JUDGMENT 1. - By his judgment dated March 27, 1982, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar convicted the accused Surjeet Singh under section 302, I.P.C. and the remaining three accused Mehtab Singh, Mangal Singh and Banta Singh under section 302/34 I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 100/- in default of the payment of fine to further undergo one months rigorous imprisonment. By the same judgment, he further convicted them under section 447, I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to three months rigorous imprisonment. Substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. The accused have come-up in appeal and challenge their conviction. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that Pyara Singh, aged about 45 years, and his wife Smt. Hardeo Kaur, aged about 35 years, were living with their son Keharsingh (PW 1) and daughter Ku. Kaushaliya (PW 5) in the Dhani they had raised in their Muraba No. 116/322 situate in Rohi Mauja Vishanpura P.S. Muklawa district Ganganagar. Pyara Singh had sown Gawar in some portion of kila No. 17 of this Muraba somewhere in June, 1980. The plants of Gawar had come-cut of the soil. At about 5.00 p.m. on July 26, 1980, Pyara Singh was working in Kila No. 17. The four accused Surjeet Singh, Mehtab Singh, Mangal Singh and Banta Singh came there in Kila No. l7 and started up-rooting the Gawar plants by ploughing the field. Pyara Singh implored them not to do so, but with no success. They made an assault on Pyara Singh. Pyara Singh raised cries, hearing which his wife Smt. Hardeo Kaur, his son Keharsingh and his daughter Kumari Kaushaliya, who were in their Dhani, rushed to the the spot. Accused Surjeet Singh had an axe, Mehtab Singh had a lathi and Mangal Singh and Banta Singh had Kassis. Accused Surjeet Singh struck a blow of his axe on the head and the another blow on the face of Pyara Singh. Pyara Singh fell down and became unconscious. Thereafter accused Mangal Singh, Banta Singh and Mehtab Singh struck blows to him with their weapons. Hardeo Kaur tried to rescue her husband, but she too was not snared. Accused Surjeet Singh struck a blow of his axe on the head of Smt. Hardeo Kaur. She also fell down and became unconscious. The other accused, afterhe fell down, struck blows to her with their weapons. Hardeo Kaur tried to rescue her husband, but she too was not snared. Accused Surjeet Singh struck a blow of his axe on the head of Smt. Hardeo Kaur. She also fell down and became unconscious. The other accused, afterhe fell down, struck blows to her with their weapons. Kehara Singh (PW 1) and Ku. Kaushaliya (PW 5) raised alarm. The accused told that they should also be finished. Kehar Singh and Ku. Kaushaliya, apprehending risk to their life, rushed towards the Dhani of their uncle Mehtab Singh situate nearby. They reached there and narrated the incident to their aunt Smt. Veero (PW 2). She confined them in a Kotha for their safety. The accused lifted Pyara Singh and Smt. Hardeo Kaur and put them in Kila No. 24 of the Muraba. The then sped away towards their Dhani. Smt. Veero (PW 2). Keharsingh (PW 1) and Ku. Kaushaliya (PW 5) went to Kila No. 24 and found Pyara Singh and Smt. Hardeo Kaur dead. Kehar Singh (PW 1) went to Gurudwara Buddha Jor to inform his grand-father Jaimalsingh (PW 4), who had gone there to offer prayers. He found Jaimal Singh near the Gurudwara and narrated the incident to him. Both of them came to Kila No. 24. Jaimalsingh remained with the dead bodies. Keharsingh (PW 1) then went to village Usman Khera to bring his fathers sister. Jaimalsingh remained with the deadbodies through out the night. Next day, he went on foot to Police Station, Muklawa and presented written report Ex. P 3 at about 12.00 Hours. The police registered a case and proceeded with investigation. The Station House Officer Mohan Lal (PW 8) arrived on the spot, inspected the site and prepared the site plan and the inquests of the dead bodies. He also found blood scattered around in Kila Nos. 17 and 24. He lifted the blood-stained soil and sealed it. The post-mortem examination of the dead bodies was conducted at about 10.30 am. on July 28, 1980 by PW 3 Dr. S.M. Sharma, the then Medical Officer Incharge, Primary Health Centre, Raisinghnagar. The doctor noticed the following ante-mortem injuries on the victims dead bodies:- On the person of Pyara Singh:- External 1. Abrasions two in number 4 c.m. over the right thigh middle 1/2 antro-laterally. 2. Abrasion 5 c.m. over the right thigh antro-lower ⅛. 3. S.M. Sharma, the then Medical Officer Incharge, Primary Health Centre, Raisinghnagar. The doctor noticed the following ante-mortem injuries on the victims dead bodies:- On the person of Pyara Singh:- External 1. Abrasions two in number 4 c.m. over the right thigh middle 1/2 antro-laterally. 