BAUL & ANOTHER versus STATE OF U.P.

BAUL & ANOTHER versus STATE OF U.P.

In absence of proof of common intention and lack of evidence clarifying which accused caused fatal injuries, conviction under s. 302 cannot be sustained; Sadhai receives benefit of doubt for murder charge and is convicted under s. 325 IPC for causing grievous hurt instead.

Parties
Appellant: Baul; Appellant: Sadhai; Respondent: State of U.P.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
24 November 1967
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Allahabad High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part.
Legal Topics
Murder, Common Intention, Grievous Hurt, Benefit of Doubt
Criminal Law Murder Common Intention Grievous Hurt Benefit of Doubt

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Baul

Appellant

Sadhai

Appellant

State of U.P.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Allahabad High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Sadhai can be convicted under s. 302 IPC simpliciter after acquittal of co-accused Ramdeo and without proof of causing fatal injury
  2. 2 Effect of failure to establish common intention under s. 34 IPC

Ratio Decidendi

In absence of proof of common intention and lack of evidence clarifying which accused caused fatal injuries, conviction under s. 302 cannot be sustained; Sadhai receives benefit of doubt for murder charge and is convicted under s. 325 IPC for causing grievous hurt instead.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part.

Orders

  • Conviction and sentence of Sadhai under s. 302 IPC set aside; Sadhai convicted under s. 325 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years.
  • Appeal dismissed as to Baul.