PASAYAT, J. ( 1 ) THE appellants (hereinafter referred to as T1accusedt1) faced trial for allegedly having caused homicidal death of one Dinabandhu Panda (hereinafter referred to as the deceased), and for having assaulted Ghanshyam Acharya (P. W. 1) (hereinafter referred to as T1the injured) with an intention to commit murder, in furtherance of their common intention. Five others were also tried but they were acquitted by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur (hereinafter referred to as T1the trial Judge ). ( 2 ) FACTS situation, according to prosecution, as unfolded during is as follows the deceased is the brother-in-law of the injured (P. W. 1 ). They were whole-sellers of vegetables so was Niranjan Acharya (P. W. 8 ). They used to carry on business in Biohazard area of Berhampur town locally known as P0 Market. Accused-appellants are retailers in vegetables and they also carried on business in the said market. Since accused persons were not regular in liquidating their credit dues, there was ill feeling between P. W. 1 and the deceased on one hand, and the accused persons on other. On 11. 9. 1987, the fateful day, at about 7 a. m. in the morning while P. W. 1 was in his shop accused Bidyadhar and Bahaman came and demanded that they should be given vegetables on credit. But P. W. 1 refused to extend such facility, as they had not cleared up their earlier dues. Both the accused persons threatened to teach a lesson. At about 12. 30 p. m. while the deceased and P. W. 1 were going to their respective houses via Aska road to take lunch, the accused persons who were concealing themselves near a Mandap near Kansarisahi, suddenly came out and surrounded them. They shouted to kill the deceased and P. W. 1. Thereafter the accused assaulted the deceased and P. W. 1 by means of axe, Kati etc. , as a result of which the deceased succumbed to injuries, and P. W. 1 sustained large number of grievous injuries on different parts of the body and fell down unconscious: P. W. 8, the brother, of P. W. 1 who was coming behind them rushed to the spot. Paws. 5, 6 and 7 who were coming from the opposite dereliction of the deceased also saw the assaults on the deceased and P. W. 1. Paws. 5, 6 and 7 who were coming from the opposite dereliction of the deceased also saw the assaults on the deceased and P. W. 1. They shifted the deceased and the injured to the M. K. C. G. Medical College, Berhampur. P. W. 8 lodged information at Bodobazar P. S. On receipt of information, investigation was undertaken, bloodstained earth and blood-stained napkin were seized from the spot and dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. Wearing apparels of the injured were seized. Accused persons absconded and subsequently accused Narayan was arrested on 29. 10. 1987 at Kesharpur Bus Stand. The other two accused namely, Bidyadhar and Bhagaban could not apprehended as they were found absconding till submission of charge sheet. Subsequently, they were arrested at Sutra in Gujarat on 24. 5. 1989. The accused persons took the stand that the deceased and the injured were the members of whole-salers association. Since the accused persons protested against illegal actions, mis-management and discriminatory attitude of P. W. 1, the deceased, and other wholesalers, there was strained relationship between them, Core that they have been falsely implicated. ( 3 ) IN order to further its case, prosecution examined twelve witnesses. In addition to P. W. 1, the injured, P. WS 5, 6, 7 and 8 were stated to be the eye witnesses who witnessed the assault on the deceased and P. W. 1. Background of dispute has been highlighted by learned trial Judge. It was noticed that three months prior to the occurrence accused came to P. W. 1 to collect subscription for a deity locally known as TTKaula Mas and P. W. 1 being the President paid Rs. 51/- by behalf of the Association. The accused persons were dissatisfied as, according to them, the amount was very low. They threatened to teach him a lesson in future. Again two months prior to the alleged occurrence, accused Bidydhar and Bhagaban retained to take away the life of one Pratap Chandra Patro, an active member of the association and abused him resulting in misunderstanding between P. W. 1 and the aforesaid accused persons: Subsequently 20 to 25 days prior to the alleged occurrence, accused Bidyadhar asked P. W. I to give his consent for release of his brother on parole, which was a life convict Since P. W. 1 expressed his inability, accused Bidyadhar bore grudge towards P. W. 1. As indicated above, in the morning of the fateful day, there was again dispute between P. W. 1 and accused Bidyadhar and Bhagaban. This is sufficient to conclude that, Relationship between the accused persons and the deceased was strained. A conspiracy had been hatched to take away the lives of the deceased and P. W. 1, before ,a hair cutting saloon and the conversation in that regard was over-heard by P. W. 10. On hearing about the dubious plan, P. W. 10 wanted to inform P. W. I but could not get him. When the deceased and P. W. 1 had reached the spot near Mandap accused persons who were concealing themselves, suddenly came out being armed with Kati, Khanda, and started assaulting indiscriminately on both the deceased and P. W. 1. Both were taken to the Hospital. As indicated above, the