2. Abrasion 5 c.m. over the right thigh antro-lower ⅛. 3. Incised wound 11x6 c.m. maxillary process right side to chain. Fracture of mandible and maxillary process right side. 4. Incised wound 11x7 c.m. x brain deep wound extended from the medial angle of right eye to frontal part of scalp. 5. Right eye was lying out side its sockets. Internal 1. Fracture of right frontal bone in small pieces. 2. Fracture of maxillary bone in small pieces. 3. Fracture of mandible. 4. Laceration of frontal part of brain along with its membrance right side. On the person of Smt. Hardeo Kaur:- External 1. Incised wound 13x3 c.m. x brain deep left fronto-parietal region of scalp maggots ancouving out from the wounds. Internal 1. Fracture of frontal and parietal bones of scalp left side. Bone fractured in small pieces. 2. Rupture underneath fracture alongwith parietal and frontal part of brain side. The cause of death of Pyara Singh, according to Dr. Sharma was injury to vital organs i.e. right frontal lobe of brain and multiple fractures of frontal bone, Maxillary bone and mandible. The cause of death of Smt. Hardeo Kaur according to Dr. Sharma, was injury to vital organ i.e. brain, frontal and parietal lobe of left side. The post-mortem examination reports prepared by the doctor are Ex. P 1 and Ex. P 2. 3. The blood stained clothes of the victims were seized and sealed. In consequence of the disclosure statements made by the accused persons, axe, lathis and Kassis were recovered. Human blood was found on some of these articles. On the completion of investigation, the police filed a crime report against the appellants in the Court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar, who, in his turn, committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions The learned Sessions Judge framed charges under sections 302 and 547, IPC against accused Surjeet Singh and under sections 302/34 and 447, IPC against accused Mangal Singh. Mciitab Singh and Banta Singh, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Mciitab Singh and Banta Singh, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accused Mehtab Singh, Mangal Singh and Banta Singh denied their presence on the spot and stated that they have been falsely implicated. Accused Surjeet, while admitting his presence on the spot, came out with a counter version. In his statement under section 313 Cr. PC, accused Surjeet Singh stated that the deceased Pyara Singh had mortgaged kila No. 24 of Muraba No 116/322 to him for a sum of Rs. 900/- and executed mortgage deed Ex. D 3 in his favour on May 1, 1980. The deceased also delivered the possession of Kila No. 24 to him on the same day and since then this field was in his possession. On the day of the incident, he went to kila No. 24 with a camel to plough it. When he reached there, the deceased Pyara Singh asked him not to plough the field. He replied that as the field was mortgaged to him, he had come to plough it. Pyara Singh thereupon struck a blow of an axe to him while he was on the camels back. He fell down. He lifted a Kassi and struck blows with it to Pyara Singh to ward off further aggression. Smt. Hudeo Kaur struck a blow of lathi to him. In order to protect himself from being further beaten, he struck a blow of his kassi to Smt. Hardeo Kaur. It was further stated by him that in case he had not struck blow to Pyara Singh and Smt. Hardeo Kaur, he would have been killed by them. He, thus, put forward a right of private defence of person and property. In support of its ease, the prosecution examined eight witnesses and filed some documents. In defence, the accused examined two witnesses. On the conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge found no truth or substance in the defence version. He accepted and treated PW 1 Kehar Singh and PW 5 Ku. Kaushaliya as witnesses of truth. Accepting their testimony as true, he held the charges duly proved against the appellants. The appellants were consequently convicted and sentenced as mentioned at the very out set. Aggrieved against their convictions, the accused have taken this appeal. 4. We have heard Mr. H.N. Calla learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor. Kaushaliya as witnesses of truth. Accepting their testimony as true, he held the charges duly proved against the appellants. The appellants were consequently convicted and sentenced as mentioned at the very out set. Aggrieved against their convictions, the accused have taken this appeal. 4. We have heard Mr. H.N. Calla learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor. We have also gone through the record of the case. 5. Mr. Calla did not challenge the opinion of Dr. Sharma (PW 3) relating to the number and nature of injuries found on the victims dead bodies and the cause of their death. We. therefore, need not touch the testimony of Dr. Sharma at length. Suffice it to say that the deaths of Pyara Singh and Smt. Hardeo Kaur were not natural but homicidal. 