JUDGMENT K. Sreedharan, J. 1. Appellants, three in number, along with another, were charged with offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code in Sessions Case 64 of 1987 on the file of Sessions Court, Ernakulam. That case arose out of Crime No. 361 of 1986 on the file of the Aluva Police Station, Prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 53 and proved Exhibits P1 to P67. They also got marked MOs. 1 to 28 for bringing home the guilt of the accused. On the side of the accused, Exhibits D1 to D16 were marked, Exhibits D1 to D12 are portions of the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for purpose of contradiction. After appreciating the above evidence, trial Judge found appellants herein, namely accused 1 to 3 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. 4th accused was acquitted under Section 235(ii) of Code. Appellants 1 to 3 were thereupon sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Appellants challenge the conviction and sentence. 2. Prosecution case, in brief, is as follows:- Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are direct brothers. Accused 3 and 4 are friends and associates of accused 1 and 2. On account of an incident which took place on 15.4.1980, wherein a brother of the deceased in this case caused severe injuries to a brother of accused No. 1 and 2, members of the family of accused 1 and 2 were in extreme inimical terms with the members of the family of the deceased. While that animosity was continuing, a quarrel took place in the workshop of PW 14 between the first accused and Jose Thomas, the younger brother of the deceased in this case. It is also alleged that on 23.8.1986 at about 11.00 P.M., an altercation took place in front of Navaratna Hotel, Aluva on account of the refusal of the deceased herein to entertain the 4th accused with liquor. On account of this long standing vengeance, all the accused developed a common intention to do away with the deceased in this case and his brother. On account of this long standing vengeance, all the accused developed a common intention to do away with the deceased in this case and his brother. On 29.08.1986 at about 7.30 P.M., accused with the common intention of causing the death of the brother of the deceased in this case, came near the Fire Station at Aluva and caused the instantaneous death of Jose Thomas by inflicting cuts and stab injuries. That has given rise to Crime 362 of 1986 of Aluva Police Station. Thereafter, accused with the intention of murdering the deceased herein, came to the Catholic Centre, Aluva at about 7.45 P.M. on the same night. It is alleged that third accused was riding a scooter bearing registration No. KRE 3765 with accused No.1 on the pillion seat. 4th accused was riding a motor cycle bearing registration No. KER 4672 with accused No. 2 on the pillion. When they came to the place of occurrence, deceased in this case, Jolly Thomas, was talking with PW-2. When the deceased saw accused approaching him, he attempted to take shelter inside E & M Steel House stating that they have come to murder him. Accused 1 to 3 ran after Jolly Thomas and inflicted several cuts and stab injuries, 4th accused was waiting for the rescue of the other accused from the scene, by keeping the engine of the motor cycle running. Immediately after the occurrence, accused 1 and 2 occupied the pillion seat of the motor cycle and made their escape from the scene. Accused No.3 ran away from the place of occurrence. Injured was taken to Government Hospital, Aluva in a a car belonging to PW-10. The Doctor attached to that hospital after examining the injured, pronounced him dead. 3. PW-45, Sub Inspector of Police, Aluva got telephonic information regarding the incident that took Place at the Catholic Shopping Centre. He rushed to the place of occurrence. By that time, the victim was already removed to the Hospital. After making arrangements to guard the scence of occurrence, he proceeded to the Government Hospital. He made enquiries about persons conversant with the incident. He rushed to the place of occurrence. By that time, the victim was already removed to the Hospital. After making arrangements to guard the scence of occurrence, he proceeded to the Government Hospital. He made enquiries about persons conversant with the incident. When the came to know that PW-1 is a witness to the incident, he took him to the police station and recorded Exhibit P1 First Information Statement at 8.15 P.M. PW-1 narrated the following details in Exhibit P1 On account of the dismissal of an employee from the Chakolas Spinning and Weaving Mills, the workers of that Company struck work on that day. To discuss the matter with the President, Mr. T.H. Musthaffa, he came to Aluva at 5.30 P.M. A meeting was held in a room in the first floor of Hotel Paradise. After the meeting, himself and Simon, an employee of the cotton Mill, came near the cupola by the side of the Catholic Centre. They were engaged in a conversation by leaning to the parapet of the cupola. A few feet away from them, stood deceased (Jolly Thomas), Yousef, K.C. Ramesh, Omkar and others. After some time, people dispersed from there. Then a scooter came to the Shopping Centre from the western side in high speed. It was followed by a Jawa motor bike. Both came to a stop, opposite to Hotel Paradise. The