deceased was declared dead, whereas the P. W. 1, injured in a had shape was admitted in the Orthopedics Ward and remained there as an indoor patient for nearly two months. His left foot was revered from the ankle joint and it was almost hanging, when he was shifted to the hospital. Various surgical operations were necessary. An iron rod was put inside his left hand and his left foot was imputed to save his life. The accused persons pleaded false implication. ( 4 ) LEARNED trial Judge found that prosecution has established its case beyond a shadow of doubt and convicted the accused persons under section 307/34 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, the I. P. C. T1 ). They were accordingly convicted, while other five who faced trial were acquitted as indicated above. In respect of offence punishable under section 302/34, I. E. sentence of imprisonment for life was awarded. Further sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ - in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each under section 307/34, I. P. C. was awarded. ( 5 ) TO prove the gruesome assaults, prosecution has relied on the evidence of the injured (P. W. 1), which sustained fourteen injuries. Out of them injury Nos. 1,6,7 and 8 were grievous in antler. Injury No. 1 was an amputation across left ankle joint through body of the talus bone. ( 5 ) TO prove the gruesome assaults, prosecution has relied on the evidence of the injured (P. W. 1), which sustained fourteen injuries. Out of them injury Nos. 1,6,7 and 8 were grievous in antler. Injury No. 1 was an amputation across left ankle joint through body of the talus bone. It was bleeding profusely and was a dangerous wound. Injury No. 6 was a compound fracture 2 cams x 3 cams over left bone. Injury No. 7 was a compound fracture 1 cm. x 1 cm. over left 5th metacarpal bone and injury No. 8 was a compound fracture 3 cams x 4 cams over right fibula and tibia. Injury Nos. 6, 7 and 8 were indicated to be Grievous in nature. Surgical operations were rendered in order to save him. Paws. 5, 6, 7 and 8 are eyewitnesses to the occurrence who have spoken about brutal murder of the deceased and infliction of blows with various weapons on P. W. 1. P. W. 8 is the informant who is also brother of P. W. 1 The evidence of eyewitnesses is characterized by the accused to be partisan on the ground that they belong to same locality as the injured and the deceased. Non-examination of any witness belonging to the locality where the alleged assaults took place has been highlighted. It is also stated that the eye-witnesses did not state specifically about the weapons and certain additional materials have been introduced which are substantially at variance with the statements given before the police during investigation. There is also no corroboration with each other. The identification of the assailants is doubtful. There is no evidence of any pre-concert and in particular there is no material against appellant Narayan The doctors evidence clearly shows that there was one chopped incised wound on the head and other injuries were one curved scratch 9 long from elbow to lower part of the right forearm on its back and one incised wound 3/4 x 1. 4 x subcutaneous deep situated obliquely over the back of the left forearm tailing towards elbow One abrasion over left side of the neck at its lower part 2-1/: x 1/8 which was a scratch type abrasion. With reference to these injuries it is submitted that the same could not have been sustained if more than one person would have given blows with cutting weapons. With reference to these injuries it is submitted that the same could not have been sustained if more than one person would have given blows with cutting weapons. The witnesses have exaggerated that all the accused persons assaulted with the dangerous weapons. Alternatively it is submitted that the nature of the injuries is such that a case under section 302, I. P. C is not made out and further in the absence of any positive evidence regarding pre-concert, there cannot be any application of section 34, I. P. C. It was also submitted that in view of categorical evidence to show that P. W. 1 and not the deceased was the target of attack it couldnt be held that the common intention was to cause death of the deceased. As there was a single blow on the head, which was not of very serious in nature, a conviction under section 302, I. E. is not appropriate. The witnesses who have been examined to prove the motive and hatching up a conspiracy having been disbelieved prosecution version has been rendered shaky so far as accused-appellant; arc concerned, and there is no material worthy of Acceptable can bring in application of section 302, I. P. C. or section 34, I. P. C. ( 6 ) THE submission of the learned counsel for State and the informant on the other hand is that the occurrence took place during lunchtime the accused persons were acquainted with the nature of movement of the deceased and the injured. They lay in wait at a place, which they knew to be less crowded at that particular point of time, were armed with dangerous weapons and suddenly started assaulting. They were alluring obscene Words directed at the deceased and the injured, and were crying out to kill them. The background of the assaults clearly shows that they intended to CIA away with the lives