NENU Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is second application u/s 439 Cr. P.C. for grant of bail. The earlier application was rejected on 12.11.1992, and, liberty was given to the petitioners to move fresh application after the statement of the doctor is recorded. The statement of the doctor Liladhar has been recorded in the trial court, and, as such, the petitioners have approached to this Court.

(2.) The only contention raised by the petitioners counsel is that, from the statement of the doctor, it is clear that the deceased Joga had sustained three injuries, out of which, only one injury was caused by a blunt object. Counsel argued that as was the prosecution case, both of the accused petitioners inflicted one blow each with a lathe on the head of the deceased and this fact is not corroborated by the medical evidence.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the criminal liability of the petitioner can be with the aid of section 34 I.P.C. as all of them came together and it makes no different if it is not ascertained as to which of the two petitioners caused injury by a blunt object on the head of the deceased.