Short Note : 1. The Additional Sessions Judge, Sidhi, in Sessions Trial No.87 of 1974, finding the accused-appellants guilty of offence punishable under section 304 (I) read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, has sentenced each of them to rigorous imprisonment for seven years. In addition, he, finding the accused-appellant Mohara guilty of offence punishable under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code has sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for three months with a direction for this sentence to run concurrently with the sentence awarded for offence punishable under section 304 (I) of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants dissatisfied both with their conviction and sentence have preferred this appeal. Held: Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act lays down that "no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact." It is the quality, and not the number of witnesses, which leads a Court either to believe that the fact alleged exists or makes its existence so probable that a reasonable and prudent man, under the surrounding circumstances of the particular case, would be led to believe that it exists. This is particularly so in the instant case because Ramji (PW 1) alone was wish his father the late Banshmani when he was brutally assaulted with fatal result, and he himself being a victim of assault. There is no reason to disbelieve him. Merely his being the son of the late Banshmani is not enough to discard his testimony altogether. It is however the rule of caution, only with a view to ascertaining that the case has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt, uninfluenced by the bias which relationship may easily prompt, that the corroboration of his testimony is desirable. The necessary corroboration is there in the evidence of the witnesses Bhuwal (PW 2) and Bishale (PW 3) who are only distantly related to the deceased about their having seen the appellants running away from the scene of crime. 2. The evidence of Ramji (PW 1) contained in paragraph 2 is to the effect that they had gone to their field only to avoid water of their field overflowing into the appellant Mohara's field. His evidence further is that for that purpose his father (the late Banshmani) had carried a torch with him. 2. The evidence of Ramji (PW 1) contained in paragraph 2 is to the effect that they had gone to their field only to avoid water of their field overflowing into the appellant Mohara's field. His evidence further is that for that purpose his father (the late Banshmani) had carried a torch with him. There is no evidence that either Ramji (PW1) or his late father had cut the embankment so as to make water collected in their own field to overflow into that of the appellant Mohara. There is, therefore, no evidence to conclude that the late Bansmani or Ramji (PW1) were engaged in committing mischief. It appears that the appellants without ascertaining whether the deceased and his son were is fact responsible for making rain water overflow into their field, simply pretended to suspect them to have done so without realizing that it had been raining throughout the day and the water collected in their own field was not attributable at all to any act of either the deceased or his son Ramji (PW1). In these circumstances, the right of defence of their property was not available to the Appellants. 3. There is clear evidence that all the three appellants; two of them armed with lathis, and the one armed with a spear (which could as well be used again as a hard and blunt object) had come running to the scene of crime, all of them had participated in dealing blows on Banshmani ultimately proving fatal. They in these circumstances can well be presumed to have intended the natural consequence, not only of their own acts but also the acts of their associates. When a combination of more than one person has assumed dangerous proportions and a person none the less, without dissociating himself, or retiring, from that combination continues to be a constituent member of that combination by actually participating in all the acts of that combination, and certain consequences follow, he is just as guilty for them as other members of that combination. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that all the three appellants were responsible for the criminal acts of each other, but that in the peculiar circumstances of the case, though it was not a case of crime punishable under section 302IPC, it was one punishable under section 304 former clause IPC. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that all the three appellants were responsible for the criminal acts of each other, but that in the peculiar circumstances of the case, though it was not a case of crime punishable under section 302IPC, it was one punishable under section 304 former clause IPC. From the evidence tendered in the case, clearly the acts of the appellants were such as an intention of causing such bodily injuries as were likely to cause Banshmani's death could be presumed. Each of the appellants had been rightly found guilty of crime punishable under section 304 former clause IPC, with the help of section 34 IPC. The term of imprisonment awarded also is not harsh. Appeal dismissed.