Judgment :- 1. Criminal Appeal No. 224 of 1967 is an appeal filed through Advocate by the two accused persons in S. C. No. 14 of 1967, Sessions Court, Trichur. The two remaining appeals are separate jail appeals filed by them. They were convicted under S.302 read along with S.34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Their plea was one of not guilty to the charges framed against them under those sections in that at or about 8.30 P. M. on 30-12-1966 at the Chiyyaram Toddy Shop and at places near it on the Trichur-Ernakulam trunk road within the jurisdiction of the Ollur Police Station in furtherance of a common intention entertained by them they murdered one Alibaba alias Jose by beating him with the crow-bar, M.O.I. 2. The first appellant entertained a grudge against Jose as on the date of the occurrence in the afternoon he broke the glass panels of an almirah inside the first appellant's tea shop. There was a wordy quarrel between them after that incident. The first appellant was at that time pacified by pw. 10, who was then in the tea shop by undertaking to compensate the 1st appellant for the loss he sustained. Even after that the first appellant continued to entertain revenge against Jose. 3. When Jose was inside the Chiyyaram toddy shop with pw. 2 for the purpose of taking toddy the first appellant came there. pw. 4 and the second appellant were at that time on the road on the northern side of the toddy shop. After coming to the toddy shop the first appellant struck Jose on his left shoulder with M. 0.1. Jose cried aloud, came out to the road on the northern side and after going east through it ran north through Trichur-Ernakulam trunk road which lies on the eastern side of the toddy shop. When he got out of the toddy shop the appellants pursued Jose. The second appellant succeeded in getting hold of Jose. At that time; the first appellant with M. 0.1 struck Jose on his chest and head. Jose caught hold of M. 0.1. He did not leave his hold on it inspite of demands made for that purpose by the second appellent. At that time the second appellant took a stone front; the side of the road and hit Jose with it on his forehead. Jose caught hold of M. 0.1. He did not leave his hold on it inspite of demands made for that purpose by the second appellent. At that time the second appellant took a stone front; the side of the road and hit Jose with it on his forehead. Then Jose let loose his grip on M. 0.1 and ran north. The appellants then also pursued him When they came near Jose, the second appellant caught hold of Jose and after taking M. 0.1 from the hands of the first appellant struck Jose on his head with it. Jose walked some distance and then fell down on the road. Then the appellants fled from the place. 4. pw. 10, who had along with Jose consumed toddy from another shop-some time before the occurrence on the same day, coming to know about the occurrence in this case went to the Ollur Police Station and reported about the matter to pw. 25 the Sub Inspector of that Police Station. As pw. 25 was not able to get from pw. 10 all the necessary information for registering a case pw. 25 made the entry, Ext. P18(a), in the general diary and proceeded to the scene of occurrence. After coming to the scene pw 25 got Jose removed to the Trichur District Hospital. pw. 5, an Assistant Surgeon in the Hospital, in examining Jose found that he had died. At 11 P. M. that day pw.1 who came to the hospital gave the 1st information statement, Ext. P1 to pw 25 who was then there. On the basis of it a case was registered against the accused and the first appellant was arrested on 1-1-1967 and the second appellant on the next day. After due investigation, charge was laid before court. 5. In the courts of preliminary enquiry and trial the appellants only stated that they had nothing to do with the crime and that the evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution was not reliable. They did not examine any witness in their behalf. 6. It admits of no doubt and was not disputed on behalf of the appellants that Jose died as a result of the injuries he sustained at the time of the occurrence. Exts. P2 and P4 are respectively the inquest report and the post-mortem certificate. 17 external injuries are noted in Ext. P4. 6. It admits of no doubt and was not disputed on behalf of the appellants that Jose died as a result of the injuries he sustained at the time of the occurrence. Exts. P2 and P4 are respectively the inquest report and the post-mortem certificate. 