Judgment :- MANOHARAN, J. This appeal is by accused 1 and 2 in Sessions Case No. 97 of 1988 of the Sessions Court, Kollam. Three accused persons were charged under sections 341, 323, 114, 324 and 302 read with S. 34, IPC. Learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Kollam found 1st accused guilty of the offences punishable under sections 302 and 307, IPC., convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life under section 302, IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for two months under section 307, IPC. The second accused was found guilty of the offence punishable under S. 302 read with S. 34, IPC, convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. The 3rd accused was found not guilty and was acquitted. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentences, accused 1 and 2 have filed this appeal. 2. Prosecution case can be summarised as follows :- Vijayan, brother of P.W. 7, was a passenger in K.S.R.T.C. Bus No. 793 on 28-3-1988 which was plying between Chaliyakkara and Punalur. When the bus reached Vilakkuvettom Junction situated in Valacode Village at about 5 p.m. and stopped at the bus stop, accused 1 and 2 entered the bus, the first accused sat on the right side of Vijayan who was then sitting on a seat meant for two. Seeing the first accused, Vijayan attempted to get out of the bus; but the 2nd accused pushed him down to the seat forcibly saying that he (Vijayan) need not go and that they were on the look our for him (Vijayan) immediately the first accused whipped out M.O. 1 and planted a stab on the left side of the chest of Vijayan; Vijayan pressed the wound and bend forward. At that time the first accused again inflicted a stab on his back. The third accused, father of the first accused who was outside the bus then dealt 2 - 3 blows on the head of Vijayan from outside. Then accused 1 and 2 rushed out of the bus. At that time the first accused again inflicted a stab on his back. The third accused, father of the first accused who was outside the bus then dealt 2 - 3 blows on the head of Vijayan from outside. Then accused 1 and 2 rushed out of the bus. P.W. 4 who is the younger sister of the grandmother of Vijayan, while on her way to purchase fish on hearing the commotion from the bus came near it and when accused 1 and 2 came out of the bus, the third accused exhorted them to finish her also whereupon the first accused inflicted a stab injury on her stomach, she ran and accused 1 to 3 followed her. 3. The injured Vijayan was held by P.Ws. 1 to 3 who too were passengers in the bus. Vijayan was taken in the same bus to the Taluk Headquarters Hospital, Punalur where on examination he was pronounced dead. P.W. 1, went to the Punalur Police Station situated nearby and tendered Ext. P1 F.I. statement before P.W. 14, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. He registered Crime 74 of 1988 on the basis of Ext. P1 F.I. statement under sections 341, 323, 114, 324 and 302 read with S. 34, IPC. Then on getting information that some injured persons were brought to the hospital, P.W. 14 went there and recorded the statement of the 3rd accused, on the basis of which he registered Crime 76 of 1988 under sections 447 and 324, IPC against PW-7, brother of Vijayan (deceased). Investigation was taken over by P.W. 15, Circle Inspector of Police. He held Ext. P8 inquest on the dead body of Vijayan under which he seized M.Os. 4 to 8. He prepared Ext. P9 mahazar concerning the bus seized M.O. 2 series and M.O. 3 series. He also prepared Ext. P10 scene mahazar. Post mortem was conducted by P.W. 8 who issued Ext. P2 post mortem certificate. Accused 1 and 3 were arrested on 4-4-1988 when they were discharged from the hospital. On the basis of the information received from the first accused to the effect that he has concealed M.O. 1 in an unused well near his house P.W. 15 proceeded to the said place and effected recovery of M.O. 1 under Ext. P. 12. The second accused was arrested on 12-4-1988. On the basis of the information received from the first accused to the effect that he has concealed M.O. 1 in an unused well near his house P.W. 15 proceeded to the said place and effected recovery of M.O. 1 under Ext. P. 12. The second accused was arrested on 12-4-1988. P.W. 7, questioned the witnesses including P.W. 1, completed the investigation and P.W. 1, laid the charge before court. 