BAUL & ANOTHER versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [1968] 2 S.C.R. 450 · Decided: 24-11-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

BAUL & AN01HER 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. 
November 24, 1967 
[M. H!DAYATULLAH AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JI.) 
I 
Indian Penal Code ( 45 of 1860). ss. 302 and 34-AcquUtal of ont 
of two accused-No evidence rtgarding iniurles i:aJUed by the othu to 
deceasl!d-Nature of offence committed by him. 
TWo accused were charged with an offence under a. 302 read with 
" 34 I.P.C. The victim had four /at/U infuries on his hea~o fatal and 
two aimple. One of the 1U:Cused .. wu acquitted. On the question whether 
0 
the other could be convicted for an offence under a. 302 slmpliclttr with· 
out establiabi1111 that he had cauaed at least one of the major injuries, 
HELD : As a result of the acquittal of one of the two accused, the 
common intention was not proved. Jn such a c115e It could not be postu-
lated that the other accused alone caused all the four injuries and t~ 
prosecution must establish the exact nature of the injury caused by him. 
Jn the absence of such e\idence, be must be Jiven the benefit of doubt 
D 
with respect to the offence under s. 302, but may be convicted for the 
offence of causing grevious hurt under s. 325 [453 H; 454 A-B, CJ 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
47 of 1965. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
g 
August 31, 1964 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal 
No. 397 of 1963. 
P. K. Chakravarti and C. P. Lal, for the appellants. 
K. K. Jain and 0. P. Rana, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Hidayatullah, J. 
The appellants are father and son. 
Tuey 
were prosecuted with one Ramdeo who bas been acquitted by the 
High Court. 
The prosecution case against them is that on the 
evening of June 7. I 962, 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 appel-
lant 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 injuries on the head which were simple. 
The deceased 
never regained consciousnes.~ after he received the blows and died 
in the hospital about I 1 .30 the same night. The occurrence took 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
BAUL v. STATE (Hidayatullah, J.) 
451 
place in this way. 
It appears that Baul, the first appellant, and 
Lurkhur (P.W. I) who are brothers-in-law were at loggerheads 
over a right of way. 
On the day in question Lurkhur was pre-
paring his food near his house and the ·deceased was at a 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 insti-
gated 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 he.ad with their /athies. 
The de-
ceased attempted to run back to his house but fell down near the 
door step. 
The appellants and Ramdeo thereupon retreated. 
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 condi-
tion to the hospital. 
He never regained consciousness Gefore 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 where 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 10 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 (f.W. 3) and his 
report shows that he had " a mutilated" wound ot t"X 1/1 O"X t" 
on the left Side and the head 2t" above the left eye-brow with 
swelling 4"X 4!

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.