In cases of murder with common intention, the prosecution must establish the exact nature of the injury caused by each accused, especially when one of the accused has been acquitted. If the prosecution fails to do so, the benefit of the doubt must be given to the accused.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - MURDER - COMMON INTENTION - ACQUITTAL OF ONE ACCUSED - LIABILITY OF THE OTHER ACCUSED - SECTION 302/34 AND 302 SIMPLICITER - DISTINCTION.
Fact of the Case:

The appellants, Baul and Sadhai, were convicted of murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for causing fatal injuries to the deceased, Ramdular. The High Court acquitted one of the accused, Ramdeo, and altered the conviction of Baul to Section 325 read with Section 109, sentencing him to five years of rigorous imprisonment. Sadhai's conviction and sentence were maintained, but the conviction was altered from Section 302/34 to Section 302 simpliciter.
Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court found that the evidence of alibi presented by Sadhai was not satisfactory and did not displace the evidence of the eyewitnesses. However, the court held that in the absence of common intention, the prosecution failed to establish the exact nature of the injury caused by each accused, particularly since one of the accused had been acquitted. Therefore, the court gave Sadhai the benefit of the doubt and convicted him under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code instead of Section 302.
Issues: 1. Whether the High Court erred in not considering the evidence of alibi presented by Sadhai. 2. Whether the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Sadhai caused the fatal injuries to the deceased, considering that one of the accused was acquitted.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Supreme Court held that the High Court did not err in not considering the evidence of alibi, as it was not necessary given the acceptance of the eyewitnesses' evidence. 2. The court found that in the absence of common intention, the prosecution failed to establish the exact nature of the injury caused by each accused. Therefore, the court gave Sadhai the benefit of the doubt and convicted him under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code instead of Section 302.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court allowed Sadhai's appeal to the extent that his conviction was altered from Section 302 to Section 325, and his sentence was reduced from imprisonment for life to seven years of rigorous imprisonment. The appeal of Baul was dismissed.

Judgement

HIDAYATULLAH, J. : The appellants are father and son. They were prosecuted with one Ramdeo who has been acquitted by the High Court. The prosecution case against them is that on the evening of June 7, 1962, about Sun-set they attacked one Ramdular causing him fatal injuries on his head with a lathi resulting in his death. The first appellant Baul is said to have instigated the assault and the original prosecution case was that the other appellant Sadhai and Ramdeo (the acquitted accused) assaulted Ramdular. Medical evidence established that the deceased died as a result of two fatal blows on the head, both of which appeared to have caused extensive fractures of the skull. There were two other blows on the head which seemed to be simple. The deceased never regained consciousness after he received the blows and died in the hospital about 11-30 the same night. The occurrence took place in this way. It appears that Baul, the first appellant, and Lurkhur (P. W. 1) who are brothers-in-law at loggerheads over a right of way. On the day in question Lurkhur was preparing his food near his house and the deceased was at the well nearby. When Baul passed that way there was an exchange of abuses and Baul raised an alarm. Lurkhur s son, the deceased, came out of his house with his wife. On the other side came the appellant Sadhai and the acquitted accused Ramdeo. Baul instigated these two to beat the deceased who was probably very vociferous in his abuses in support of his old father. When this exhortation was made the deceased took to his heels chased by Sadhai and Ramdeo. According to the prosecution evidence both of them hit the deceased on the head with their lathies. The deceased attempted to run back to his house but fell down near the doorstep. The appellants and Ramdeo thereupon retreated.

2. The Police Station House is situated within a distance of a mile from the scene of occurrence. Report of the incident was made between 7 and 8 p. m. but was actually recorded at 8 p. m. Badshahpur Hospital is situated within 2-3 furlongs of the police station house and the deceased was sent in an unconscious condition to the hospital. He never regained consciousness before his death. The Sub-Inspector, after recording the first information report, went to the hospital, found the deceased unconscious and, therefore, went to the spot whether he found no witness except the wife of the deceased person. He went back to the hospital and then went in search of the appellant Sadhai and arrested him in the village after l0 p. m. The other two accused surrendered in court later on June 18, and June 20. The deceased was examined while he was still alive by Dr. N. D. Burman (P. W. 3) and his report shows that he had "a mutilated" wound of 1/4" x 1/10" x l /4" on the left side and the head 2-1/4" above the left eye brow with swelling 4" x 4-1/2" in area. The wound was then bleeding. He also had a bluish swelling 2-1/4" x 2" on the right side of the scalp 2" above the right eyebrow. Both the injuries were said to have been caused with a blunt weapon such as a lathi. After the death of the deceased postmortem examination was done by Dr. M. L. Gouta (P. W. 7). He had the opportunity to examine the injuries more closely. According to him there were :

1. a contusion 2-1/2" x 1" on the right side of the forehead 1/2" above the right eye-brow.

2. a contusion 2-1/2 x l" on the left side of head 2" above left ear with swelling of the entire left side of head and face.

3. contused wound 1-2" X 1/4" scalp on left side of head 2" above the left eye-brow.

4. swelling 3" x 2" on right side of head 1/2" above the right ear.

There was also an abrasion on the back of right elbow joint. Internal examination disclosed left and right parietal bones fractured at many places. Front parietal bone of the head was fractured at its joint. Congested clotted blood was present all over the bones of the head. The membranes were besmeared with blood. The right and left hemisphere wa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document