4. The motive alleged is that, Soman, brother of the first accused was murdered and a case was registered against P.W. 7, Vijayan (deceased), their father and mother. In that case P.W. 7, was convicted and was sentenced to imprisonment for life and the others were acquitted. It is alleged that, it was on account of the said enmity that the accused persons pursuant to the common intention attacked Vijayan and P.W. 4. 5. Prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 16, produced Exts. P1 to P-20 and identified M. Os. 1 to 8. On the side of the defence Exts. D1 and D2 were marked and DW-1 was examined. 6. When questioned under S. 313, Cr.P.C. the first accused said that there was a picketing of Collectorate on 28-3-1988 in which P.W. 7, Vijayan (deceased) and one Josekutty also participated. While they were proceeding to the Collectorate, on seeing the first accused P.W. 7, uttered abusive words against him; he retorted, upon which P.W. 7 attempted to manhandle him, but was dissuaded by others. In the evening while he was sitting in the verandah of the grocery shop of one Gopala Pillai at Vilakkuvattom Junction P.W. 7 came and challenging him whether he (A1) would dare to abuse him whipped out a double edged sword and aimed a cut on his neck which hit on the left side of his neck. When he again attempted to cut him, A1 caught P.W. 7 from behind. In that position P.W. 7 attempted to hit him with the weapon. At that time Vijayan (deceased) came there and assaulted him (A1). By that time, those who came in the bus and others rushed there and there was a commotion. He (A1) got himself freed and attempted to enter the bus; but could not, and hence he ran to south; on seeing his father (A3) who was rolling beedi in the verandah of the shop adjacent to their house, P.W. 7 attacked him with the sword. He (A1) got himself freed and attempted to enter the bus; but could not, and hence he ran to south; on seeing his father (A3) who was rolling beedi in the verandah of the shop adjacent to their house, P.W. 7 attacked him with the sword. He (A1) ran away. The second accused stated that he was not present at the scene and that he is implicated because of political enmity. 7. P.W. 8, the doctor who conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of Vijayan stated in his evidence as well as in Ext. P2, that he noticed two incised injuries which are described by him as follows : "(1) Incised wound 2.5 x 1 cm. medial end incised horizontally placed on the seventh intercostal space on the left side of the chest just lateral to mid clavicular line and 10 cms. lateral to the midline. (2) Incised wound 2.5 cm. x 0.5 cm. obliquely placed with the upper end touching the midline and lower and 1.5 cms. away from the midline on the left side at the level of 10th thoracic vertebrae, medial end of the wound incised." He (PW. 8) said that the death was as a result of shock and hemorrhage, that injury No. 1 was necessarily fatal and that the injuries could be caused with a weapon like M.O. 1. 8. P.W. 4 was examined by P.W. 9. He referred her (PW. 4) to the Medical College Hospital where she was treated by P.W. 10. She was later discharged; Ext. P4 is the discharge certificate. P.W. 9 issued Ext. P3 wound certificate concerning P.W. 4. In that P.W. 9 noted the following injury : "Horizontal, gaping, penetrating incised wound, 3 cm. x 5 cm., 4 cm. to the left umbilicus." 9. The evidence of P.W. 8 would show that Vijayan died of stab injuries. With due regard to the nature of the injuries and also the opinion of the doctor, it is clear that the death of Vijayan was homicide. As indicated, the evidence of P.W. 9 would reveal that P.W. 4 too had sustained injury. 10. The evidence of P.W. 8 would show that Vijayan died of stab injuries. With due regard to the nature of the injuries and also the opinion of the doctor, it is clear that the death of Vijayan was homicide. As indicated, the evidence of P.W. 9 would reveal that P.W. 4 too had sustained injury. 10. According to the prosecution, the injuries sustained by Vijayan (deceased) as well as P.W. 4 were inflicted by the first accused, and that the deceased was attacked while he was in the transport bus and P.W. 4 was attacked immediately outside the bus when accused 1 and 2 came out of the bus after attacking Vijayan (deceased). The prosecution relied on the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 6 to establish that Vijayan and P.W. 4 were attacked by the accused persons as indicated above. 