JUDGMENT 1. -Munsiff Magistrate No. 1, Kota, convicted accused Ganpat of offences under section 324 and 148, Indian Penal Code and the remaining six accused of the offence under section 324/149, Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge on appeal, acquitted four of the other accused & altered the conviction of petitioners Shambhoonath, Ganpat and Suraj Nath to an offence under section 324/34, Indian Penal Code. He sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for months and fine of Rs. 100/-. In default of payment of fine, they were ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one month. The three accused have now approached this Court for a revision of the judgement of the Sessions Judge. The allegation against the accused was that they beat Saddiq P.W. 1 on December 8, 1967, at about 8 p.m., when he went to their field to find out why the flow of water in his field had been stopped, and that the accused also heat Abdul Razag P.W.4 when he reached there on hearing the cries of Saddiq. Some of the injuries were found to be incised wounds, and the accused have been tried and convicted as aforesaid. 2. An examination of the impugned judgement shows that the learned Sessions Judge arrived at the conclusion that there was no common intention in so far as the four acquitted accused were concerned, and he also held that there was no common object so as to attract the application of section 149, Indian Penal Code. I therefore, wanted to look into his judgement to find out whether he was recorded finding that the present petitioners had the common intention of inflicting the injuries for which they were challaned after investigation. Learned Public Prosecutor, however, frankly conceded that there was no such finding. It is well settled that Section 34, Indian Penal Code is attracted to a case where there is evidence show that there was a prior meeting of the minds of the accused, anterior in time to the commission of the offence. Learned Public Prosecutor was therefore asked whether there was any such evidence on the record of this case. He frankly conceded that there was no such evidence. Learned Public Prosecutor was therefore asked whether there was any such evidence on the record of this case. He frankly conceded that there was no such evidence. It will be recalled that the alleged incidents is said to have taken place in the land belonging to the accused, where complainant Saddiq is alleged to have gone to find out the cause for the stoppage of the water. It cannot therefore be said that there was any occasion for the accused to form the common intention of causing an injury, under a pre-arranged plan. As has been held in Mahbub Shah v. Emperor, AIR 1945 PC 118 , an inference of common intention within the meaning of the term in section 34, Indian Penal Code should never be reached unless it is a necessary inference deducible from the circumstance of the case. It must therefore be held that as there is no evidence, direct or circumstantial, to prove the prior meeting of the minds of the accused, it was not permissible for the learned Judge of the lower appellate court to convict the present petitioners of the offence under section 324, read with section 34, Indian Penal Code. As has been stated, he has in fact not recorded a finding to the effect that there was any prior meeting of the minds of the accused, and I have no doubt that it was not permissible for him to take resort to section 34, Indian Penal Code. 3. The question then is whether there is satisfactory evidence to prove that the three petitioners are guilty of committing the offence of causing injuries to Saddiq P.W. 1 and Abdul Razaq P.W.4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that it is not open for this court to undertake any such examination because the petitioners were not charged, and were not aware that they were being tried, for the offence of inflicting any particular injury to any particular person or persons. In support of this argument, the learned counsel has placed reliance on Nanak Chand v. State of Punjab, AIR 1955 SC 274 and Suraj Pal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1955 SC 419 . In support of this argument, the learned counsel has placed reliance on Nanak Chand v. State of Punjab, AIR 1955 SC 274 and Suraj Pal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1955 SC 419 . He has further pointed out that Willie (William) Slaney v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1956 (116) , on which reliance has been placed by learned Public Prosecutor was a different case where the charge was in respect of the murder of a particular person by the accused. It will be sufficient to say, however, that even if it is assumed that it is permissible for this court, in the facts and circumstances of this case, to hold the present petitioners, or any of them guilty of causing specific injuries to Saddiq P.W.1 and Abdul Razaq P.W.4 there is no satisfactory evidence on the record to warrant their conviction even on that basis. The learned Public Prosecutor has, in this connection, placed reliance on the statements of Saddiq P.W.1, Ali Mohammed P.W.2, Abdul Razaq P.W.4, Kallu Khan P.W.5 and Suknuddin P.W. 8. Saddiq. Saddiq P.W.1 has stated, inter alia that accused Ganpat beat him with a 'parania' at the back, with a 'khanita' on the hand, and with an axe on the back. No injury has, however, been found by the medical officer on the back of Saddiq by a sharp edged weapon. Moreover, it is difficult to believe that Ganpat would go on changing the weapon for inflicting the injuries. Ali Mohammed P.W.2 has stated that accused Ganpat did not have any weapon in his hand, and that the 'parania' was with accused Shambhoonath. He has not made a reference to 'khanta' or axe referred to by Saddiq P.W.1. I have also examined the statement of Abdul Raziq P.W.4. He has stated that Saddiq received injury with the axe, on the head, out no such injury has been found on medical examination. As regards himself Abdul Raziq has stated that he was injured by Suraj Nath, but he has not stated where that injury was inflicted, and of what nature. The witness has stated that Shambhoo Nath inflicted an injury with 'parania', but he has again not stated where that injury was inflicted. Kallu Khan P.W. 5 has stated that he reached the place of incident just after the occurrence,and his statement is not really of any importance. The witness has stated that Shambhoo Nath inflicted an injury with 'parania', but he has again not stated where that injury was inflicted. Kallu Khan P.W. 5 has stated that he reached the place of incident just after the occurrence,and his statement is not really of any importance. Sukhuddin P.W. 8 has stated that accused Shambhoonath beat with a 'parania'. He has however not given any details about the beating. He has further stated that accused Ganpat hit Abdul Razaq P.W.4 with an axe, but as has been stated, even the statement of Abdul Razaq P.W. 4 is unreliable. It would thus appear that there are numerous discrepancies, amounting to contradictions in material particulars, in the statements of the five prosecution witnesses on whom reliance has been placed by learned Public Prosecutor, and it is not possible for me to alter the conviction of the present petitioners from the offence under section 324/34 to any specific offence without resort to section 34, Indian Penal Code. 4. It would thus appear that there is no evidence to justify the conviction of the accused for the offence under section 324/34, Indian Penal Code. The revision petition is allowed, the conviction of the petitioners for the offence under section 324/34, Indian Penal Code and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, are set aside and they are acquitted. Their bail bonds, are discharged and they need not surrender. Fine, if recovered, may be remitted. *******