17 external injuries are noted in Ext. P4. Of them three are contused lacerated wounds, one 3" x 1/2" x 1/2", 2' above the inner end of the left eyebrow with the skull bone seen through the lower 1/2, another 4" x 1/2" x 1/2" above the upper end of the nose with a linear crack in the skull bone seen through the wound and the last one 1/4" x 1/4" bone-deep above the right eyebrow. Three of the injuries noted in Ext P4 are only marks. The remaining injuries, are only abrasions. They are on the nose, left nipple, left collar bone, left scapula, left upper arm, right knee, right leg, right elbow, sacrum, right ear, and left scapula. On internal examination clotted blood was seen over an area 4" x 3" deep in between the contused lacerated wounds above the left eye-brow and the nose. Fissured irregular linear longitudinal crack of the skull was seen running near the left superior orbital margin. Pericranium was lined with small clots in the frontal region. Maneges were congested and haemorrhaged. The duramater was found ruptured over an area 3"x 21/2" over the base and lateral aspect of the left frontal lobe of brain Blood clots were seen over an area 2" x 11/2" in the posterolateral aspect of left side of cerebellum. On dissection brain was found highly congested and haemorrhaged. The fissured crack seen in the vault of the skull was seen continuous with a crack of the base of the skull running obliquely from the left superior orbital margin up to the putuitory fossa. The cause of death was coma as a result of the injuries to the brain matter due to the fracture of the base and vault of the skull. According to pw. 16, the doctor who conducted autopsy the contused lacerated wounds on the left eye-brow and above the upper end of the nose were fatal injuries. 7. We now pass on to consider whether it was the appellants who caused the death of Jose by striking him with M. 0.1. The occurrence witnesses are pws.1 to 7. According to pw. 16, the doctor who conducted autopsy the contused lacerated wounds on the left eye-brow and above the upper end of the nose were fatal injuries. 7. We now pass on to consider whether it was the appellants who caused the death of Jose by striking him with M. 0.1. The occurrence witnesses are pws.1 to 7. pw.1 is a curry vendor in the toddy shop. When Jose came to the shop pw. 2 was there already. At the request of Jose pw. 2 agreed to purchase one bottle of toddy for Jose. It was when pw.1 was going to bring a bottle of toddy at the request of pw. 2 that the first appellant suddenly came to the shop with M. 0.1 and with it struck Jose on his head. pw. 3 was also then inside the shop. pw. 4 was then standing about 30 feet away on the road on the northern side. As soon as he was struck with M. 0.1 Jose ran out of the shop. When he was running through the road the second appellant who was then on the road near pw. 4 pursued Jose The 1st appellant also pursued him. When they were running north through the road on the eastern side of the toddy shop pws. 5 and 6 were coming from the opposite side. pw. 7 is a 16 year old boy. His father was a curry vendor in the Chiyyaram Toddy shop. It was usual for him to visit that shop. pws. 4 and 7 witnessed the incident which took place both inside the toddy shop and outside it on the road. But pws.1 to 3 witnessed only the incident which took place inside the toddy shop and pws. 5 and 6 only the incident on the road. The whole case set out by the prosecution has been brought out in the evidence of pws.1 to 7. 8. The criticisms levelled against the evidence of pws.1 to 7 can now be considered. It is true that in me committal court pw.1 said that he and pws. 2 and 3 were friends of Jose. That does not mean that pws.1 to 3 were inimically disposed towards the appellants. No doubt, pw. 7 said at first that he did not see any harm being caused to Jose and was declared hostile. It is true that in me committal court pw.1 said that he and pws. 2 and 3 were friends of Jose. That does not mean that pws.1 to 3 were inimically disposed towards the appellants. No doubt, pw. 7 said at first that he did not see any harm being caused to Jose and was declared hostile. But later on in his evidence he spoke to having seen the entire incident. The first statement that he did not see any harm being caused to Jose could only have been the result of a mis-apprehension regarding the scope of the question put to him His evidence has to be read as a whole. Further, his evidence is corroborated by that of the other occurrence witnesses. There is no contradiction on any material matter in the evidence of pws.1 to 7. 9. According to the appellants there was no motive for the crime. The evidence of P. Ws 8 and 10 who were near Jose when he went to the first appellant's tea shop at or about 3.30 P. M. on the date of occurrence shows that there was an altercation between Jose and the first appellant when Jose happened to break the glass panels of an almirah in the shop and that at that time P. W 10 pacified the first appellant by agreeing to compensate him for the loss sustained by him. In spite of P. W.10 agreeing to compensate the first appellant for the loss he sustained the first appellant may not have completely got over his feeling of revenge against Jose. Therefore it cannot be said that there was no motive for the occurrence. 