11. P.W. 1 said, on 28-3-1988 at about 5 p.m. he boarded the K.S.R.T.C. but at Pathupara Junction for Punalur, that Vijayan was seen seated on one of the seats in the bus and that when the bus stopped at Vilakhuvattom Junction, accused 1 and 2 jumped into the bus before the passengers could alight from the bus and as soon as they reached Vijayan, first accused sat on his (Vijayan) right side, that Vijayan tried to rise in an attempt to go out, but the 2nd accused pushed him down to the seat saying that he need not go out and that they were on the look out for him; immediately first accused whipped out M.O. 1 knife from his waist and stabbed Vijayan on his chest, that Vijayan pressed the wound with his hand and bend forward again first accused inflicted another stab injury on his (Vijayan) back, Vijayan cried and that, thereafter accused 1 and 2 ran out of the bus. The third accused who was standing near the bus outside dealt 2 - 3 blows on Vijayan's head, that seeing Vijayan leaning towards right himself, P.Ws. 2 and 3 held him. On hearing the third accused exhorting accused 1 and 2 to finish P.W. 4 he looked out and saw the first accused inflicting a stab on P.W. 4. He said, on receiving the injury P.W. 4 ran away, and that first accused with M.O. 1 and accused 2 and 3 followed her. 2 and 3 held him. On hearing the third accused exhorting accused 1 and 2 to finish P.W. 4 he looked out and saw the first accused inflicting a stab on P.W. 4. He said, on receiving the injury P.W. 4 ran away, and that first accused with M.O. 1 and accused 2 and 3 followed her. In the same bus Vijayan was taken to the Taluk Headquarters Hospital, Punalur where the doctor on examination pronounced him dead. He said, then he went to the police station nearby and tendered Ext. P1 F.I. statement. 12. P.W. 2 is related to both the accused persons as well as the deceased. She said that she was also a passenger in the same bus on her way to the Government Hospital, Punalur. She also deposed in the same manner as P.W. 1. She said that she along with P.Ws. 1 and 3 held Vijayan on his sustaining the injury and that on hearing the third accused asking accused 1 and 2 to finish P.W. 4 also she looked out and saw the first accused stabbing P.W. 4. P.W. 3, another passenger in the bus also corroborated P.Ws. 1 and 2 as to the occurrence in which Vijayan sustained the injuries; but he said that he did not see P.W. 4 sustaining the injury. 13. P.W. 4 said that the deceased was her elder sister's daughter's son, that on her way to purchase fish, on hearing a commotion from the bus, she ran towards the bus, that at that time, accused 1 and 2 came out of the bus, that when she asked them as to what they have done to her son, the third accused exhorted accused 1 and 2 to finish her also upon which the first accused stabbed her on her stomach with M.O. 1, that on sustaining the injury she ran away from the scene, that later she was taken to the Taluk Headquarters Hospital, Punalur from where she was taken to the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram and that she was under treatment for seven days in that hospital. 14. P.W. 5 is the conductor of the bus. 14. P.W. 5 is the conductor of the bus. He said that the bus reached Vilakkuvattom Junction at about 5 p.m. on 28-3-1988, that Vijayan was a passenger in the bus, that at Vilakkuvattom stop before passengers disembarked from the bus 4-5 persons entered the bus, that immediately he heard a cry, and that he saw first accused inflicting a stab injury on Vijayan. He said, there was blood beneath the seat on which Vijayan was seated. 15. P.W. 6 is a merchant near Vilakkuvattom junction. He said, a cry from the bus attracted his attention and when he reached the bus he saw P.W. 4 running away crying and accused 1 to 3 following her, that the first accused had a knife in his hand, and that when he looked into the bus, he saw the injured Vijayan held by P.Ws. 1 and 2. 16. The evidence of these witnesses, particularly that of P.Ws. 1 to 3 would show that Vijayan sustained injuries while he was in the bus. This is corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 15, Ext. P9 mahazar concerning the bus and also the evidence of P.W. 5 which would reveal that there was blood beneath the seat on which Vijayan sat. Of these witnesses, P.Ws. 1, 3, 5 and 6 are independent witnesses. P.Ws. 2 and 4 though are related to Vijayan (deceased) are also related to the accused persons. Nothing material is brought out in the evidence of these witnesses to discredit their evidence. 