scooter was driven by Jimmy Thommy (third accused), Aluva Mandalam President of Youth Congress,. Muthedath Jotly (first accused) was occupying the pillion seat. First accused was having a chopper in his hand, Scooter was put on the road on its side. They (accused 1 and 3) jumped out of it. Third accused had a long knife in his hand. Motor cycle was driven by the 4th accused, Salim. Salim kept the engine of the motor bike running. On seeing the accused, Jolly Thomas, deceased in this case, tried to enter E & M Steel Shop. He was chased by accused 1 to 3, Accused 1 and 2 were having choppers and third accused knife in their hands. First accused inflicted two cut injuries on the back of the deceased. On receiving those cuts, the victim fell down. All the three accused inflicted various injuries on the victim. In the course of the attack, steel vessels kept in the shop were scattered, Blood spurting from the injuries fell on those vessels. First accused inflicted two cut injuries on the back of the deceased. On receiving those cuts, the victim fell down. All the three accused inflicted various injuries on the victim. In the course of the attack, steel vessels kept in the shop were scattered, Blood spurting from the injuries fell on those vessels. All these took place within a very short span of time. Accused 1 and 2 occupied the pillion seat of the bike, the engine of which was kept running by the 4th accused. All of them went towards west in high speed. The other accused ran away from the scene and made his escape. Numbers of the motor bike and scooter are KRE 4672 and KRE 3765 respectively. The scooter is lying near the scene of occurrence. On seeing the incident, himself and others at the place stood stunned. Nothing could be done by anyone, U.P. Tomy, G.A. Koshy, Ranjan, Omkar, Swaminathan, Simon and others placed the injured in the car belonging to U.P. Tomy, Injured was taken to Government Hospital. Himself, Ramesh and K.C. Rajan went to the hospital in an autorickshaw, Doctor, after examining the injured, pronounced him dead. Members of the family of the deceased and those of the accused were on inimical terms. Jolly Thomas died as a result of the attack made by accused 1 to 3 with chopper and knife. At the time of the incident, there was sufficient light from the nearby shops, persons in the nearly shops and others might have seen the incident. 4. On the basis of the above First Information Statement, PW-45 registered Crime 361/1986 of Aluva Police Station, Exhibit P1 (a) is the First Information Report. That report reached the Judicial II Class Magistrate, Aluva at 7.00 P.M. on the next day, i.e. 30.8.1986. PW-1 when examined in Court admitted his signature in Exhibit P1. But, he denied to have seen the incident. According to him, incident took place at the Catholic Shopping Centre in Aluva town near the Cappella. He also stated that someone attacked Jolly Thomas, the deceased in this case. But he would say that he could not identify the person who attacked the deceased. When cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor, he had virtually admitted the incident, but not the identity of the accused. He also stated that someone attacked Jolly Thomas, the deceased in this case. But he would say that he could not identify the person who attacked the deceased. When cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor, he had virtually admitted the incident, but not the identity of the accused. He admitted before Court that a scooter was seen lying near the scene of occurrence and that the injured was taken to the hospital in the car belonging to U.P. Tomy. He also went to the hospital. He further stated that the police look him to the police station and he gave a statement with his free will. When he was asked whether he signed Exhibit P1 after getting convinced of the truth of the statements therein, he candidly admitted that it is so. He also admitted that the statement recorded by the police did not contain any falsehood. He went on to state that the police came to know of the names of the accused only from him. 5. On going through the evidence of PW-1, we are not prepared to accept the criticism raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the version regarding the incident is the result of some fertile thinking on the part of PW-45, the Sub Inspector of Police. The presence of PW-1 at the scene of occurrence is admitted by him. Immediately after the incident, within less than an hour thereof, PW-1 was taken to the Police Station and first Information Statement was recorded. It is true that a First Information Statement is not substantive evidence, but the fact remains that immediately after the incident and before there was any extraneous intervention PW-1 narrated the incident. When examined in Court, PW-1 would state that he signed Exhibit P1 statement only on the next day. This assertion made by PW-1 cannot be believed. PW-45 while recording Exhibit P1 was discharging an official duty. Official acs are presumed to have been done regularly. Court can presume, as mentioned in Section 114 of the Evidence Act, the existence of any fact which it thinks to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business in their relation to the facts of the particular case (vide Kali Ram v. State of H.P. AIR 1973 S.C. 2773 ). The first Information Statement in this case is a detailed document and it is not possible to believe that PW-45 imagined those details and prepared the document. The detailed narration about the incident in the First Information Report goes to show that the subsequent attempt of PW-1 to disown the document, while admitting his signature thereon, is a shift for reasons best known to him. We are satisfied beyond beyond any manner of doubt the PW-1 had given the First Information Report (Reference may be made to paragraph 6 of the decision in Khuji v. State of M.P.