BEHERA, J. ( 1 ) THE two appellants stood charged under S. 302 of the Penal Code (for short, the 'code') for having intentionally committed the murder of Dhobulu Khora (hereinafter described as the 'deceased'), their co-villager, with whom they had strained relationship, at about supper-time on March 22, 1981, at village Machhara in the district of Koraput. The case of the prosecution was that while the deceased had come out of his house, the appellant Domu Chopadi having a piece of stone (M. O. II) and the other appellant Madan Majhi being armed with an axe (M. O. I) suddenly attacked the deceased and while Domu Chopadi threw the piece of stone at the deceased and hit him, the other appellant jumped over the fence and dealt two strokes on the left side of the neck of the deceased by means of M. O. I which resulted in his death. The order of conviction has been based mainly on the evidence of four witnesses to the occurrence, namely, P. Ws. 2 and 4 to 6. Of them, P. W. 6 is the widow of the deceased. Accepting the case of the prosecution, the two appellants have been convicted under S. 302 read with S. 34 of the Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. ( 2 ) IT has been urged on behalf of the appellants, that the order of conviction recorded against them cannot be sustained. Mr. A. Rath, the learned Additional Standing Counsel, has submitted that the appellant Madan Majhi should appropriately be convicted under S. 302 of the Code for having committed the murder of the deceased. He has fairly submitted that there is paucity of Evidence to connect the other appellant with the commission of the offence. ( 3 ) ON a perusal of the evidence of P. Ws. 2 4, 5 and 6, who are natural and competent persons who could witness the occurrence being at a short distance from the appellants and the deceased in a moonlit night, we notice no infirmity in their evidence. Each of them has given a clear and consistent version that the appellant Madan dealt two successive blows by means of an axe on the neck of the deceased. Each of them has given a clear and consistent version that the appellant Madan dealt two successive blows by means of an axe on the neck of the deceased. Their evidence finds assurance from the evidence of the doctor (P. W. 3) who had conducted the autopsy and had noticed two external wounds causing severe internal injuries which could be caused by M. O. I and as his evidence would clearly indicate, the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of the deceased. In the course of investigation, the Lungi (M. O. III) had been seized from the person of the appellant with stains of blood and on chemical and serological test, human blood was detected in it. The axe (M. O. I) had been recovered from the house of the appellant Madan during the investigation and on chemical and serological test, human blood of 'b' group was detected therein. The banian of the deceased, on chemical and serological test, also contained human blood of 'b' group. These are telling circumstances in support of the version of the witnesses to the occurrence. Agreeing with the trial Court, we hold that the appellant Madan had committed the murder of the deceased by means of M. O. I by attacking him on vital parts with a dangerous instrument evidently with the intention of causing his death and causing injuries sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He is liable to be convicted under S. 302 of the Code. ( 4 ) COMING to the case against the other appellant, the allegation against him was that he had hurled M. O. II at the deceased. In the first information report lodged by P. W. 1 who had gone to the police station after hearing about the incident from the witnesses to the occurrence, no allegation had been made against the appellant Domu that he had hurled a piece of stone at the deceased. P. Ws. 4 and 6 have not stated about it. P. W. 2 had not stated about this in his examination-in-chief, but he had blurted out a statement in this regard while under cross-examination. The stone (M. O. II) seized from the spot had not been sent for chemical examination. P. Ws. 4 and 6 have not stated about it. P. W. 2 had not stated about this in his examination-in-chief, but he had blurted out a statement in this regard while under cross-examination. The stone (M. O. II) seized from the spot had not been sent for chemical examination. The doctor, who had conducted the autopsy, had noticed no injury on the person of the deceased which could be caused by a stone. ( 5 ) THERE is some evidence that this appellant Domu had come with the other appellant and had gone away with him from the spot. But from these circumstances, a conclusion cannot be reached that he had shared the common intention with the other appellant to commit the murder of the deceased. In order to attract S. 34 of the Code there must be a pre-arranged plan and meeting of minds which may also develop on the spot. The conduct of an accused preceding, attending and following the occurrence is relevant to find out as to whether he had shared the common intention. From the mere suspicious movements of a person with the assailant, it cannot legally be assumed that he had shared the common intention with the assailant of the deceased. In our view, the order of conviction recorded against this appellant is unfounded and misconceived. ( 6 ) IN the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The order of conviction recorded against the appellant Domu Chopadi under S. 302 read with S. 34 of the Penal Code and the sentence passed against him thereunder are set aside. The order of conviction passed against the appellant Madan Majhi under S. 302 read with S. 34 of the Penal Code is set aside and in lieu thereof, he is convicted under S. 302 of the Penal Code. The sentence passed against the appellant Madan Majhi is maintained. The appellant Domu Chopadi be set at liberty forthwith. ( 7 ) PATNAIK, J. :- I agree. Appeal partly allowed. .