts of the case (para 2)

The Bench summarized the trial court's account of facts leading to registration of the FIR (Ex.PW2/A):

“The story of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 31.08.2016 at about 11:30 PM near Hanuman Mandir, Shiv Vihar Tirah, Delhi, while Munni Devi wife of Bhoop Ram was sitting on her cart for selling fruit. Rahul, Poti Ram, Ashok Babu, Sachin and V’ (juvenile), who used to put their fruits cart nearby started quarreling with Munni Devi. In the meanwhile, Bhoop Ram also reached there and they started quarreling with him and gave beating to him. During quarrel ‘V’ (juvenile) hit on the head of Bhoop Ram with a danda due to which he started bleeding from his head. The accused persons also attacked on his body with some pointed object. They extended threats to kill him. His sister Premwati also arrived there and she also started quarreling with him. Bhup Ram went to GTB hospital along with his son-in-law Ram.”

Investigation and trial (para 3)

On completion of investigation, charges were framed. During trial the prosecution examined five witnesses: the complainant (PW1), Dr. Sandeep Kumar who proved the MLC (PW4), and ASI Radhey Shyam, the IO (PW5). The remaining witnesses were formal and dealt with investigation aspects. In their Section 313 Cr.P.C. statements, the appellants pleaded false implication, alleging the complainant had taken money from Ashok’s wife and did not return it. The defence examined two witnesses: DW1 (Rohtash Singh — an eyewitness) and DW2 (Premwati — wife of appellant Ashok and sister of the complainant). Proceedings for co-accused Sachin and Poti Ram were abated on account of their deaths.

Complainant’s testimony (para 6)

A perusal of the complainant’s testimony shows that on 31.08.2016 at about 11:30 PM the appellants, along with other accused including one juvenile (JCL), were quarrelling with his wife, who was on a fruit rehri. When the complainant intervened the JCL allegedly struck a danda blow on Bhoop Ram’s head and one of the other accused inflicted injury with a pointed edge weapon. In cross-examination the complainant admitted he could not say who inflicted injuries with the pointed edge weapon.

Investigating officer’s account (para 7)

The IO (ASI Radhey Shyam — PW5) stated that upon receiving DD No.77-B on 31.08.2016, he reached the spot but found no one; the injured had gone to hospital. He met the complainant at hospital on 01.09.2016, but the complainant initially refused to make a statement. The complainant later came to the police station on 02.09.2016 and gave his statement (Ex.PW1/A). At the spot no weapon or blood was noticed. The IO said 5–10 people were present when he reached there, but he did not note their names or addresses. No public witness was cited.

Legal principle and key holding (para 12)

The Bench encapsulated the cornerstone of the judgment: a person charged under Section 34 IPC must participate in some way in the offence to be liable. Actual striking of the blow or physical presence alone is not necessary; merely standing guard or omitting to act when another commits an offence in furtherance of their common intention may suffice. Crucially, both the common intention and some participation must be proved. The Bench referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Vasant v. State of Karnataka (2025 SCC OnLine SC 337) to reiterate this principle:

“75. It is, therefore, evident that every person charged with the aid of Section 34, must in some form or the other participate in the offence in order to make him liable thereunder… 76. The element of participation in the commission of the offence is the chief feature that distinguishes Section 34, IPC from Section 149, IPC and other kindred sections. 86. It is true that to convict any particular accused constructively under Section 34 of an offence, say of murder, it is not necessary to find that he actually struck the fatal blow, or any blow, but there must be clear evidence of some action or conduct on his part to show that he shared in the common intention of committing murder”. (pp. 457-458)

The Supreme Court’s discussion further emphasizes that Section 34 requires an individual offender to have participated, however slightly, by doing an act or omitting to do an act, to indicate he was a participant and shared the common intention.

Application to the present facts (para 13–15)

Applying these principles, the complainant admitted that while all accused were quarrelling with his wife and that the JCL inflicted the danda blow, he could not identify who inflicted the pointed-edge injuries. The complainant did not attribute any overt or covert act to the appellants — there was no suggestion they marched together, were armed, inflicted injuries, or stood guard to prevent help reaching the complainant. The only act attributed to them was quarrelling, which by itself does not establish a common intention to cause grievous hurt.

Given the public nature of the incident, it was significant that no eyewitnesses were examined by the prosecution. The IO said 5–10 people were present, yet none of their statements were recorded. Even the complainant’s wife, alleged to have been the genesis of the quarrel, was not examined at trial. The incident occurred on 31.08.2016, the complainant’s statement was recorded on 02.09.2016, and the appellants were arrested on 03.09.2016. No weapon was recovered from the appellants.

The defence witnesses DW1 and DW2 stated an altercation had occurred between DW2 and the complainant (who are siblings) over a monetary dispute, and their case was that the complainant slipped and fell, causing his injuries. DW2 also noted an FIR (No. 270/2017) was registered at her behest. The Bench observed family relationships: appellants Ashok and Rahul are brother-in-law and nephew of the complainant respectively, with Ashok married to DW2/Premwati.

Conclusion and result (para 15–18)

On an overall view, the prosecution failed to prove a common intention to cause grievous hurt and failed to attribute any specific act to the appellants that would further such an intention. The complainant did not allege that the appellants shared the common intent or that any exhortation was given by them prior to the JCL’s act. Therefore, Section 34 could not be invoked to secure conviction under Section 325 IPC. Consequently, the convictions under Sections 325/34 IPC could not be sustained, and the appellants were acquitted of the said offences.

Holding: The appeals are allowed.

The Bench further directed that, since the sentence of the appellants was suspended vide order dated 14.02.2024, their bail bonds be cancelled and sureties discharged. Finally, a copy of this judgment was ordered to be communicated to the concerned Trial Court and the Jail Superintendent.

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh