LAW FOR ALL

Sec.302 I.P.C r/w sec.149 I.P.C converted to Section 304 Part II read with Section 149 of the IPC. - Apex court held that none of the eye witnesses have given specific role to any of the appellants. They have not stated which appellants gave which blow and on which part of the deceased’s body. They have not stated which injury was caused by which accused. The doctor has not stated which injury was fatal. Undoubtedly, the deceased had suffered two fractures and haemotoma under the scalp, but nobody has said that any particular appellant caused these injuries. It bears repetition to state that though sharp cutting weapons i.e. tangies were available, the appellants did not use them. In the peculiar facts of this case, therefore, it is not possible to hold that the appellants shared common object to murder the deceased and in prosecution of that common object they caused his death. It would not be possible to sustain their conviction for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC. It would be just and proper to resort to Section 304 Part II of the IPC and treat the sentence already undergone by them as sentence for the said offence. = BADAL MURMU AND ORS. …APPELLANTS Versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL …RESPONDENT = 2014 ( Feb. part ) judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41201