JUDGMENT Sapru, J. - This is an application in revision against an order of the learned Sessions Judge of Jhansi confirming the sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment by a learned Magistrate. 2. The prosecution story is that on the 3rd November 1946, at about noon cattle of the applicants were brought in the field of two parsons, Nannhey Lal and Halkey. Halkey turned the cattle out and reprimanded the children who were looking after them. At about 4. p.m. the same day, the three applicants and one Lal Singh came to the Chabutra where Nannhey and Halkey were sitting and gave them a beating with lathis. of this incident no report was lodged that day. The following day, however, at about 11-45 p.m. a written report was filed at the police station Lalitpur. The police started investigation but before anything could come out of that investigational complaint was filed on the 27th of November 1946. The learned Magistrate acquitted Lal Singh and convicted the applicants u/s 325 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to a period of one year. Two other persons were convicted u/s 323 I.P.C. but we have nothing to do with them in this revision. The trial Court had framed a charge u/s 325 read with Section 34 I.P.C. but it came to the finding that Section 34 would not apply as the common intention to inflict injuries could not be presumed. Against that order of the learned Magistrate, there was an appeal to the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge has, while maintaining the conviction, added Section 34 to the charge of which the accused parsons were convicted, namely Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. It has been argued on the basis of Dipa v. Emperor 1947 A.W.R. (H.C.) 271, that inasmuch as there is no evidence in this case to indicate as to which of the accused parsons actually caused the grievous hurt, none of them could be convicted of an offence u/s 325 I.P.C. It may be pointed out that the learned Sessions Judge was of the opinion that the conduced of the applicants showed that there as a pre-arranged plan to beat Halkey and Nannhey. The learned Judges who decided Dipa v. Emperor, however observed that while it may be presumed from the conduct of the several persons striking another with lathi that each of them intended to cause grievous hurt, such a presumption alone was not sufficient to establish the offence of causing grievous hurt against the accused unless it was further shown which accused had actually caused grievous hurt. This Bench decision is binding upon me sitting as a single Judge. I must say that I feel a little difficulty with that decision as I should have thought that common intention meant as intention to commit the crime actually committed and that acts done in pursuance of it made all equally answerable for the result of all the acts done. If there was a pre-arranged plan on the part of all, and a common intention implies it, then each of the persons entertaining such intention would be liable for the acts done in the same manner as if they were done by any one of them alone. If this view is correct, the fact as to which person struck the blew which resulted in grievous hurt would be immaterial for all participating in the beating would be equally guilty, if once it is proved that they were animated by a common intention. The facts of the present case are, however, hardly distinguishable from Dipa v. Emperor and that decision as a bench case is binding upon me. 3. I have come to the conclusion that in view of Dipa v. Emperor, the sentence u/s 325 I.P.C. cannot be maintained. I, therefore, set aside the conviction and sentence u/s 325 and convict them u/s 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence them to three months' rigorous imprisonment. The applicants are on bail and they shall surrender to their bail to serve out the remainder of their sentence.