Mohan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 15 March, 1962
18. The learned counsel for appellant had argued that it was not certain that grievous injury was caused by any of these two appellants, that it might have been caused by a third assailant who according to Sudeep, in Court statement, was Babli, but Babli has been acquitted, and so whatever was done by that third person or Babli could not be vicarious responsibility of these two appellants. These arguments lose sight of the principle propounded by the Supreme Court in the case of Yashwant Singh's referred above. The accused Babli was given benefit of doubt about the identity and nothing more. It has not been held that a third person was not there who caused the injury. It was not the case of prosecution that these two appellants had caused three injuries. So whoever the third person was, these two accused appellants were responsible for his acts also, they were all responsible for each others act. I have already discussed that there is sufficient evidence to establish that the grievous injury was caused by Virendra Shrivastava. Each of the two appellants has vicarious criminal liability also for injuries caused by the other and by any unknown companion. So in no circumstance, they can evade conviction for the grievous hurt caused to victim.