17. P.W. 15 said, as per the information received from the accused he recovered M.O. 1 under Ext. P12 from an unused well. Ext. P6 Chemical Analyst's report said, M.O. 1 knife had traces of blood which was insufficient to determine the origin. Though the confession by the accused which lead to the recovery does not contain the authorship of concealment, since in view of the evidence to the effect that M.O. 1 was involved in the offence, the said conduct of the accused which lead to the recovery of M.O. 1 is admissible under S. 8 of the Evidence Act. That also will corroborate the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 6. 18. The main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the occurrence did not take place as is maintained by the prosecution. That also will corroborate the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 6. 18. The main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the occurrence did not take place as is maintained by the prosecution. According to him the occurrence took place front of the nearby grocery shop of Gopala Pillai, in which accused 1 and 3 sustained serious injuries and that the prosecution has suppressed the said part of the occurrence. The learned counsel for the appellant alternatively submitted, at any rate the second accused could not have been held guilty of any offence, as according to him, the evidence would not disclose any common intention as is alleged by the prosecution. According to the learned counsel, P.W. 7 who is a life convict on parole attacked the first accused with a sword in front of the grocery shop and that in that transaction Vijayan (deceased) assaulted him and it was in that transaction accused 1 and 3 sustained injuries. It was contended by the learned counsel that there were no two occurrences as alleged by the prosecution, instead there was only one occurrence in which accused 1 and 3 as well as Vijayan and P.W. 4 sustained injuries. 19. Ext. P20 is the charge sheet submitted in Crime No. 76 of 1988 with respect to the injuries sustained by accused 1 and 3. The charge sheet was against P.W. 7. As noticed, the offences alleged against him were those punishable under sections 324 and 447, IPC. The time of occurrence was 6 p.m. on 28-3-1988 and the scene of the said occurrence was the road margin near Vilakkuvattom Junction. Exts. P17 and P19 also would show that the scene of occurrence was the road margin. The time of occurrence there in was 6 p.m. whereas the time of occurrence in this case spoken to by P.Ws. 1 to 6 was at about 5 p.m. It is not a case where the prosecution withheld any part of the occurrence. The prosecution produced Exts. P17 to P20 in proof of the occurrence in which accused 1 and 3 sustained injuries. Learned counsel for the appellants contented that there is inconsistency in the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 6 and 7 as to the occurrences in which accused 1 and 3 sustained injuries. What is to be noted is, P.Ws. The prosecution produced Exts. P17 to P20 in proof of the occurrence in which accused 1 and 3 sustained injuries. Learned counsel for the appellants contented that there is inconsistency in the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 6 and 7 as to the occurrences in which accused 1 and 3 sustained injuries. What is to be noted is, P.Ws. 1, 2 and 6 have only hear-say information as regards the occurrence in which accused 1 and 3 sustained injuries. There is nothing in the evidence to show that accused 1 and 3 sustained injuries in an occurrence at 5 p.m., the evidence only shows that the occurrence in which accused 1 and 3 sustained injuries was at 6 p.m. and the scene of occurrence was the road margin near Vilakkuvattom Junction. 20. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the appellants on the evidence of P.W. 9 in support of his contention that the occurrence did not take place as maintained by the prosecution. As noticed, P.W. 9 issued Ext. P3 wound certificate concerning P.W. 4. When he was asked as to whether the injury sustained by PW. 4 could be caused with a weapon like M.O. 1 he said it is unlikely. On the basis of the said evidence, it was contended that the injury could have been sustained at the hands of some persons other than the first accused who, according to the prosecution, held M.O. 1. 