Burden of proof in murder cases requires establishing direct causation of death by the accused's actions; acquittal maintained due to intervening medical negligence.

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.

All the aforesaid criminal appeals have arisen out of the common judgment dated 16.10.2001, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Nagaur, in Sessions Case No.175/2001 (40/1999) by which the learned Trial Court acquitted the present accused persons from offence under Section 302/34 IPC, however, convicted them for offence under Sections 341, 323, 324/34, 326/34 IPC and sentenced as under:

2. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

3. Since all the matters are arising out of the same judgment and order, therefore, they are being heard and decided by this common order.

4. Criminal Appeal No.700/2002 has been filed by the State against the acquittal of the present accused persons from offence under Section 302/34 IPC. Whereas, Cr. Appeal Nos.839/2001 & No.405/2002 have been preferred by the present accused persons against their conviction for the aforesaid offences.

5. Brief facts necessary to be noted for deciding the controversy are that on 18.05.1999 at about 10:15 AM, complainant- Mushtaq (PW-13) gave a typed report to SHO, Police Station- Rol at Government Hospital, Nagaur to the effect that on 18.05.1999 at about 5:00 AM, his brother- Mumtaz was proceeding toward Luharpura, Nagaur, from the village of Phagli for daily work. While passing through a curve near Gawai Nadi (pond) in Phagli Village, Mumtaz was confronted by the accused persons, namely Ilukhan, Hasukhan, Ayub Khan, Sethu Khan, and Sugan Khan, who were concealed at that location. The accused emerged from their hiding place and attacked Mumtaz with swords, barchis, and lathis. As a result, Mumtaz sustained severe injuries across multiple parts of his body. Hearing the commotion, the complainant and one Bhanwaroo Khan arrived at the scene and intervened to rescue Mumtaz. The accused individuals then fled the scene. Mumtaz was subsequently taken to the Government Hospital in Nagaur for medical treatment.

6. Based on the aforementioned report, the police registered FIR No. 26/1999 against the accused for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, and 307 of the IPC, and initiated an investigation. During the course of treatment, Mumtaz succumbed to his injuries. Consequently, the police added the offence under Section 302/34 IPC. Upon completion of the investigation, the police filed a challan only against three of the accused persons.

7. Thereafter, learned Trial Court framed, read over and explained the charges for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 324/34, 326/34, 302/34 IPC to present accused persons. They denied the charge and sought trial.

8. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 23 witnesses and also got exhibited relevant documents in support of its case.

9. The present accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, one witness was examined and two documents were exhibited.

10. Learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments from both the sides, taking into consideration and appreciating the documentary evidence and the statements of witnesses, vide judgment dated 16.10.2001 acquitted the present accused persons from the offence under Section 302/34 IPC, however, convicted and sentenced them for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 324/34 & 326/34 IPC as aforesaid. Hence, the State is challenging the acquittal of the present accused persons for offence under Section 302/34 IPC and present accused persons are challenging their conviction for the aforesaid offences.

11. Learned Public Prosecutor has contended that the present accused persons assaulted the deceased- Mumtaz, using a deadly weapon, resulting in him sustaining as many as fifteen injuries across various parts of his body. Some of these injuries were of grievous in nature. It is further submitted that these grievous injur