That instead of And

[kumar17]

5. Taking us through the evidence and the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the common object of the unlawful assembly to cause the death of deceased Kennedy that the accused acted in furtherance of the common object. It was contended that the appellants should not have been convicted for causing murder of Kennedy with the aid of Section 149 IPC. The learned counsel emphasized that the prosecution has failed to prove existence of common object of the unlawful assembly and that the appellants knew that death of Kennedy was likely to be caused by the unlawful assembly and therefore, the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 IPC with the aid of Section 149 IPC cannot be sustained.

Is the word 'that' used correctly above(in red)?

Shouldn't it be like" ......has failed to prove the common object of the unlawful assembly is to cause the death of deceased Kennedy and the accused acted in furtherance of the common object."?

Context: It is a court judgment.

 

[SoothingDave]

I would read something other than legalese.

This seems badly written. I think the meaning is that they failed to prove that the "common object" of the unlawful assembly was to cause the death of Kennedy. And they also failed to prove that the accused acted "in furtherance of the common object."

 

[GoesStation]

The sentence is not written correctly. It's impossible to guess what the writer was trying to say.

Shouldn't it be like" ......has failed to prove the common object of the unlawful assembly is to cause the death of deceased Kennedy and the accused acted in furtherance of the common object."?

No. That doesn't make sense as a statement about the past. I've underlined two areas with punctuation errors.