of both. The nature of the injuries described by the doctor clearly shows the injured that was havening between life and death could have breathed his last at any time, though he has fortunately survived. He has become a cripple for life. The assaults were indiscriminately made. The gravity of the injuries sustained by the injured can be well gauged from the fact that an iron rod was inserted inside his left hand; his left foot was imputed from the ankle joint. He has become a cripple for life. The assaults were indiscriminately made. The gravity of the injuries sustained by the injured can be well gauged from the fact that an iron rod was inserted inside his left hand; his left foot was imputed from the ankle joint. The accused themselves have accepted that there was a dispute between them and the injured and the deceased. Reference in this context is made to the statement of the accused recorded under section 313, Cr. P. C. In order to attract application of section 34, I. P. C fatal assault need not be attributed to any one in particular. Materials on record show that the accused persons had common intention and even though one of them caused fatal blow culpability can be attached to each one of them. ( 7 ) WE shall first deal with the evidence of eyewitnesses. P. W. 1 is the injured himself. We above have indicated all the injuries sustained by him. There were as many as fourteen injuries. He was hospitalized as an indoor patient for more than two months and various surgical operations were conducted over his body by putting an iron road inside his left hand, by amputation of the left foot from ankle joint and by plastering his right leg in order to save his life. There was an injury over left pine of the ear. From his evidence it is clear that while he and the deceased were entering inside Kasseri Sahib, the accused persons who had concealed themselves near the Mandan, suddenly came out being armed with weapons and shouted to kill the deceased and the injured. It has been highlighted by the learned counsel for State that the injured has described in detail as to which accused was holding which weapon, and who inflicted the head injuries on the deceased. Considering the fact that the injured him self was being mercilessly assaulted and trying to save his own life, it is natural that he might not have noticed how the accused persons were assaulting. Therefore, even if there is slight variation i. e. the statement of P. W. 1 and other eyewitnesses we do not consider that to be consequence. The fact remains that he has categorically described the assault, on himself and the indiscriminate assaults on the deceased. In addition we have the evidence of P. W. 8, the informant. Therefore, even if there is slight variation i. e. the statement of P. W. 1 and other eyewitnesses we do not consider that to be consequence. The fact remains that he has categorically described the assault, on himself and the indiscriminate assaults on the deceased. In addition we have the evidence of P. W. 8, the informant. He has categorically described about the weapons held by the accused persons, the assault made on the injured and the deceased, and though he was subjected to lengthy cross-examination nothing material has been brought on record to discredit his testimony. This witness was at a close quarter from the injured and the deceased. He was just following them. He stated as to how the accused persons armed with weapons such as Khaddar Kati and tangier rushed towards his brother (P. W. 1) an d the deceased who were going on the way by shouting to kill the injured and the deceased by making reference to them (MAAR SALANKU ). His evidence drives a death nail to the defense plea that P. W. 1 was the prime target and even if incidentally the deceased received injuries, that is not sufficient to make application of section 34. The accused persons were referring in plural to the injured and deceased. All the three accused inflicted blows on the deceased and the injured. The witnesses claim to have seen the assaults from a distance of 30 cubits from the spot. With reference to the First Information Report, the learned counsel for the accused has urged that this witness has stated that he took the injured and the deceased to the hospital with the assistance of the people of the locality Sailor With reference to the expression Sailor the learned counsel for the accused stated that obviously the reference was to the people of the locality, where the occurrence took place. This expression can as well refer to the locality of the witness. In any event, there is no suggestion to this witness about this aspect and on the other hand the witness has categorically stated that Paws 5, 6 and 7 were present at the spot. He has stated that he shifted his brother (P. W. 1) and the deceased to the hospital with the assistance of P. Ws. In any event, there is no suggestion to this witness about this aspect and on the other hand the witness has categorically stated that Paws 5, 6 and 7 were present at the spot. He has stated that he shifted his brother (P. W. 1) and the deceased to the hospital with the assistance of P. Ws. 5, 6 and 7 in two rickshaws for treatment and came back for making arrangement for transfusion of blood and at that time P. Ws. 5, 6 and 7 were there in the hospital for attending to