In this case, the two accused were indicted with the offence of murder. Both accused denied the accusations.
The prosecution had to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, that, death occurred. That death was caused by some unlawful act. That the act was actuated by malice aforethought and that the accused caused the death.
Death was proved by proof of the post mortem report which was admitted during hearing. This was corroborated by evidence of identification of the deceased’s body at the scene. Proof of the unlawful act was proved by evidence of the witness who conducted the autopsy, as hypovolemic shock with sepsis caused by the perforation of the gut.
Thirdly the prosecution had to prove malice aforethought. Evidence that the stick used in assaulting the deceased was of the size of the fore arm of an adult and about a meter long, which was held to be deadly weapon. Court also took into account the part of the body that was targeted and the ferocity with which the weapon was used.
In proving whether each of the accused participated in the commission of the offence, the dying declaration and evidence of witnesses who heard and saw the deceased being attacked and also saw A2 running away were considered. Court found that the prosecution had proved its case against A2 successfully but failed to prove that A1 participated in the assault.