Summary
Acquittal of co-accused on benefit of doubt did not require acquittal of an appellant whose individual participation in a fatal sword assault was established by reliable eyewitness evidence and corroborating circumstances. His conviction for murder simpliciter was sustained on evidence that he struck the first blow and continued the assault.
Issues
- Whether acquittal of co-accused undermined the appellant’s conviction for murder despite direct evidence of his individual participation.
- Whether failure to identify the precise injury caused by the appellant defeated the prosecution case.
Held
- The acquittals of other accused did not automatically entitle the appellant to acquittal. Otherwise reliable and unshaken evidence of his complicity could not be discarded solely on that ground. (¶¶ 7, 12–13)
- The injured eyewitness and an independent eyewitness consistently identified the appellant as delivering the first sword blow to the deceased’s head. Their evidence, together with the proved recovery of a sword at his instance, supported the finding of guilt. (¶¶ 8–9, 12)
- The medical evidence established death from multiple injuries and shock resulting from multiple fractures. Evidence that the appellant delivered the first blow and continued the assault was sufficient in these circumstances despite the objection that a particular injury had not been attributed to him. The authorities relied upon involved failure of substantive proof and were distinguishable. (¶ 10–11)
Result
Appeal dismissed; conviction under Section 302 IPC simpliciter upheld. Bail bond cancelled.