Madhusudan Rao, J.-This appeal by the State is directed against the acquittal of the three respondents of an offence punishable under section 302 read with 34, Indian Penal Code, in Sessions Cases Nos. 50 and 86 of 1973 on the file of the Sessions Division, Chittoor. 2. The three respondents were tried as accused 1, 2 and 3 on the following charges: “That you the accused 1 to 3 above named on the 9th day of November, 1972 at about 5.30 p.m. on the footpath from Panapakkam to Arigalavaripalle near the arrack shop of you A-1, in Chandragiri taluk in pursuance of the common intention of all of you did commit murder conjointly by intentionally or knowingly causing the death of Marri Munirathnam by A-1 striking the deceased on the right forehead with butcher’s knife and A-2 you striking the deceased on the right side of the head twice with a sword and A-3 of you striking the deceased on the left side of his head and shoulder with a billhook and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 302 read with 34. of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance....”. 3. In support of the charge the prosecution has examined 12 witnesses of whom P.Ws.2 to 5 figured as direct witnesses to the occurrence, P.W.9 is the Medical Officer who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, P.W.11 is the Assistant Sub-Inspector who registered the first information and P.W.12 is the Inspector of Police who investigated into the case. The accused 1 and 3 denied any knowledge of the occurrence. The Second accused pleaded that the deceased, P.W.4 and P.W.3 attempted to hack him to death and that there was some struggle in which he escaped and the blows aimed on him by P.Ws.3 and 4 fell on the deceased. The accused did not examine any witnesses on their behalf but marked Exhibits D-1 to D-15 which are portions of the earlier statements during investigation made by P.Ws.1 to 6. 4. On a consideration of the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the defence plea and accepted the prosecution case. He found that the three accused assaulted the deceased in the manner alleged by the prosecution. 4. On a consideration of the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the defence plea and accepted the prosecution case. He found that the three accused assaulted the deceased in the manner alleged by the prosecution. He, however, held that no intention to kill the deceased can be inferred in so far as the weapons butcher’s knife, long, sword and billhook said to have been used by the accused have not been seized by the police nor produced before the Court. He has further held that in so far as the occurrence took place near the hut of A-1, it cannot be said that the three accused were actuated by any common intention. Holding that the three accused are responsible for their individual acts, he convicted the accused 1 and 3 under section 324, Indian Penal Code, and the second accused under section 326, Indian Penal Code, acquitting all the three of the charge of murder. He sentenced A-1 and A-3 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year each and A-2 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years. 5. None of the three accused filed any appeal against his conviction or sentence. In so far as this appeal by the State is directed only in regard to the acquittal of the offence under section 302 read with 34, Indian Penal Code and as the finding of the trial Court in regard to the truth of the prosecution case is not assailed, it may not be necessary to scrutinise the evidence in regard to the occurrence resulting in the fatal injuries of the deceased; all the same in the light of the result which we propose for this appeal, we deem it expedient to scrutinise the evidence in regard to the alleged incident also. 6. Munirathnam the deceased in this case is a resident of Arigalavaripalle a hamlet of Panapakkam in Chandragiri taluk of Chittoor District. His sister Salemma was married to the brother-in-law of A-1. A-2 and A-3 are the sons of A-1. One Naga Raja, filed a case in the year 1969 against A-2 for assaulting him. The deceased figured as a witness for the prosecution and A-2 was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 75 in that case. His sister Salemma was married to the brother-in-law of A-1. A-2 and A-3 are the sons of A-1. One Naga Raja, filed a case in the year 1969 against A-2 for assaulting him. The deceased figured as a witness for the prosecution and A-2 was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 75 in that case. On account of this grudge, A-1 cut the left ear of the deceased and in a case filed in that connection, A-1 was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months and he served the sentence. In the year 1970 one of the elder brothers of the deceased Ramayya married one Jaya Laxmamma the daughter of P.W.3. About six months before the occurrence in this case, A-2 eloped with the said Jaya Lax mamme. Ramayya is a mild person. The deceased was angry with the accused and was stating that he should see the end of A-2 as he eloped with his sister-in-law. 7. While so, according to the prosecution the deceased and his nephew (P.W.2) were returning from Panapakkam to Arigalavaripalle in the evening of 9th November, 1972. They were proceeding along the foot path which passes through a tamarind tope and by the side of the hut in which A-1 sells arrack, This hut is at a distance of about 100 yards from the Harijanwada of Panapakkam and 2½ furlongs from Arigalavaripalle which is a hamlet of Panapakkam. The hut faces north and the foot path is on the south of the hut P.Ws.3 and 4 were also proceeding from Panapakkam to their village Arigalavaripalle and they were walking a few paces behind the deceased and P.W.2. When