21. P.W. 9 said the ends of the injury on P.W. 4 was elliptical. What is significant to be noted is such a description does not find a place in Ext. P3 wound certificate issued by him. M.O. 1 is a single edged weapon though it has got a sharp tip. P.W. 9 does not specifically state as to why the injury sustained by P.W. 4 could not be caused with a weapon like M.O. 1. His statement that the ends of the injury was elliptical is an attempt to maintain that a single edged weapon like M.O. 1 cannot cause such an injury. It is interesting in this connection to note whereas Ext. P3 wound certificate is dt. 28-3-1988, P.W. 9 was examined on 11-8-1989, after an year of the issue of the wound certificate. When the wound certificate does not have the description of the end of the injury. It is interesting in this connection to note whereas Ext. P3 wound certificate is dt. 28-3-1988, P.W. 9 was examined on 11-8-1989, after an year of the issue of the wound certificate. When the wound certificate does not have the description of the end of the injury. Normally P.W. 9 could not have recollected the said aspect after an year of his examining the injured. P.W. 4 said that it was with M.O. 1 that the 1st accused stabbed him. P.Ws. 1 and 3 also saw the first accused along with accused 2 and 3 following the fleeting P.W. 4 with M.O. 1. Thus the ocular evidence of the occurrence witnesses is to the effect that it was with M.O. 1 the injury was inflicted on P.W. 4. The Supreme Court in the decision in Anvaruddin v. Shakoor, AIR 1990 SC 1242 : (1990 Cri LJ 1269) held (para 10) : "Where the expert evidence is obscure and oscillating, it is not proper to discredit the direct testimony of the eyewitnesses on such uncertain evidence. In such situation unless the evidence of the eye-witnesses is shaken by some glaring infirmities, it would not be proper to doubt the correctness of their statements." 22. Apart from the same the assumption that a single edged weapon cannot cause an injury whose both ends are sharply cut is not correct. In the decision in George v. State, (1990) 1 Ker LJ 177 this court held : "Even when a single edged knife is stabbed into the body, both ends of the wound may appear to be sharply cut due to tearing of the skin at the blunt edge." With due regard to the place where the injury was inflicted the conclusion is inevitable, particularly in the face of the ocular evidence, that the injury sustained by P.W. 4 was inflicted with M.O. 1. In the decision in Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1983 SC 484 : (1983 Cri LJ 822) the Supreme Court held (para 12) : "Unless, however the medical evidence in its turn goes so far that it completely rules out all possibilities whatsoever of injuries taking place in the manner alleged by eye witnesses, the testimony of the eye witnesses cannot be thrown out on the ground of alleged inconsistency between it and the medical evidence." Thus, we do not give any credence to the said part of the evidence of P.W. 9. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants in the regard also is not acceptable. 23. A faint attempt was also made by the learned counsel for the appellants to contend that it was highly improbable that the first accused could have inflicted the injuries while he was seated on the right side of Vijayan in the bus. With due regard to the seat of the injuries sustained by Vijayan, it is not possible to agree with the learned counsel because when one is attacked, by sheer reflex the victim would try to save himself. Nothing is brought out in the evidence of P.W. 8 as to the said aspect. We do not see any force in the said argument. 24. The next argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is based on the acquittal of the third accused. According to him, the acquittal of the third accused would show that there was false implication and therefore the case of the prosecution cannot be accepted. Merely because one of the accused is acquitted, that by itself cannot be a reason for acquittal of the other accused persons. It is not as if once a portion of the evidence of a witness is found to be not acceptable the whole evidence of the witness has to be rejected if the said portion is otherwise acceptable. We have already adverted to the evidence of the occurrence witnesses as to how Vijayan and P.W. 4 sustained stab injuries; the same is acceptable. 25. Now we may advert to the alternate contention of the learned counsel for the appellants to the effect that at any rate the second accused could not have been held guilty of the offence punishable under S. 302 read with S. 34, IPC. 25. Now we may advert to the alternate contention of the learned counsel for the appellants to the effect that at any rate the second accused could not have been held guilty of the offence punishable under S. 302 read with S. 34, IPC. It was contended by the learned counsel that there is no acceptable evidence which would reveal that the second accused had common intention with the first accused to cause the death of Vijayan. In this context, it would be worthy to advert to the motive alleged by the prosecution. P.W. 7 is the brother of Vijayan (deceased). He said, Soman, the brother of the first accused was murdered and in that case he (P.W. 7) along with his parents and Vijayan were the accused. The court acquitted Vijayan and his parents and convicted P.W. 7 for the offence of murder and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. According to the prosecution, the murder of Soman was the motive for the attack. Second accused is the son of the first Accused's mother's sister. The sequence of events that led to the sustaining of injury by Vijayan is of importance in deciding whether the second accused participated in the occurrence so as to inter that he had common intention with the first accused in causing the death of Vijayan. The evidence of the occurrence witnesses is to the effect that when the bus stopped at Vilakkuvatton Junction accused 1 and 2 together rushed into the bus and as soon as they reached where Vijayan was seated, first accused sat on his (Vijayan) right side seeing which when Vijayan got up from the seat in an attempt to go away it was the second accused who pushed him down forcibly to the seat stating "you need not go, we were on the look out for you". This was followed by the stabs inflicted by the first accused. The sequence of events undoubtedly would spell out a common intention to attack and cause the death of Vijayan. The common intention can develop even during the course of transaction. In the decision in Hari Om v. State of U.P., 1993 Suppl. This was followed by the stabs inflicted by the first accused. The sequence of events undoubtedly would spell out a common intention to attack and cause the death of Vijayan. The common intention can develop even during the course of transaction. In the decision in Hari Om v. State of U.P., 1993 Suppl. (2) SCC 1 : (1993 Cri LJ 1383) the Supreme Court observed (para 15 of Cri LJ) : "In order to bring a case under S. 34, IPC it is not necessary that there must be a prior conspiracy or premeditation. The common intention can be formed in the course of occurrence. The law is well settled in this regard." We are unable to accept the argument of the learned counsel in this regard. 26. From the above discussion, it is clear that the prosecution is successful in establishing the prosecution case and the contention of the defence that the accused 1 and 3 sustained injuries in the same transaction is not acceptable since the evidence does not show that the accused 1 and 3 sustained injuries in the same transaction, there is no obligation on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries sustained by accused 1 and 3; and in fact they sustained injuries in an occurrence that took place later at 6 p.m. in a different scene of occurrence. 27. Learned Second Additional Sessions Judge found the first accused guilty of the offence under S. 302, IPC for causing the death of Vijayan and also found him guilty of the offence punishable under S. 307, IPC for attempting to murder P.W. 4 No charge was framed under S. 307, IPC instead the charge was under S. 324, IPC. In such situation, the conviction under S. 307, IPC for causing injury to P.W. 4 cannot be sustained. The finding in that regard and conviction and sentence under S. 307, IPC have to be set aside and first accused is liable to be found guilty of the offence punishable under S. 324, IPC also for causing injury to P.W. 4 and he has to be convicted under S. 324, IPC. We do so and he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under S. 324, IPC also. We do so and he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under S. 324, IPC also. The conviction and sentence awarded to the first accused under S. 302, IPC, and the conviction and sentence awarded to the second accused under section 302 read with S. 34, IPC are confirmed. The sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year awarded to the first accused under S. 324, IPC shall run concurrently with imprisonment for life awarded to him under S. 302, IPC. Subject to the above, the appeal is liable to be dismissed which accordingly is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.