- AIR 1991 S.C. 1853 ). 6. PW-2 is an eye witness to the incident, His presence at the scene of occurrence is stated by PW-1 in Exhibit P1 First Information Statement. Before Court, PW-1 admitted that PW-2 was a person known to him for long. This witness has given a vivid picture of the incident. It is in conformity with the prosecution story. He stated that the accused came to the scene in a motor bike and a scooter. The scooter was driven by the third accused, with the first accused in the pillion seat. When they got out to attack the deceased in this case, first accused was having a chopper and the third accused a long knife in their hands. 4th accused was riding a motor bike with second accused in the pillion seat. Second accused got out of that seat with a chopper in his hand. At that time, 4th accused was keeping the engine of the motor bike running. Accused 1 to 3 inflicted various cuts and stabs on the victim. After the incident, accused 1 and 2 got into the motor bike and made their escape from the scene with 4th accused. Third accused ran away from the scene, Scooter, bearing registration No. KRE 3765, was left at the scene. It was in that scooter accused 1 and 3 reached the scene. Accused 1, 2 and 4 made their escape from the scene of occurrence in motor bike bearing registration No. KRE 4672. Immediately after the incident, injured was taken to the hospital where the Doctor pronounced him dead. He identified MOS. 1 to 3 as the weapons used by accused 1 to 3 respectively. A knife which was seen under the scooter was identified by him as MO-4. Immediately after the incident, injured was taken to the hospital where the Doctor pronounced him dead. He identified MOS. 1 to 3 as the weapons used by accused 1 to 3 respectively. A knife which was seen under the scooter was identified by him as MO-4. He has categorically stated that accused 1 and 2 used choppers and third accused a knife. MO-7 has been identified by this witness as the shirt worn by the first accused at the time of the occurrence and MO-8 as that of the second accused. He also identified MO-9 pants as the one worn by the second accused at the time of the occurrence. 7. PW-2 was subjected to a lengthy searching cross-examination. The attempt of the learned defence counsel was to the incident. This witness, who stays nearly three kilometers away from the scene, according to counsel, could not have been present at the scene. He is a marriage broker. The elite of the locality, according to this witness, comes to the Catholic Shopping Centre in the evening. To get acquaintance with them, according to this witness, he used to come to that junction every day. PWs. 7 and 10, even according to pw-1, the hostile witness, helped them to remove the injured to the hospital. In cross-examination, PW-7 was asked whether PW-2 was seen at the time of the occurrence. He replied in the negative. But in cross examination, he candidly admitted that he cannot give the names of all those who were present at the scene, pw-10 is U.P. Tomy who, it is conceded, took the injured to the hospital in his car. In cross-examination he stated that pw-2 was known to him for long. When he was asked whether he was present at the scene, he stated that he can't deny his presence. We do not find any ground to disbelieve the evidence of this witness. 7(A) Learned counsel appearing for the appellants wanted us to discard the evidence of PW-2 since he is a chance witnesst According to counsel, the incident took place at a shopping centre. Shops at that place were kept open at that time. No shop-keeper has been, cited as witness to the incident. So, it was argued that the solitary evidence of PW-2 should not be acted upon. We are not impressed with this argument. Shops at that place were kept open at that time. No shop-keeper has been, cited as witness to the incident. So, it was argued that the solitary evidence of PW-2 should not be acted upon. We are not impressed with this argument. It may often happen that a shop owner engaged in his business might not have witnessed the incident that happened near his shop. At the same time a person who happened to be near the scene might have seen the same. Merely on the ground that he happened to be at the place of occurrence by sheer coincidence and happened to see the incident, his evidence which is trustworthy is not to be discarded. As stated by the Supreme Court in Rana Pratap v. State of Haryana ( AIR 1983 SC 680 ) If murder is committed in a street, only passersby will be witnesses. Their evidence cannot be brushed aside or viewed with suspicion on the ground that they are mere chance witnesses To discard the evidence of street hawkers and street vendors on the ground that they are chance witnesses, even where murder is committed in a street, is