P. W. 1 and the deceased He has also clarified in paragraph 20 of his cross-examination that he docs not remember if any other Baste-men or Shaman of Kasseri Sahib came to the spot when he cried out for help. Since attention of the witness was not drawn to the expression Shylockt in the First Information Report by the accused, it would be unsafe to accept the submission of the learned counsel for accused that the expression Sahilok refers to persons belonging to Kansari Sahi. P. W s. 5, 6 and 7 belong to his locality. It is, therefore, probable that he referred to them. The evidence of P. W. 5 shows that the road on which the occurrence took place was lonely at that time. He is a vegetable wholesaler carrying on business in the same market where the deceased and the injured used to carryon transactions. His presence at the spot cannot be doubted because that was lunchtime and undisputedly that is a time when the traders of the market go to take their lunch through Kalisari Sahi, where the occurrence took place. He has categorically described as to how the assaults were dealt by the accused persons. He claimed to have witnessed the occurrence at a fume of 60 cubits. He also corroborates the version of P. W. 8, the informant about carrying the injured and the deceased to the hospital. To similar effect is the evidence of P. W. 7. His nondisclosure about the incident to others has been highlighted. This we do not consider to be of consequence. Non-raising of any cry for help by P. W. 7 has been characterized as unusual How, a person would react in a circumstance would depend on the nature of the person and there can be no rule of universal application. His nondisclosure about the incident to others has been highlighted. This we do not consider to be of consequence. Non-raising of any cry for help by P. W. 7 has been characterized as unusual How, a person would react in a circumstance would depend on the nature of the person and there can be no rule of universal application. Only because the person has not raised a cry for help, it cannot be termed as unusual. The witness has specifically stated that he did notarizing cry while he saw the accused persons jumping from the Mandap holding the weapons, as he was trembling at that time. Elaborate cross-examination has not brought any crack in the evidence of P. Ws. 5, 6 and 7. Therefore, the learned trial Judge has correctly held that the scenario as revealed from the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 5, 6, 7 and 8, the informant, clearly establishes that the Accused persons had made gruesome assaults on the injured and the deceased and were responsible for the death of the deceased. ( 8 ) THE next question is whether section 302, I. P. C. is attracted to the facts of the case. The fatal injury as indicated by the doctor is as follows:one chopped incised wound 6 x 1); x cranial cavity deep situated exterior posterior on the left side of the head involving left parietal and frontal region. It was a fresh wound, gaping, bleeding profusely and showed splitting transversely at the ends. Bone was cut through and through. On dissection it was noticed that underneath the external injury indicated above, there was superficial cut on the decameter 3 long. The doctor (P. W. 2) has also opined that this injury was fatal in ordinary course of nature to cause the death. The nature of injury on the head clearly shows that death was intended, and therefore, section 302 was rightly applied and the conviction there under has been rightly made. The doctor (P. W. 2) has also opined that this injury was fatal in ordinary course of nature to cause the death. The nature of injury on the head clearly shows that death was intended, and therefore, section 302 was rightly applied and the conviction there under has been rightly made. ( 9 ) IT is trite law, that once it is found that a criminal act was done in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for the criminal act as if it was done by him alone The section is intended to meet a case in which in may be difficult to distinguish between the acts of individual members of a party who act in furtherance of the common intention of all or to prove exactly what part was taken by each of them The principle which the section embodies is participation in some action with the common intention of committing a crime. Once such participation is established, section 34 is atoning attracted, (Sec Bharwad Mepa Dana v. State of Bombay ). Section 34 is only a rule of evidence and does not create a substantive offence. It means, that if two or more persons intentionally do a thing jointly it is just the same as if each of them had done individually (Sec B. N. Srikantiah v. State of Mysore) the section embodies a principle of Joint liability in the doing of criminal act, and the essence of the liability is the existence of a common intention (See Checkering Gouda v. State of Mysore) In the case at hand eyelift it is accepted as contended by the defense, which we have rejected, that the injured was the prime target, the fact that the accused persons pursued the injured and the deceased and participated in assaulting them Clearly shows that the assault was the result of previous concert. For applicability of section 34, a Pre-concert in the sense of a distinct previous plan is not necessary