S. C. DATTA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners faced trial before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge for the offence under Ss. 307/34, IPC. They were convicted by the trial Court and sentenced to suffer R. I. for seven years. The appeal to the Sessions Court became unsuccessful. Thereafter, they have filed this revision petition challenging the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the Courts below. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that on 20th June, 1969, the victim (P. W. 1) had gone to Baripada. Both the petitioners were known to him from before. They invited him to accompany them to a cinema show to which be agreed. Accordingly, all of them witnessed the second show in Jagadhatri Talkies. After the show was over, the petitioners invited them for a late supper and all of them took food in a hotel near Balacore Golad of Baripada town. Thereafter, they proceeded towards their village on bicycles. When they approached the bridge over river Balanga, petitioner No. 1 Chhota alias Joharlal Mohante told that he would attend a call of nature. So all of them got down from their bicycles. Suddenly, petitioner No. 2 Chhutu Singh stabbed the victim (P. W. 1) on the abdomen with a knife and then both the petitioners together threw the victim to the river from the bridge. When the victim tried to swim for life, the petitioners pelted brick bats at him causing injuries on his head. Somehow the victim climbed on to a sand he as full of creepers and spent the night. In the early next morning the villagers found him lying in injured condition and informed the police. He was removed to a hospital where he was admitted as an a indoor patient. After prolonged treatment he was discharged from the hospital. Eventually, the petitioners faced trial and were convicted by the trial Court which was affirmed by the appellate Court. ( 3 ) BEING dissatisfied with the findings of the course below, the petitioners have come in revision. ( 4 ) IT is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the Court below were not justified in passing the conviction solely upon the testimony of the victim. It is further contended that the Courts below went wrong in convicting petitioner No. 1 with the aid of S. 34, IPC. ( 4 ) IT is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the Court below were not justified in passing the conviction solely upon the testimony of the victim. It is further contended that the Courts below went wrong in convicting petitioner No. 1 with the aid of S. 34, IPC. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the evidence on record goes to show that at best it is a case under S. 326, IPC against petitioner No. 2, Therefore, it is prayed that the order of conviction and sentence be set aside as against petitioner No. 1 on the ground that he is a handicapped person having one leg badly effected due to poliomyetis. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the State supports the findings of the Courts below. ( 6 ) IT appears that there is only eye-witness to the occurrence and he is the victim (P. W. 1 ). He suffered stab injury in his stomach and as a result his intestine and stomach came out. From his evidence it appears that the occurrence took place on a lonely bridge at mid-night. It was, therefore, not expected that anybody also would be present at that odd hours of the night. The statement of the victim (P. W. 1) was not shattered in the cross-examination. He has clearly stated that both the accused persons invited him first to the cinema show and then to the hotel and stabbed him and threw him into the river from the bridge. The statement of victim (P. W. 1) finds support from the statement of P. W. 3 who found P. W. 1 lying on the sand and removed him by a Trolly to the hospital. The Doctor (P. W. 6) said that there was a big injury on the abdomen and portion of the stomach and intestine had come out through that wound and there was a lacerated wound on the hand of P. W. 1. The injury report also corroborates this fact. The victim (P. W. 1) when he was rescued by the villagers was semi-conscious and was only able to talk feebly. On appreciation of evidence, both the Courts case to the conclusion quite rightly that it was the accused persons who were responsible for causing the injury on the victim. The injury report also corroborates this fact. The victim (P. W. 1) when he was rescued by the villagers was semi-conscious and was only able to talk feebly. On appreciation of evidence, both the Courts case to the conclusion quite rightly that it was the accused persons who were responsible for causing the injury on the victim. ( 7 ) THE next question that comes out for consideration is whether petitioner No. 1 can be convicted with the aid of S. 34,ipc. It may be mentioned here that common intention is to be inferred from the circumstances particularly the part played by the accused and the surrounding circumstances, namely the nature of the weapon used and the injury inflicted as well as the meeting of the minds among the accused who are being held constructively liable. Here is this case, we notice that both the petitioners invited the victim first to the cinema show and then to the hotel. While they were proceeding towards the village, petitioner No. 2 whipped out a knife and stabbed him in his stomach and in consequence thereof, the stomach and intestine came out through that wound. Later both of them threw the victim into the river. It is of course true that the prosecution has not been able to show the motive for the offence. Nevertheless, the fact remains that they had acted conjointly in throwing the victim into the river. It is in the evidence of the victim P. W. 1 that they pelted stones towards him causing head injuries. It is to be remembered also that when there is a direct evidence of the offence the motive becomes inconsequential. Therefore, regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case and on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, I am fully satisfied that the Courts below were quite justified in arriving at the finding of guilt of the accused persons. ( 8 ) REGARDING the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the conviction should be altered to one under S. 325, IPC it may be stated that the petitioner No. 2 stabbed the victim in such a manner that the stomach and intestine had come out. They did not stop there but threw him into a river from the bridge and also pelted brick bats. They did not stop there but threw him into a river from the bridge and also pelted brick bats. This evidence clearly establishes the fact that the petitioners had a common intention of causing the death of the victim. Therefore, I think the petitioners were rightly convicted under S. 307/34, IPC and no interference is sought for. The revision petition is without any merit and is dismissed as such. Petition dismissed. .