to abandon good sense and take too shallow a view of the evidence. According to us, on a proper analysis of the evidence of PW-52, the evidence given by this witness has a ring of truth. It is not the principle of law that a conviction cannot be sustained on the testimony of a single witness. If the evidence of the sole witness is convincing and trustworthy, it can be the basis for conviction. In this case, the evidence of this witness is corroborated by other circumstances as well. 8. PW-2 stated that accused 1,2 and 4 made their escape from the scene in motor bike bearing registration No. KRE 4672. This motor bike as recovered by PW-52 under Exhibit P51 mahzar, form the house of PW-41 at Chalakudy, PW-52, the Sub Inspector, also recovered MO-B shirt of the second accused form PW-41 under Exhibit P 52 mahazar, MO-7 shirt of the first accused was also recovered from PW-41 under Exhibit P53 mahazar. According to the prosecution, accused after reaching the house of PW-41 left the motor bike, KRE 4672 there, changed their dress and proceeded to Irinjalakuda. PW-35, the Doctor attached to Lal memorial Hospital, Irinjalakuda attended on the second accused. According to the prosecution, accused after reaching the house of PW-41 left the motor bike, KRE 4672 there, changed their dress and proceeded to Irinjalakuda. PW-35, the Doctor attached to Lal memorial Hospital, Irinjalakuda attended on the second accused. She stitched the injury found on second accused's left eyebrow and left little finger. Thereafter accused were arrested from Manjeri Tourist Home on 28-9-1986. After their arrest, PW-53, the investigating officer, recovered MO-9 pants of the second accused under Exhibit P15 mahazar. PW-26 is an attestor. He identified the pants as MO-9 and when he was asked whether the pants was one worn by the second accused, he gave the reply in the affirmative. Exhibit P57 is the report of the Assistant Director of Forensic Science Laboratory. That report shows that MO-7 shirt of the first accused and MO-8 shirt and MO-9 pants of the second accused contained human blood. 9. From the gutter near the scene of occurrence, a chopper was recovered by PW-53 while preparing the scene mahazar. That chopper is marked as MO-2. According to the prosecution, MO-2 was the weapon used by the first accused. But, PW-2 would state that MO-2 was the weapon used by the second accused for attacking the deceased. This was made much of by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants to discredit the evidence of PW2. So also PW-2 stated that third accused used MO-3 Knife as the weapon of offence. But, MO-3 was recovered from under the scooter which was lying near the scene. MO-4 is the weapon recovered on the basis of the information given by the third accused. So, PW-2 went wrong in identifying the weapon used by third accused as well. This was also taken by the learned counsel as a ground to attack the entire prosecution story, MOs. 1 and 2 are choppers, while MOS. 3 and 4 are long knives. In the case of the identification of these choppers, a mistake has crept in the chopper stated to have been used by the first accused by PW-2 has been now found to be that used by second accused. So also out of the two knives, MOs 3 and 4, MO-4 was the one used by the second accused even though, according to PPW-2, it was MO-3. This mistake, according to us, cannot be a material defect to overthrow the entire prosecution version. So also out of the two knives, MOs 3 and 4, MO-4 was the one used by the second accused even though, according to PPW-2, it was MO-3. This mistake, according to us, cannot be a material defect to overthrow the entire prosecution version. MO-1 chopper was recovered on the basis of the information given by second accused. Exhibit P 10 (a) is the information given by the second accused, which led to its recovery under Exhibit P10 mahazar, Since MO-1 chopper was recovered on the basis of the information given by second accused and the recovery has been sworn to by PW-22 and PW-53, we have no hesitation in holding that the weapon used by second accused was MO-1. So also MO-4 knife was recovered on the basis of Exhibit P48(a) information given by the third accused under Exhibit P48 mahazar. That recovery is spoken to by PW-48 and PW-53, the investigating officer. According to the learned counsel representing the appellants, independent witnesses examined in the case, namely PWs 22 and 48, have not identified second and third accused respectively and so, the recovery of these weapons under Section 27 of the Evidence Act cannot be relied on. We are not impressed with this argument. Investigating Officer, PW-53, has in unmistakable terms sworn to the recovery of these weapons on the basis of the information given by accused 2 and 3. That evidence of the investigating officer can be acted upon even if not corroborated by other evidence, as has been held by the Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. M.M. Mathew ( AIR 1978 S.C. 1571 ). A Division Bench of this Court in Kadavanathil Baby v. State (1983 Cri.L.J. 1186) also took the view that the evidence of investigating officer can be acted upon even if not corroborated by other evidence. In the instant case, recovery of the weapons are spoken to by the independent witnesses as well. Therefore, we have no hesitation in