to be proved. The common intention to bring about a particular result may well develop on the spot as between a number of persons, with reference to the facts of the case and circumstances of the situation. For applicability of section 34, a Pre-concert in the sense of a distinct previous plan is not necessary to be proved. The common intention to bring about a particular result may well develop on the spot as between a number of persons, with reference to the facts of the case and circumstances of the situation. Whether in a proved situation all the individuals concerned therein have developed only simultaneous and independent intentions or whether a simultaneous consensus of their minds to bring about a particular result can be said to have been Enveloped and thereby intended by all of them, is a causation that has to be determined on the facts. ( 10 ) AS the scenario depicted by the prosecution clearly shows that a common cause with a particular result was intended. Section 34 is to be read along with the proceeding section 33 that makes it clear that the act spoken of in section 34 includes a series of acts as a single act. The act committed by different confederates in the criminal action may be different, but all must in one way or the other participate and engage in the criminal enterprise. The essence is simultaneous consensus of the minds of persons participating in the criminal action to bring forth a particular result. As indicated above, such consensus can be developed at the spot and thereby intended by all of them. (See Ram swami v. State of Tamil Nadu ). The common intention must be to commit the particular crime, although the actual crime may be committed by anyone sharing the common intention. After all the existence of a common intention said to have been shared by the accused persons is, on ultimate analysis, a question of fact. Common intention is a question of fact, which can be inferred from facts and circumstances. (See, Mastodons v. State of U. P ). It is true that in order to convict persons vicariously under section 34 or section 149, I. P. C. for overt act or acts of one or more accused, there must be material to show that overt act or acts were done in furtherance of common intention of all Accused or prosecution of common object of members of unlawful assembly. It is true that in order to convict persons vicariously under section 34 or section 149, I. P. C. for overt act or acts of one or more accused, there must be material to show that overt act or acts were done in furtherance of common intention of all Accused or prosecution of common object of members of unlawful assembly. ( 11 ) UNDOUBTEDLY, it is a difficult task to prove even the intention of an individual and, therefore, It is all the more difficult to show the common intention of a group of persons. The inference whether there was common intention can be gathered by the manner in which the accused arrived on the scene and mounted the attack, the determination and concert with which the beating was given or the injuries caused by one or some of them, the acts done by others to assist those causing the injuries. The conduct subsequent to the commission of the offence, for instance all of them leaving the scene of the incident together, and other acts, which all or some may have done, would help in determining the common intention. In other words, the totality of the circumstances must be taken into consideration in arriving at the conclusion whether the accused had a common intention to commit an offence of which they could be convicted (See Ram Tahal v. State of U. P. Judge Singh v. State of Maharashtra and Aher Pitha Vajshi v. State of Gujarat. In the famous Decrees case,9 Lord Dacres agreed with several persons to hunt in anothers park for deer, and to kill all who might resist. One of the party having killed the keeper, all were held guilty of the murder, though Lord Dacer was a quarter of a mile distant, and knew nothing of the individual blow. ( 12 ) IN the Oxford English Dictionary, the word furtherance is defined as the action of helping forward. Adopting this definition, Russel says that it indicates some kind of aid or assistance producing an effect in future and adds that any act may be regarded as done in furtherance of the ultimate felony if it is a step, intentionally taken, for the purpose of affecting that felony (Russel on Crime, 12th Eden Volume-i, pages 487-88) The Supreme Court in Sanker Lal v. State of Gujarat has interpreted the word furtherance as advancement or promotion. ( 13 ) THE fact that the accused persons who were concealing simultaneously came out armed with various deadly weapons and made indiscriminate assaults shouting to kill both the deceased and the injured by referring to them in obscene language and their leaving the spot together as witnessed by P. Ws. 5, 6, 7 and 8 clearly shows and republishes existence of common intention to do away with the life of the deceased and an attempt to do so in the case of the injured. Section 34, I. P. C. was, therefore, rightly applied. ( 14 ) IN the ultimate analysis, the conviction made under sections 302/34 and 307/34, I. P. C. stands on terra firma, and it does not need any interference. The sentence awarded is maintained. The appeal fails and is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .