New Delhi: A Delhi court has convicted Sona Lal alias Sone Lal Baitha in connection with a 2018 incident in which a migrant labourer was robbed and stabbed, ruling that the accused shared a common intention to commit the offences even though he did not personally wield the weapon.

The conviction was pronounced by Additional Sessions Judge Sumedh Kumar Sethi, who held that the prosecution had successfully established common intention under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as well as charges under Section 307 (attempt to murder) and Section 394 (voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery). The court clarified that Section 397 IPC, which relates to robbery with a deadly weapon, was not applicable since Sona Lal had not personally used the knife.

Incident Details

According to the prosecution, the incident occurred on June 20, 2018. The victim, Mohammad Afroj, a migrant labourer, was forcibly taken in an autorickshaw from the Anand Vihar area to a secluded spot in GTB Enclave. There, the accused and his accomplices allegedly robbed Afroj of cash, a mobile phone, and other belongings.

During the robbery, Afroj was stabbed in the abdomen and neck, sustaining grievous injuries. Despite the severity of the attack, the non-recovery of the weapon or stolen items did not weaken the prosecution’s case, the court noted.

Court’s Reasoning

Judge Sethi emphasized that no overt or covert act by the accused needed to be individually proven once common intention was established. “Nothing material has come in the statement of the accused to explain the circumstances brought against him by the prosecution,” the court observed.

The court further highlighted that medical evidence showed two incised wounds on vital parts of Afroj’s body, which in ordinary course were sufficient to cause death. The judge said:

“This court is of the opinion that use of a knife for the purpose of causing grievous injuries in the abdomen and the neck of the complainant for the purpose of committing robbery, as deposed by him, are sufficient to discern the intention of causing death of the complainant after robbing him.”

The judgment made it clear that mere association with a group committing the crime, while sharing the intention to rob and cause harm, suffices for conviction under Sections 307 and 34 IPC.

Legal Implications

This ruling underscores the principle that common intention within a criminal group is sufficient for an individual to be held liable for offences committed by co-accused, even if they do not personally commit the violent act.

The court’s observations reaffirm that:

• The non-recovery of stolen items or weapons does not undermine the prosecution’s case if other evidence demonstrates participation in the criminal enterprise.
• The severity of injuries and intent to cause death is crucial in determining an attempt-to-murder conviction, particularly in cases linked to robbery.

Conclusion

Considering the totality of facts, the court concluded that Sona Lal had been actively involved in the robbery and attack, and shared a common intention to commit murder. The ruling reinforces legal precedents regarding joint criminal liability in cases of violent crime, making it clear that participation in a group criminal act carries full responsibility for outcomes stemming from that collective action.

The court’s order was dated January 14, 2026, finalizing the conviction after evaluating evidence including eyewitness statements, medical reports, and circumstantial evidence linking Sona Lal to the incident.