the deceased and P.W.1 reached the hut of A-1, the three accused emerged out of the hut and obstructed the deceased saying: “Stop, Where do you go?” All the three accused attacked the deceased with the weapons in their hands. Armed with a butcher’s knife A-1 stood opposite to the deceased. Armed with a billhook A-3 stood to the left of the deceased while A-2 stood behind the deceased armed with a long sword thus surrounding the deceased. A-1 attempted to cut the deceased from in front with the butcher’s knife in his hand and the deceased raised his right hand to ward off the blow which resulted in an injury on the right fore-arm. A-1 attempted to cut the deceased from in front with the butcher’s knife in his hand and the deceased raised his right hand to ward off the blow which resulted in an injury on the right fore-arm. A-3 cut the deceased on the left shoulder and the left side of the head with the billhook in his hand. A-2 cut the deceased twice on his head with the long sword in his hand. On receipt of these bleeding injuries, the deceased fell down. P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 witnessed the occurrence. P.W.5, who was coming behind P.Ws.4, also witnessed the occurrence in its last stage of A-2 cutting the deceased twice with the long sword on the hand of the deceased and the deceased falling down. As soon as the deceased fell down, P.W.2 ran to Arigalavaripalle and informed the deceased’s brothers (P.W. 1) and others that A-1, A-2 and A-3 cut the deceased to death with knives near the arrack shop of A-1 in the tamarind tope. P.W.1 and his brother-in-law Changal Rayudu ran to the scene of occurrence. They found the deceased lying dead in a pool of blood behind the arrack shop of A-I. P.Ws.3, 4 and 5 who were near the dead body, told him that the three accused cut the deceased and ran away. P.W.1 and his brother-in-law Ghangal Rayudu went to the nearby Post Office at Irivesettyvarpalle to send a telephonic message to the police at Chandragiri. As they could not speak on telephone, they gave the information to the Post Master (P.W.6) and requested him to inform the police on their behalf, P.W.6. accordingly informed the Assistant Sub-Insepctor, Chandragiri (P.W.11) on the telephone that the deceased was murdered by A-1 and his two sons A-2 and A-3. 8. It is further the case of the prosecution that the Assistant-Sub-Inspector, Chandragiri (P.W.11) received the telephonic message at about 6.05 P.M. and entered the same under Exhibit P-10 in the general diary. To verify and confirm the information received under Exhibit P-10, he left the police station immediately after informing the Inspector of Police. He reached the scene of occurrence which was by the side of the arrack shop of A-1 and learnt that the message was sent by P.W.1. He thereupon recorded the statement under Exhibits P-1 from P.W.1. To verify and confirm the information received under Exhibit P-10, he left the police station immediately after informing the Inspector of Police. He reached the scene of occurrence which was by the side of the arrack shop of A-1 and learnt that the message was sent by P.W.1. He thereupon recorded the statement under Exhibits P-1 from P.W.1. It was by then 7.45 p.m. The Inspector of Police (P.W.12) came to the scene of occurrence by this time. He examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and others that very night and reduced their statements into writing. Next morning he collected the panchayatdars and held an inquest over the dead body of the deceased from 8 a.m. with P.W.7 as one of the inquestdars. At the inquest he again examined P.Ws.1 to 5 before the inquestdars. He tried to get at the accused even during the night of 9th November, 1972, but none of the accused was available. He could arrest A-1 and A-3 on 18th November, 1972. After completion of the investigation he filed a charge-sheet in May, 1973 against the three accused. As A-2 could not be apprehended even by then and was absconding, the case against A-2 was separated and subsequently after arrest of A-2, the two cases were clubbed and tried jointly. 9. In the light of the evidence of the Doctor (P.W.9) and the seizure of the bloodstained earth from behind the hut of A-1 as also the finding of the dead body in a pool of blood behind the hut of A-1, there can be no doubt whatever that the deceased was done to death with sharp edged instruments by the side of the hut of A-1. There can equally well be no doubt from the evidence of the Post Master (P.W.6) and the evidence of the Assistant Sub-Inspector (P.W.11) that the deceased was done to death by about 5-30 p.m. on 9th November, 1972. The evidence of P.Ws.6 and 11 is lent assurance by the entry in the general diary under Exhibit P-10. 10. The evidence of the four direct witnesses P.Ws.2 to 5 is consistent and they were examined by the Inspector of Police (P.W.12) within a few hours after the occurrence. In the first report (Exhibit P-1) P.W.1 clearly mentioned the names of P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 as witnesses to the Occurrence. 10. The evidence of the four direct witnesses P.Ws.2 to 5 is consistent and they were examined by the Inspector of Police (P.W.12) within a few hours after the occurrence. In the first report (Exhibit P-1) P.W.1 clearly mentioned the names of P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 as witnesses to the Occurrence. The absence of the name of P.W.5 in Exhibit P-1 does not in any way affect the testimony of P.W.5 in so far as what all P.W.1 has stated under Exhibit P-1 is the information given to him by P.W.2 and P.W.2 would not have seen P.W.5 as P.W.5 reached the scene just when P.W.2 ran towards his village from the scene of occurrence. 