Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

In view of the submissions made in relation to accused Sadhai, the Supreme Court observed in paragraph 8 as under:-

"8. No doubt the original prosecution case showed that Sadhai and Ramdeo both hit the deceased on the head with their lathies. One is tempted to divide the two fatal injuries between the two assailants and to hold that one each was caused by them. If there was common intention established in the case the prosecution would not have been required to prove which of the injuries was caused by which assailant. But when common intention is not proved the prosecution must establish the exact nature of the injury caused by each accused and more so in this case when one of the accused has got the benefit of the doubt and has been acquitted. It cannot therefore, be postulated that Sadhai alone caused all the injuries on the head of the deceased. Once that position arises the doubt remains as to whether the injuries caused by Sadhai were of the character which would being his case within S. 302............... it is difficult to hold in a case of this type that his guilt amounts to murder simpliciter because he must be held responsible for all the injuries that were caused to the deceased. We convict him instead of S. 302 for an offence under S. 325, Indian Penal Code cri apeal 1314-13 (j).doc and set aside the sentence of imprisonment for life and instead sentence him to rigorous imprisonment for seven years. "