accepting the recovery of MO-1 and MO-4 on the basis of the information given by accused 2 and 3 respectively. We further hold that second accused used MO-1 and third accused MO-4 for attacking the victim. The weapon used by the first accused is MO-2, 10. Learned counsel representing the appellants vehemently attacked the steps taken by the investigating officer. We further hold that second accused used MO-1 and third accused MO-4 for attacking the victim. The weapon used by the first accused is MO-2, 10. Learned counsel representing the appellants vehemently attacked the steps taken by the investigating officer. According to him, the Circle Inspector of Police, who investigated this case, was cooking up evidence to implicate the appellants. No material has been placed before Court to show that the investigating officer was inimically disposed towards the accused. Nor has any reason been brought out to show that the investigating officer was bent upon trapping these appellants. That officer was discharging his official duties in investigating this case. He was not having any personal interest. Accused are entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubts. Only reasonable doubts belong to the accused. Otherwise any practical system of justice will break down and loose credibility with the community, Speaking on behalf of a pull Bench of three judges in Shivaji v. State of Maharashtra ( AIR 1973 S.C. 2622 ) V.R. Krishna Iyer, J. observed:- The dangers of exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt at the expense of social defence and to the soothing sentiment that all acquittals are always good regardless of justice to victim and the community, demand special emphasis in the contemporary context of escalating crime and escape.t This shows that corts have a public accountability. While dealing with the accused charged with the commission of a crime, the court has to judge the evidence by the yardstick of probabilities. It is not to venture into surmises, conjectures and fanciful considerations. In the instant case, the slight confusion that crept in marking the Material Objects, namely the weapons used, the slight confusion that crept in marking the Material Objects, namely the weapons used in attacking the victim can never go to affect the prosecution case. 11. Learned counsel representing the accused found fault with the investigating officer in not developing the finger prints seen on MO-3, knife and MO-23, scooter. PW-53, the investigating officer, stated before Court that the finger prints seen in the knife and the scooter were got examined by the finger print expert and according to the expert, they were blurred and indistinct, so that it could not be made use of in this case. This evidence of PW-53 was not successfully challenged in cross-examination. PW-53, the investigating officer, stated before Court that the finger prints seen in the knife and the scooter were got examined by the finger print expert and according to the expert, they were blurred and indistinct, so that it could not be made use of in this case. This evidence of PW-53 was not successfully challenged in cross-examination. So, we do not find any infirmity in the prosecution in not developing the two finger prints seen in the knife and the scooter. 12. Scooter bearing registration No. KRE 3765, which was lying at the scene of occurrence, was found to have stains of blood. Prosecution has no case that those bloodstains were occasioned as a result of the incident in this case. So, the non-explanation of the presence of the human blood in the scooter, according to the counsel, must be treated as a material defect. We are not impressed with this argument either. A few minutes prior to the incident, with which we are concerned in this appeal, these accused, according to the prosecution, caused the death of the brother of the deceased in this case at a place nearly a kilometer away. According to PW-53, accused came to this scene of occurrence after committing the murder of the brother of the present victim. This explains the presence of bloodstains in the scooter. So, the non-explanation of the bloodstains on scooter KRE 3765 is not fatal to the prosecution. 13. Admittedly scooter KRE 3765 is owned by PW-17, the brother-in-law of accused 1 and 2, PW-17 is the registered owner of that vehicle. He doesn't know to drive the scooter. So, according to him, he had kept it in his wife's house and it was being used by accused 1 and 2. He would state that one month prior to the incident, he entrusted the same with the brother of the deceased for selling it. Apart from his ipse-dixit to that effect, there is nothing on record to show the PW-17 had in fact entrusted the scooter with the brother of the deceased for selling it. Apart from his ipse-dixit to that effect, there is nothing on record to show that PW-17 sent Exhibit P6 petition to the Judicial II Class Magistrate, Aluva for getting custody of that vehicle. According to PW-17, he was forced to send such a petition to the Magistrate by the police. Apart from his ipse-dixit to that effect, there is nothing on record to show that PW-17 sent Exhibit P6 petition to the Judicial II Class Magistrate, Aluva for getting custody of that vehicle. According to PW-17, he was forced to send such a petition to the Magistrate by the police. He has