11. In so far as the deceased Was admittedly inimical towards A-2 and was proclaiming that he would see the end of A-2, there is every motive for the three accused to harm the deceased. Even in the telephonic message sent within about half an hour after the occurrence, it was clearly mentioned that A-1, A-2 and A-3 cut the deceased to death. The plea of A-2 that the deceased was cut to death by P.Ws.3 and 4 accidentally while they attempted to kill him (A-2) is indeed fantastic and there is not even a fraction or farthing of evidence in support of this plea. Even if such an absurdity of P.Ws.3 and 4 stabbing their own man occurred, it would be impossible for A-2 to be left even without a scratch when as pleaded by him the deceased, P.Ws.3 and 4 attempted to attack him with dangerous weapons. Under the circumstances we have no hesitation to agree with the conclusion of the learned trial Judge who has seen and heard the witnesses that the three accused cut the deceased to death in the evening of 9th November, 1972 as spoken to by P.Ws.2 to 5. The only question for decision in this appeal as already observed is whether under the circumstances proved by the prosecution, the three accused can be held liable for the offence of murder punishable under section 302 read with 34, Indian Penal Code. 12. The only question for decision in this appeal as already observed is whether under the circumstances proved by the prosecution, the three accused can be held liable for the offence of murder punishable under section 302 read with 34, Indian Penal Code. 12. In acquitting the three accused of the charges of murder, the learned trial Judge observed as follows: "With regard to the weapons used by the accused though the evidence of direct witnesses is to the effect that they are lethal weapons like the butcher’s knife, long sword and billhook, they are not seized as they could not be seized by the police and hence they are not before the Court. Considering the nature of the injuries and the medical evidence even lighter weapons can cause those injuries. On accepting their testimony even though I came to the conclusion that the deceased sustained as many as five injuries of which two are likely to cause death in the absence of the weapons it may not be possible to come to the conclusion that the accused wielded heavy lethal weapons....I am unable to come to the conclusion that the accused with a pre-plan were lying in wait for the deceased to pass that way. It is not shown that the accused knew about the movements of the deceased. The fact remains that there is a hut belonging to A-1. The fact remains that the accused were present near the hut only which is a circumstance in their favour. From the evidence it may be gathered that the deceased and his relations were in hot pursuit of A-2 and it is quite likely that on learning about the presence of A-1 the deceased and P.Ws.3, 4 and 5 might have gone there. Having regard to these factors even though I come to the definite conclusion that the deceased sustained the injuries at the hands of the accused, I am unable to hold that they shared the common intention of murdering the deceased. In a case like this, the person that takes part in the occurrence will be responsible for his individual overt acts and hence one of the accused would be individually liable for whatever injury he caused, but not vicariously for the act of any other. It is evident that injury No.1 as per Exhibit P.9 post-mortem certificate which is attributed to A-1 is a simple one. It is evident that injury No.1 as per Exhibit P.9 post-mortem certificate which is attributed to A-1 is a simple one. The injuries that are attributed to A-3 are injuries 2 and 3. Injury No. 2 is an abrasion and a simple one. Injury No. 3 which is a cut injury on the left zygoma did not cause fracture of the bone underneath but the doctor described it as grievous because it disfigured the face. This injury attributed to A-3 being technically a grievous one as described by the doctor he should get benefit and be held liable for lessor offence. The fatal injuries 4 and 5 which ere grievous in nature are attributed to A-2 . Taking into consideration the relevant circumstances, the nature of the injuries, the seat of the injuries, I hold that A-1 and A-3 committed offence punishable under section 324, Indian Penal Code and A-2 committed an offence under section 326, Indian Penal Code and convict them thereunder..............". 13. The above extracted reasoning of the learned Sessions Judge is highly strained and wholly erroneous if not positively perverse. Even though he believed the evidence of the four direct witnesses and all the four witnesses have categorically stated that A-1 was armed with a butcher’s knife, A-2 with a long sword and A-3 with a bill-hook, he imagines that the weapons are not heavy lethal weapons. No doubt in any particular case where the alleged weapons of offences are not produced before the Court, it is open to the Court to infer that there is an element of exaggeration in the evidence of the witnesses in regard to the weapons used in an occurrence, but such inference can be made only judiciously for valid reason. In the absence of reasonable material, it would not be proper to suppose a billet for a bill-hook or a pen-knife for a butcher’s knife. It is not the case of the accused or the prosecution that the weapons used by the accused were not of the normal size. The Doctor (P.W.9) has clearly stated that four out of the five injuries of the deceased ‘might have been caused by any cutting instrument such as a bill-hook, butcher’s knife or sword’. It is not the case of the accused or the prosecution that the weapons used by the accused were not of the normal size. The Doctor (P.W.9) has clearly stated that four out of