Delhi High Court: Saying 'Maro Sale Ko' in a Fight Does Not Prove Intent to Kill

The Delhi High Court has acquitted a man convicted of murder, holding that merely shouting the words 'Maro Sale Ko' during a fight does not by itself prove a common intention to kill. The order, passed in the matter of Mukesh Kumar v. State, came more than four decades after the 1983 incident that led to the case. A division bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja observed that the word 'maro' can mean to beat, and not necessarily to kill, and extended the benefit of the doubt to the accused. The ruling is a clear reminder of how Indian criminal law treats words of exhortation when deciding whether a person shared the intention behind a killing.

The Case: A 1983 Bus Altercation

The incident took place inside a Delhi Transport Corporation bus in December 1983. According to the prosecution, a group of young men misbehaved with two women passengers, and when another passenger and his friends objected, a fight broke out. One person was fatally stabbed during the scuffle. The accused, Mukesh Kumar, was not alleged to have wielded any weapon. The case against him rested mainly on the allegation that he had shouted 'Maro Sale Ko' to encourage the others. A trial court convicted him of murder in 2004 and sentenced him to life imprisonment, after which he appealed to the High Court.

Common Intention Under Section 34 IPC

The prosecution invoked Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, which makes each person liable for a criminal act done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention. Section 34 does not create an offence on its own. It is a rule of evidence that fixes shared liability where a group acts with a pre-arranged or spontaneously formed common plan. To convict a person under this provision, the prosecution must prove that the accused shared the specific intention behind the act, here, the intention to commit murder. In the new criminal code, the equivalent provision is Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which retains the same principle of joint liability.

The High Court held that the prosecution had failed to show that Mukesh knew the others were carrying knives or that he had any prior plan with them. Without that link, his presence and alleged words could not transform him into a participant in the murder. This focus on the quality of evidence echoes the approach in cases where convictions have been overturned for weak proof, such as the Allahabad High Court setting aside convictions based on police confessions.

Words of Exhortation: The Line Between Hurt and Murder

The bench made a careful distinction. It held that the words 'Maro Sale Ko' by themselves do not imply an intention to kill and can equally be attributed to an intention to cause hurt. This distinction matters because Indian law separates murder from lesser offences based on the intention and knowledge of the accused. Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, murder is punishable under Section 103 and attempt to murder under Section 109, while causing hurt is treated far more leniently. An ambiguous slogan shouted in the heat of a sudden fight, the Court reasoned, cannot be stretched to establish the intention required for murder. This is why the prosecution must prove not just what was said, but the state of mind behind it, drawing on the surrounding circumstances such as whether there was any prior plan, knowledge of weapons, or a shared object among the group. Where those links are missing, a court will be slow to hold a bystander or a person who merely uttered words liable for the most serious offence.

Why Identification Evidence Mattered

The Court also found serious doubts about the test identification parade. Witness testimony suggested that the accused may have been seen by witnesses before the formal identification was conducted, which made even the later in-court identification unreliable. Identification is a recurring weak point in old criminal cases, and accused persons have important procedural protections, including those discussed in our guide on your rights when the police search your phone under BNSS 2023. Where a prosecution is built on a false or weak foundation, an accused can also explore quashing of a false FIR under Section 528 BNSS.

Related Reading

Liberty and the standard of proof are central to bail decisions too, as seen in the Delhi High Court granting bail in a UAPA case on Article 21 grounds.

For the process side of criminal complaints, see our guide on how to file a complaint against a police officer in India.

Key Takeaways

To convict a person of murder through common intention, the prosecution must prove a shared intention to kill, not merely presence at the scene or ambiguous words of encouragement. A phrase like 'Maro Sale Ko' can reflect an intention to beat rather than to kill, and the benefit of the doubt goes to the accused where the evidence is unclear. The judgment also underscores how unreliable identification can unravel a decades-old prosecution.