6. The incised wounds found on the dead body of Pyara Singh and Smt. Hardeo Kaur were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 7. In assailing the conviction of the appellants, three contentions were raised by Mr. Calla, viz. (1) PW 1 Kehar Singh and PW 5 Ku. Kaushaliya have been falsely introduced as ocular witnesses of the incident. They were not present on the spot and had not seen the occurrence; (2) even if the presence of these two witnesses is accepted on the scence of the occurrence, they have falsely implicated the three appellants Mehtab Singh, Mangal Singh and Banta Singh; and (3) the right of private defence both of person and property was available to accused Surjeet Singh, but it was wrongly denied to him by the trial Court. 8. It would be proper to deal with these contentions at seriatim. PW 1 Keharsingh and PW 5 Ku. Kaushaliya are the son and daughter of the deceased-victims. The occurrence had taken place in Kila No. 17 of Muraba No. 116/322. The Dhani, in which the deceased-victims and these witnesses were living, E situate in this very Muraba only three Kilas away from the place of the incident, as shown in site plan Ex. P 10. The presence of these two witnesses at their Dhani and their rushing to the scene of occurrence on hearing the cries of their father, is quite natural. P 10. The presence of these two witnesses at their Dhani and their rushing to the scene of occurrence on hearing the cries of their father, is quite natural. Both these witnesses, who are teenaged, stated that they and their mother Smt Hardeo Kaur were in their Dhani at about 5 00 p.m. on the day of the incident. Their father Pyara Singh was working in Kila No. 17. The accused persons came there and started manhandling their father. Their father raised cries. They and their mother Smt. Hardeo Kaur rushed to the spot. They saw that accused Surjeet Singh had an axe, Metab Singh had a lathi, Mangal Singh and Banta Singh had Kassis. The accused persons started ploughing the standing Gawar crop in Kila No. 17. Their father implored them not to do so. Accused Surjeet Singh thereupon struck two blows with his axe to Pyara Singh the first on his head and the second on his face and eye. Their father Pyara Singh fell down and thereafter the three accused Mangal Singh, Mehtab Singh and Banta Singh struck blows to him with their weapons. They further stated that when their mother Smt. Hardeo Kaur tried to rescue their father Pyara Singh, she too was not spared. Accused Surjeet Singh struck a blow with his axe on the head of Smt. Hardeo Kaur. She also fell down. Thereafter the remaining three accused gave thrust to her with their weapons. 9. The contention of Mr. Calla that these two witnesses had not seen the incident and have falsely introduced themselves as the ocular witnesses, is not well founded. As stated earlier, these two witnesses were in their Dhani situate only a few yards away from the place of incident, which had taken place in their own Muraba. Their rushing to the spot alongwith their mother Smt. Hardeo Kaur on hearing the cries of their father Pyara Singh, is quite natural and probable. Both these witnesses went to their uncles (Mehtab Singhs) Dhani, situate not far away from the place of occurrence and narrated the incident to their aunt Smt. Veero (PW 2). The names of both these witnesses have been mentioned in the FIR Ex. P 3. In fact, Ex. P 3 was written by Jaimalsingh on the information furnished to him by PW 1 Kehar Singh. The names of both these witnesses have been mentioned in the FIR Ex. P 3. In fact, Ex. P 3 was written by Jaimalsingh on the information furnished to him by PW 1 Kehar Singh. PW 2 Smt. Veero has supported the prosecution and stated that these two witnesses came running to her Dhani and narrated the incident to her that their parents were killed by the accused persons. They were cross-examined at length, but on the whole, their testimony remained unshattered and unshiken on the essential features of the incident. We, therefore, find no substance in the contention of Mr. Calla that PW 1 Keharsingh and PW 5 Ku. Kaushaliya had not seen the incident and were falsely introduced themselves as the ocular witnesses. 10. Coming to the second contention that these two eye witnesses have falsely implicated accused Mehtab Singh. Mangal Singh and Banta Singh, it was argued by Mr. Calla that only one injury was found on the dead body of Smt. Hardeo Kaur and two abrasions were found on the dead body of Pyara Singh in addition to the incised wounds caused by accused Surjeet Singh. The two abrasions could be caused only by blunt weapon. According to eye witnesses, Mangal Singh and Banta Singh had Kassis. Had they inflicted blows with the Kassis, the injuries should have been incised and not abrasions. The abrasions found on the dead body of Pyara Singh could be caused by his falling down after he had sustained the incised wounds on his head and face. The contention has considerable force. 