the five injuries of the deceased ‘might have been caused by any cutting instrument such as a bill-hook, butcher’s knife or sword’. When the witnesses have deposed that a bill-hook and butcher’s knife were used, and the Court; believes the witnesses, it is not proper for the Court to surmise that the bill-hook and the butcher’s knife are not of normal size, merely because they were not seized and produced before the Court; the long sword spoken to by the witnesses cannot become a short sword just because it could not have been seized by the police nor produced before the Court. The circumstances of the occurrence having taken place near the hut of the accused is considered by the learned Judge as a circumstance in favour of the accused. We are unable to understand the soundness of this view. In judging the culpability of A-3, the learned Judge says that though A-3 attacked the deceased with a bill-hook and caused a grievous injury, he is guilty only of an offence under section 324, Indian Penal Code, because the injury caused by him ‘is technically a grievous hurt’. Though he finds that A-2 caused the two fatal injuries each of which is by itself sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, he holds him liable for on offence under section 326, Indian Penal Code. 14. Common intention contemplated in section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, certainly contemplates a pre-plan or pre meeting of the minds of the perpetrators of the crime. An intention to commit a particular crime, if shared by more persons than one and if one of such persons commits the intended offence, the others who share the common intention will also be liable for the offence committed. If there is common intention to commit murder although the actual fatal blow is given only by one of the confederates, the others who shared that intention would also be liable even though their acts did not result in death. The pre-plan or pre-meeting of the minds before the commission of the offence need not be preceded by any particular length of time. The pre-plan or pre-meeting of the minds before the commission of the offence need not be preceded by any particular length of time. Common intention can be developed any time even a few minutes before the actual commission of the crime. The existence or otherwise of common intention to commit a particular crime has to be decided on the facts of each case and the commonness or otherwise of the intention has to be inferred not merely by the consequences of the acts but also by a reference to the motive which actuated the offenders, the weapons with which they were armed, the manner of their attack, the individual acts and the attitude of the others with regard to the individual acts. The facts spoken to by P.Ws.1 to 5 and found to have been proved both by the trial Court and this Court leave no doubt whatever that the three accused attacked the deceased with deadly weapons having been actuated by a common intention to kill the deceased. The evidence discloses that by the time of the occurrence there was bitter enmity between A-2 and the deceased: A-1 is the father of A-2 while A-3 is A-2’s brother. The deceased was proceeding along the foot-path by the side of the accused’s hut. As can be seen from the sketch (Exhibit P-12) the foot path from the- Harijanwada of Panapakkam is through the open fields and through the tope in which is the hut of the accused situated. In so far as the evidence is consistent that when the deceased and P.W.2 reached the hut of the accused, all the three accused emerged out of the hut armed with deadly weapons, surrounded the deceased and together cut the deceased to death, there can be little doubt that the three accused way laid the deceased on noticing his coming from Panapakkam when he was yet to reach the hut. P.W.2 who was accompanying the deceased states in his cross-examination. “None of the accused caught hold of the deceased but they obstructed him. A-1 stood opposite to the deceased. A-3 stood to the left of the deceased whereas A-2 stood on the back side of the deceased. As soon as they surrounded, they attacked the deceased and cut him.” 15. P.W.2 who was accompanying the deceased states in his cross-examination. “None of the accused caught hold of the deceased but they obstructed him. A-1 stood opposite to the deceased. A-3 stood to the left of the deceased whereas A-2 stood on the back side of the deceased. As soon as they surrounded, they attacked the deceased and cut him.” 15. Out of the five injuries received by the deceased, one is grievous and each of the two other injuries is by itself sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death as stated by the Doctor (P.W.9). The mere fact that the blow aimed by A-1 was warded off and the same resulted in a simple injury on the right hand of the deceased, does not in any way militate against the culpability of A-1 nor can the culpability of A-3 be minimised just because the injury infected by him by itself did not prove fatal. The deceased was unarmed and defenceless. The conjoint and concerted attack of the three accused deliberately armed with lethal weapons and the consequences of their attack coupled with their motive, unmistakably indicate that all the three accused were actuated by a common intention to kill the deceased. 16. For the reasons recorded we find the three accused guilty of the charge framed against them and accordingly set aside the order of acquittal; convicting the three accused for an offence punishable under section 302 read with 34, Indian Penal Code, instead of the offences for which they have been convicted by the trial Court, we sentence each of the three accused to suffer imprisonment for life. In the result the appeal is allowed.