even gone to the extent of saying that it was under threat of police that he happened to send Exhibit P6 petition. But when cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor, he admitted that the petition was dictated by him and got typed by his brother. He also admitted that the sentences in Exhibit P6 are his own. He was satisfied with the statements made in Exhibit P6 and that police was not present when it was dictated, signed and sent to the Magistrate. In Exhibit P6, he has stated that the scooter was normally being kept in his wife's house and the same was being used either by one of other of his brothers-in-law or some other person, as permitted by them. In the absence of any material to support his contention that he had entrusted that vehicle with the brother of the deceased in this case for effecting sale, we have no hesitation in holding that the statement made by PW-17 in Exhibit P6 petition to the Court contained the true state of affairs. 14. Prosecution has alleged a motive for the incident. The motive is enmity between the members of the family of the accused and those of the family of the deceased. To establish this motive, prosecution relies on the testimony of PWs, 8,9,14,15 and 46. Brother of the deceased in this case was accused in SC 20 of 1982 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, North Parur. It was on account of his having caused an injury to one of the brothers of accused 1 and 2. PW-8 is that injured. That case ended in the acquittal of the accused. According to PW-8, that case was settled by compromise, himself giving evidence in favour of the accused. It is also his case that he had partnership business along with the deceased. No document evidencing partnership is produced in this case. So, the absence of motive cannot be inferred in such a case. PW-9 is one of the brothers of the deceased. It is also his case that he had partnership business along with the deceased. No document evidencing partnership is produced in this case. So, the absence of motive cannot be inferred in such a case. PW-9 is one of the brothers of the deceased. He has to some extent gone to help the accused in showing that there was no enmity. PW-14 spoke to some altercation between first accused and the brother of the deceased. PW-15 has given evidence regarding the wordy quarrel between deceased and 4th accused. The motive for doing a criminal act is a mental element, which is difficult to be established in a case. Normally one cannot read the mind of another. On the facts and circumstances of this case, where there is clear evidence regarding the incident, motive is not that important. 15. PW-39 is the Doctor who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased in this case. Exhibit P29 is the certificate issued by her. Ante-mortem injuries noted therein are:- (1) Incised penetrating wound 6 X 1 cms. Situated obliquely 4 cms, above the left clavicle, tapering medially and to the centre of neck. Wound is five cms. of depth directed downwards, inwards and medially, edges inverted slightly irregular on the left side, the under vessels and muscles cut, Trachea is cut transversely. (2) Incised gaping wound 10 X 2 cms. situated 0.5 cm. above the No.1 injury, starting from 5 cms. above and behind the acramio clavicular joint, tapering to the right and centrally; wound is 6 cms. in depth transversely cutting the trachea, cesophagus, and carotic artery. Wound is directed downwards and medially edges inverted and irregular at the left and. (3) Incised gaping wound situated 1cm. above the No 2 injury 6 X 3 cms. tapering centrally and medially edges, inverted and irregular at the left end. On dissecting the wound is 75 cm. in depth exposing the injured muscles. (4) Incised wound 3 X 1 cms. situated 2 cms. above the No.3 injury, starting 5 cms. below the left ear lobule; running downwards forwards and medially to the right, edges irregular at the left end, underlying muscle and vessels are cut, depth 5 cm. (5) A transverse incised wound on the right cheek, starting from 5 cms. (4) Incised wound 3 X 1 cms. situated 2 cms. above the No.3 injury, starting 5 cms. below the left ear lobule; running downwards forwards and medially to the right, edges irregular at the left end, underlying muscle and vessels are cut, depth 5 cm. (5) A transverse incised wound on the right cheek, starting from 5 cms. lateral to the lower part right side of nose, extending over to the right side of nose at the same level wound is tapering medially, depth is 0.75 cm., cutting the muscles and exposing hinder lying bone at the right end. Eduges regular and everted. (6) A curved incised wound on the right side of the cheek 16 X 6 cms. starting from the lateral aspect of right eye brow extending upto below the angle of mandible right side convexiting facing medially and touching the injury No.5, edges regular and everted tapering downwards, depth 1 cm. cutting the underlying vessels and muscles, exposing the bones. There is linear fracture of the underlying bone. (7) Transverse incised gaping would 14 X 7 cms. starting from the lower end of injury No.6 extending to the left side of chin, on dissecting it is 1 cm. in depth cutting the underlying muscles and vessels exposing the underlying bone, edges regular and everted linear fracture of the underlying bone is seen. (8) Transvers, incised