11. As per evidence of Dr. Sharma (PW 3), who conducted the post-mortem examinations, only one incised wound was found on the dead body of Smt. Hardeo Kaur, of which the author was accused Surjeet Singh, according to both the eye witnesses. No other injury was found on her dead body. Had she been struck blows by accused Mehtab Singh, Mangal Singh and Banta Singh, the injuries must have been noticed by the doctor. Since only one injury was found on her dead body, the statement of these two witnesses the accused Mehtab Singh, Mangal Singh and Banta Singh also caused injuries to her, is not true, and is not corroborated or supported by the medical evidence. 12. Since only one injury was found on her dead body, the statement of these two witnesses the accused Mehtab Singh, Mangal Singh and Banta Singh also caused injuries to her, is not true, and is not corroborated or supported by the medical evidence. 12. Likewise, the two incised wounds found on the dead body of Pyara Singh were caused by accused Surjeet Singh with the axe. The two abrasions, as we have discussed above, could not be caused by Kassis. They could be caused by the victims falling down, after receiving the two incised wound on the head and face. Again, therefore, the causing of injuries to Pyara Singh by accused Mehtab Singh. Mangal Singh and Banta Singh is not supported or corroborated by the medical evidence. The resultant position, therefore, comes down to this that it was accused Surjeet Singh and Surjeet Singh alone, who had inflicted injuries to Pyara Singh and Smt. Hardeo Kaur with his axe. The remaining three appellants Mehtab Singh, Mangal Singh and Banta Singh, even if they were present on the scene of the occurrence, took no part in the incident and inflicted no injury to the deceased-victims. The role assigned to these three accused persons by these two eye witnesses, thus, does not stand proved. 13. The connected question is whether section 34, IPC can be applied to the three appellants Mehtab Singh, Mangal Singh and Banta Singh so as to make them vicariously liable for murders of the victims. Section 34, IPC requires that the criminal act must be committed in furtherance of the common intention of the accused persons. In order to find out whether the culprits had formed a common intention to commit the crime and the crime was committed in prosecution of that common intention, surrounding circumstances, in which the offence was committed, the antecedents and subsequent conduct of the culprits and like such factors, afford the relevant material. Common intention implies acting in concert. Simply because the culprits go together in a mob and disperse together after the commission of the offence, it cannot be inferred that the crime was committed in furtherance of the common intention. In Gajjan Singh. Common intention implies acting in concert. Simply because the culprits go together in a mob and disperse together after the commission of the offence, it cannot be inferred that the crime was committed in furtherance of the common intention. In Gajjan Singh. v. State of Punjab, MR 1973 SC 2069 it was held that the members of the mob came together armed with rifles is not sufficient to indicate that they had come having shared a common intention to commit the murder. In Mehboob v. Emperor, AIR 1945 PC 118 a caution was sounded that the inference of common intention under section 34, IPC should never be raised unless it is a necessary inference deducible from the circumstances of the case. In the instant case, these three appellants Mehtab Singh, Mangal Singh and Banta Singh struck no blows to the deceased-victims. According to the two eye witnesses, no words were spoken or uttered by them to instigate or prompt accused Surjeet Singh to inflict blows to the deceased-victims. In fact, we have nothing on record except the presence of these three appellants on the scene of the occurrence. They might have come alongwith the accused Surjeet Singh, but this fact alone is not sufficient to show that they had formed a common intention with Surjeet Singh (accused) to commit the murders of the victims. Section 34, IPC requires simultaneous consensus for its applicability, which is completely missing in the instant case. Section 34, IPC requires that the intention of one should not only be known to the other but should also be shared by him. The facts and circumstances of the case do not permit us to conclude that these three appellants Mehtab Singh. Mangal Singh and Banta Singh had formed a common intention with accused Surjeet Singh to kill the victims. We are therefore, unable to maintain their conviction under section 302, IPC with the aid or applicability of section 34. They are entitled to acquittal of the offence they were charged with. 14. Coming to the last contention relating to right of private defence, it was urged by Mr. Calla that the deceased Pyara Singh had mortgaged Kila No. 24 of his Muraba No. 116/322 to accused Surjeet Singh on May 1, 1980 under mortgage deed Ex D 3 for