10. On the road the second appellant caught hold of the shirt, M. 0.6, worn by Jose. It was torn. M. 0.1 was recovered pursuant to information given by the first appellant. Human blood was detected on it by the chemical examiner. The circumstances brought out in the case corroborate the evidence of the occurrence witnesses. It was the appellants who caused Jose's death by striking him with M. 0.1 as alleged by the prosecution. 11. The nature of M. O 1 and the nature of the wounds inflicted leave no room for doubt that it was with the intention of causing Jose's death that those injuries were inflicted. 12. It was the appellants who caused Jose's death by striking him with M. 0.1 as alleged by the prosecution. 11. The nature of M. O 1 and the nature of the wounds inflicted leave no room for doubt that it was with the intention of causing Jose's death that those injuries were inflicted. 12. The fatal injuries sustained by Jose were the contused lacerated wounds above the inner end of the left eyebrow and above the upper end of the nose. There is no clear evidence as to which of the appellants was responsible for inflicting each of them. But it is clear from the evidence that they together were responsible for the same. In such circumstances each of the appellants would be liable for murder once it is found that they acted in furtherance of a common intention. 13. For attracting S.34 of the I. P. C. it is necessary that the general intention should be shared by all the persons concerned in the commission of the offence. In Bharwad Mepa v. State of Bombay (1960) 2 S. C. R.172 the Supreme Court said: "the Section is intended to meet a case in which it may be difficult to distinguish between the acts of individual members of a party who act in furtherance of the common intention of all or to prove exactly what part was taken by each of them. The principle which the section, embodies is participation in some action with the common intention of committing"a crime; once participation is established. S.34 is at once attracted." It is well-established that common intention presupposes prior concert and a prearranged plan, that the plan need not be elaborate and that it could arise even all on a sudden. The existence of prior concert has to be ascertained from the facts and circumstances of. each case. Generally can be said that the conduct preceding the commission of the offence, the nature of the injuries, the manner of inflicting them, the seat of the injuries, the conspiracy before the commission of offence and the subsequent conduct like the running away together by the persons who committed the crime are some of the relevant matters which have to be taken into consideration for finding whether there was really a common intention. In the instant case, it was on a bicycle, that Jose came to the toddy shop. In the instant case, it was on a bicycle, that Jose came to the toddy shop. Before entering the shop he placed it on the side of the road. When the first appellant entered the shop the second appellant who was standing on the road near the shop removed it from the place where it was kept by Jose to another place. These facts are clear from the evidence of P. Ws 1, 4 and 7. It was for purpose of preventing Jose from escaping from the place after the attack on him by the 1st appellant that the bicycle was removed by the second appellant from the place where it was placed by Jose. When Jose was running along the road both the appellants pursued him. It was the second appellant who caught hold of Jose. He caught hold of him twice. On the first occasion when Jose was in the grips of the second appellant the first appellant struck Jose with M. 0.1 On the second occasion the second appellant took M. 0.1 from the first appellant and with it struck Jose. The attack with M 0.1 by both the appellants against Jose when he was on the road was directed against his head. The acts of the appellants ultimately resulted in the death of Jose. These facts unmistakably point to the appellants having performed the acts in furtherance of the common intention that they had namely, to kill Jose. The learned Sessions Judge rightly convicted both the appellants under S.302 read along with S.34 of I. P. C. 14. Of the two fatal injuries the second appellant was responsible only for one. The injuries other than the three contused lacerated wounds were trivial. The sentence awarded is proper. 15. In the result, the conviction and sentence against the appellants are confirmed and these appeals dismissed. Dismissed.