gaping 17 X 2 cms. starting from 6 cms above and behind the left ear lobule extending to left corner of mouth tapering medially. Plenty of blood clots seen on dissecting, depth is 1.5 cms. cutting the underlying vessels, muscles and bones, edges regular and everted slightly irregular at the left end. (9) Incised gaping wound 18 X 2 cms. running anteroposteriorly on the left and side of the scalp 1.5 cms. lateral to the midline starting from the left eye brow, running backwards, cutting the underlying muscles and vessels, exposing the underlying bone, edges regular and everted. On dissecting there is linear fracture on the underlying bone. (10) Incised wound is the middle of scalp anteroposteriorly 9 X 1 cms. extending upto the hairline in from tapering auteriorly cutting the underlying muscles and vessels, exposing the underlying bones, edges regular and everted. On dissecting there is linear fracture of the bone. On dissecting there is linear fracture on the underlying bone. (10) Incised wound is the middle of scalp anteroposteriorly 9 X 1 cms. extending upto the hairline in from tapering auteriorly cutting the underlying muscles and vessels, exposing the underlying bones, edges regular and everted. On dissecting there is linear fracture of the bone. (11) Incised gaping wound on the right side of scalp 2 cms, lateral to the midline running anterioposteriorly 12 X 2 cms. extending upto the middle of forehead tapering anteriorly cutting the underlying muscle and vessels exposing the bones. Edges regular and everted linear fracture of the underlying bone. (12) Incised wound on the right side of the scalp 1 cm lateral to the injury No.11 running anterioposteriorly 9 X 2 cms. extending to the right eye brow, edges regular everted cutting the underlying muscles and vessels exposing the underlying bone. On dissection there is linear fracture of the skull bone. (13) Incised gaping oblique wound on the left side of front of chest 12 X 6 cms. both ends tapering upper end to the wound is 1.5 cms. medial so the left nipple running downwards and medially, Edges regular and inverted, on dissecting the wound is directed inwards and medially depth is 6 cms. cutting the 7th rib and entering the left pleural cavity. (14) Two oblique incised gaping wounds over the upper end of the sternum in the middle 2.5 X 1.5 cm. and 2.5 X 1 cm. The upper end of the wounds titled towards the left, directed downwards and medially edges regular and everted. Both ends tapering on dissecting depth is 1 cm. touching the bone. (15) Incised gaping wound 3 X 2 cms elliptical on the anterior part of the right shoulder, edges regular everted, depth is 2 cms, cutting the underlying muscles and vessels. (16) Incised gaping wound 5 X 3 cm. on the right side of neck just above the collar bone running posteriorly and medially, edges slightly irregular at the anterior end, On dissecting depth is 1.5 cms. cutting the underlying muscles and vessels. (17) Oblique incised gaping wound, 22 X 5 cms. starting from the right lateral aspect of right knee joint extending upto the middle of leg edges regular everted on dissecting depth is 3 cms. cutting the underlying muscles and vessels. (18) Incised gaping wound, oblique 15 X 6 cms. cutting the underlying muscles and vessels. (17) Oblique incised gaping wound, 22 X 5 cms. starting from the right lateral aspect of right knee joint extending upto the middle of leg edges regular everted on dissecting depth is 3 cms. cutting the underlying muscles and vessels. (18) Incised gaping wound, oblique 15 X 6 cms. in the middle of the posterior aspect of right leg, edges regular, everted and on dissecting depth in 4 cms. exposing the cut muscles and vessels, underlying bone is fractured. (19) Transverse incised gaping wound 8 X 1 cms. above the right knee joint in front, edges regular everted. Depth is 2 cm. cutting the underlying muscles and vessels reaching upto the bone (the lower end of the femur) (20) Oblique incised gaping wound on the posterior aspect of right thigh 10 X 5 cms. starting from above and lateral to the knee joint running upwards and medially tailing in the upper part, tail end only skin deep 4 cm. in length. Edges of wound regular and everted depth is 6 cm. cutting the underlying muscles and vessels, underlying bone is also fractured. (21) A vertical stab wound 2.5 X 1 cms. below the root of neck posteriorly on the right side, 2 cms. leteral to the midline, edges regular and everted on dissecting, depth is 1 cm. cutting the underlying muscles and vessels. (22) Another stab injury 5 X 1 cm on the back, middle in between inferior borders of scapular Edges regular everted, depth is 2 cm. cutting the underlying muscles vessels and bone. (23) Vertical, linear incised wound on the lateral aspect of right palm 5 X 0.5 cm. (24) Transverse linear incised wound on the dorsal aspect of right, middle ring and little finger at the same level. (25) Incised gaping, oblique wound on the inner aspect of left palm 18 X 1.5 cms. beginning from the medial side, left wrist, tapering to the middle phalanx of left index finger, edges everted slightly irregular, depth is 1 cm. cutting the underlying muscles, vessels and bones. (26) Oblique incised gaping wound 10 X 2 cms. on the left hand anteriorly starting 2 cms. above injury No.25, running upwards and medially tapering upwards with linear abrasion of skin 2 cm. in length. cutting the underlying muscles, vessels and bones. (26) Oblique incised gaping wound 10 X 2 cms. on the left hand anteriorly starting 2 cms. above injury No.25, running upwards and medially tapering upwards with linear abrasion of skin 2 cm. in length. According to her, injuries 13 to 15 can be caused by MO-4 knife, injury Nos.21 and 22 by MO-2 chopper and all the injuries except 13 to 15 can be caused by MO-1 and MO-2 chopper. She has stated that injuries 1 and 2 in Exhibit P29 are nearly fatal, sufficient enough in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Injury numbers 3 and 4 likely to cause death and injuries 8,9,10,11 and 12 are individually fatal and are individually sufficient to cause death. 