a sum of Rs. 900/- and delivered its possession on the same day to him. Calla that the deceased Pyara Singh had mortgaged Kila No. 24 of his Muraba No. 116/322 to accused Surjeet Singh on May 1, 1980 under mortgage deed Ex D 3 for a sum of Rs. 900/- and delivered its possession on the same day to him. On the day of the incident, accused Surjeet Singh went to Kila No. 24 to sow the crop. The deceased Pyara Singh forbade him from doing so. When he (accused Surjeet Singh) asserted his right to plough the field, the deceased Pyara Singh struck a blow of his axe on his foot while he was still on the camels back. He fell down. The deceased Smt. Hardeo Kaur struck a blow of a lathi to him. In order to ward off the aggression, and being beaten further, he (accused Surjeet Singh) struck blows to both of them with his Kassi. Accused Surjeet Singh had, thus, a right of private defence both in respect of person and property. We have examined the contention and find no substance in it. When the site was inspected by the investigating officer, blood was found in Kila No. 17 also Kila No. 17 was not mortgaged to accused Surjeet Singh. It shows that the offence was committed in Kila No. 17. Apart from that, there is no evidence to show that possession of Kila No. 24 was delivered to accused Surjeet Singh by the deceased Pyara Singh. The mortgage deed Ex D 3 is an unregistered document and was executed on May 1, 1980. The offence was committed on duly 25, 1980. It appears that though mortgage deed Ex. D 3 was executed by the deceased Pyara Singh in favour of accused Surjeet Singh actual physical possession of Kila No. 24 was not delivered to accused Surjeet Singh by Pyara Singh. It further appears that accused Surjeet Singh came to Kila No 24 for the first time on the day of the incident. The circumstances point out that accused Surjeet Singh was not defending his possession over Kila No 24, but was only asserting it. 15. The medical examination of the injuries of accused Surjeet Singh was made by Dr. Sharma (PW 3) on July 28, 1980. He found the following injuries:- 1. Incised wound 2.5 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. skin deep over right foot middle toe pussy bone. 2. 15. The medical examination of the injuries of accused Surjeet Singh was made by Dr. Sharma (PW 3) on July 28, 1980. He found the following injuries:- 1. Incised wound 2.5 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. skin deep over right foot middle toe pussy bone. 2. Lacerated wound 1.5 c.m. x 1/4 c.m. skin deep over right parietal region of skin. Both the injuries were simple-the first caused by some sharp-edged weapon while the second by some blunt object. The injury report issued by the doctor is Ex. D 1 we have examined these injuries. They are of trivial nature. Such minor and trivial injuries can also be self inflicted and can be sustained in more than one way. The two ocular witnesses PW 2 Kehar Singh and PW 5 Ku. Kaushaliya were not cross- examined in respect of these injuries found on the person of accused Surjeet Singh. Had these injuries been caused in this incident, it was expected that both these eye witnesses would have been cross-examined in that light. 16. There is no rule of universal application that a right of private defence of person springs-up simply because some minor and trivial injuries of insignificant nature are found on the person of the accused. The injuries, in the instant case, on the person of accused Surjeet Singh are so trivial and minor that no notice can be taken of them. A right of private defence is not to be readily assumed simply due to the presence of trivial injuries on the person of the accused. There should be material on record to make out such a defence. The material on record does not suggest that accused Surjeet Singh acted in defence of himself and his property in killing the two persons Pyara Singh and Smt. Hardeo Kaur. No right of private defence of person or property was available to accused Surjeet Singh. Accused Surjeet Singh was rightly convicted and sentenced under section 302 and 447, I.P.C. No interference is called for in his case. 17. In the result, 1) The appeal of accused Mehtab Singh, Mangal Singh and Banta Singh is allowed. The conviction and sentence under sections 302/34 and 447, IPC are set-aside and they are acquitted of the said offences. They are already on bail and need not surrender. 17. In the result, 1) The appeal of accused Mehtab Singh, Mangal Singh and Banta Singh is allowed. The conviction and sentence under sections 302/34 and 447, IPC are set-aside and they are acquitted of the said offences. They are already on bail and need not surrender. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled, and 2) The conviction and sentence of accused Surjeet Singh under sections 302 and 447, IPC are maintained and his appeal is consequently dismissed. The appeal shall stand accordingly disposed of.Order accordingly. *******