16. Prosecution has got a case that accuse were absconding. In support of this case, they rely on evidence of 31 and 32 PW-31 was the Superintendent of Central Excise. Range Office at Aluva from 1986, Second accused was a Peon attached to his office. He stated that second accused attended duty in the office on 29.8.1986 and thereafter he was on unauthorized absence. 30.8.1986 and 31.8.1986 were Saturday and Sunday. Those days were holidays for the office. Second accused did not turn up for duty from 1.9.1986 onwards. His absence is established by Exhibit P10 Attendence Register. As a result of the unauthorized absence, second accused was suspended from duty with effect from 28.9.1986. Evidence of PW-31 is corroborated by his successor in office, PW-32. From the scene accused 1,2 and 4 left on a motor bike. That bike was seized from the house of PW-41 at Chalakudy. During the night of 28.9.1986, second accused was treated by PW-35, the doctor attached to Lal Memorial Hospital at Irinjalakuda. Thereafter second accused was apprehended along with other accused by the police from Manjeri Tourist Home on 28.9.1986. Till that date, accused could not be found in or around their home town so, we come to the conclusion that accused were absconding after the incident. 17. Accused came to the scene together. They inflicted the injuries on the deceased simultaneously. All of them were armed with deadly weapons. After the attack, accused 1,2 and 4 left together. Third accused joined them later. From their conduct, it can safely be inferred that they had the consensus in inflicting the injuries on the deceased. 17. Accused came to the scene together. They inflicted the injuries on the deceased simultaneously. All of them were armed with deadly weapons. After the attack, accused 1,2 and 4 left together. Third accused joined them later. From their conduct, it can safely be inferred that they had the consensus in inflicting the injuries on the deceased. In other words, they had the common intention to commit the act which resulted in the death of the victim. Immediately after the commission of the offence, they absconded. For about a month, their whereabouts were not known. They were arrested from Manjeri Tourist Home on 28.9.1986. They were together in the Tourist Home. This circumstance also go to show that they had the common intention to murder the victim. On the facts and circumstances of this case, we have no hesitation in holding that they were acting in furtherance of their common intention to murder the victim. So, they are liable for the offence of murder, read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. 18. Lastly it was urged by the learned counsel representing the appellants that the absence of motive and the defects in identification of the weapons are sufficient to cast a doubt on the correctness on the prosecution story. The doubt regarding the guilt of accused should be reasonable. It cannot be the doubt of a mind which is so vacillating and is a incapable of reaching a firm conclusion or so timid that it is hesitant and afraid to take thing to their natural consequences. H.R. Khanna, J., speaking on behalf of a Full Bench of three judges of the Supreme Court in Khali Ram v. State of H.P. ( AIR 1973 S.C. 2773 ) observed:- The rule regarding the benefit of doubt also does not warrant acquittal of the accused by resort to surmises, conjectures or fanciful consideration.t We do not find any ground to doubt the genuineness of the prosection story. The Court has to judge the evidence by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic worth and animus of witnesses. Each case is to depend upon its own evidence. As stated by Their Lordships, although the benefit of every reasonable doubt should be given to the accused, the courts should not at the same time reject evidence which is ex facie trustworthy on the ground which are fanciful or in the nature of conjectures. Each case is to depend upon its own evidence. As stated by Their Lordships, although the benefit of every reasonable doubt should be given to the accused, the courts should not at the same time reject evidence which is ex facie trustworthy on the ground which are fanciful or in the nature of conjectures. We have found that the evidence of PW-2 is trustworthy. It has got corroboration for the circumstances detailed earlier in this judgment. Consequently, we come to the conclusion that the appeal is devoid of any merit. The appeal fails. The conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge are confirmed. Appeal is dismissed.