Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 662 (AP)

PARASA SATYANARAYANA v. State Of A. P.

2002-06-06

M.NARAYANA REDDY, R.M.BAPAT

body2002
RAMESH MADHAV BAPAT, J. ( 1 ) BOTH the Appeals arise out of Sessions Case no. 404 of 1997 decided by the Sessions judge, Krishna District, Machilipatnam convicting Accused No. 1 who is appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1551 of 2000 and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to a pay of fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment of six months and acquitting Accused Nos. 2 and 3 of the charges levelled against them. The accused No. 1-appellant filed Crl. Appeal No. 1551 of 2000 against the order of conviction and the State of Andhra pradesh has filed the Appeal No. 929 of 2001 against the order of acquittal recorded against A2 and A3 and, therefore, both the appeals are disposed of by a common judgment. ( 2 ) THE substance of the charge against the accused was that on 19-8-1997 at about 10. 45 a. m. in front of the shopping complex of A. R. Mohan Rao at Nadupur village, the accused in furtherance of their common intention caused the death of one parasachinna Rambabu by stabbing him with a knife and severing his head from the trunk of the body. ( 3 ) THE prosecution story can be briefly stated as below: ( 4 ) PW1 happened to be the father and PW2 happened to be the mother of the deceased. The accused and the deceased are first cousins belonging to Nandur village. PW1 has four brothers. Accused were the sons of one of his brothers, namely, nancharaiah, with whom they shared some ancestral properties. ( 5 ) IT is stated by the prosecution that three years prior to the date of the incident, there were disputes between PW1 and one of his brothers, Nancharaiah (who happened to be the father of the accused ). The disputes were settled between them. Even then, the accused were attempting to tamper with stones laid to the boundary of the property. Three days prior to the date of incident, the accused removed the boundary stones, which was reported to the elders. Then the elders chastised the accused and advised them to settle the issue amicably after getting the land measured by a surveyor. Even then, the accused were attempting to tamper with stones laid to the boundary of the property. Three days prior to the date of incident, the accused removed the boundary stones, which was reported to the elders. Then the elders chastised the accused and advised them to settle the issue amicably after getting the land measured by a surveyor. ( 6 ) IT is further stated by the prosecution that on the date of incident i. e. : 19-8-1997 at about 10 a. m. , the accused along with their father trespassed into the house of PW1. They were armed with knives and sticks. Al was alleged to have threatened the father of the deceased as to who will come to rescue him if he kicks him. So saying, accused No. 1 tried to hack pw1, but he could protect himself with a stick. Subsequently, on the intervention of pw4 and others, the accused went away. After half-an-hour later, while the deceased was returning home from the fields, near the shop of one Ratnamohan Rao, the accused came from behind chasing the deceased, but the deceased was unmindful of accused chasing him. Accused No. 3 caught hold of the left hand of deceased, accused No. 2 caught hold of the right hand of the deceased, A1 armed with Kamma katti stabbed on the neck of the deceased. On seeing this, PW1 and PW2 begged the accused not to harm their son. But, inspite of that, accused No. 1 again hacked the deceased on the back twice. He further hacked him on the left side of the abdomen on which the intestines came out and deceased fell down with his face downwards. Then accused 2 and 3 caught hold of his legs with their hands and then the accused no. 1 chopped the head of the deceased from the remaining part of the body. On seeing the incident, PWs. 3 and 4 who were present at the center came running saying not to harm the deceased. But, before they could reach the spot, accused No. 1 ran away holding the head of the deceased in his left hand and knife in his right hand. PWs. 3 and 4 followed him but could not apprehend him. 3 and 4 who were present at the center came running saying not to harm the deceased. But, before they could reach the spot, accused No. 1 ran away holding the head of the deceased in his left hand and knife in his right hand. PWs. 3 and 4 followed him but could not apprehend him. Subsequently, PW3 along with others went in search of severed head and they were able to trace out, which was in the road margin near the hayrick of Atimiri satyanarayana. ( 7 ) IT is further case of the prosecution that on information given by PW3, PW1 went and saw the head of the deceased near me hayrick. They proceeded to Police Station and gave a report regarding the incident. Thus, the police machinery was set in motion. Ex. P1 is the report given by PW1. On the strength of the said report, FIR was registered. ( 8 ) IT is further case of the prosecution that on the basis of the report given by PW1 on 19-8-1997 at about 12 noon, PW12, Sub- inspector of Police, registered a case in crime No. 99 of 1997 and issued the copies of First Information Report to all concerned. Thereafter, PW13, the Inspector of Police took-up the further investigation, proceeded to scene of offence and conducted the panchanama of the same. It was done in the presence of PW9 at the place where the severed trunk and the head of the deceased were found separately. Then he got the scene of offence photographed with the help of PW8. Exs. P5 to 30 are the photographs. PW13, the Inspector of police drew the rough sketch of both the scenes of offence i. e. , the place where the trunk was lying and the head was lying. The two panchanamas of scenes of offence were brought on record in exs. P39 and P40. Thereafter, he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in two parts. Ex. P32 is the inquest report in respect of the body and Ex. P33 is the inquest report in respect of the head, which was severed from the trunk. At the time of inquest, he recorded the statements of PWs. 1 to 4. ( 9 ) ON 20-8-1997, PWs. Ex. P32 is the inquest report in respect of the body and Ex. P33 is the inquest report in respect of the head, which was severed from the trunk. At the time of inquest, he recorded the statements of PWs. 1 to 4. ( 9 ) ON 20-8-1997, PWs. 10 and 11, civil Assistant Surgeons, Government Head quarters Hospital, Machilipatnam conducted autopsy over the head and body of the deceased respectively and opined that the cause of death was due to decapitation of the head from the body due to multiple injuries. Exs. P36 and P37 are the postmortem reports of head and body respectively. ( 10 ) ON 8-9-1997 at about 11. 15 a. m. at old Railway Station, PW13 arrested Accused nos. 1 to 3 in the presence of PW9 and another. It is said that when the accused were in the custody, A1 made a statement and knife was recovered from the well. A1 with the help of ladder went down into the well and picked up a knife from the well. Ex. P35 is the mediator s report on seizure of MOs. The material objects were sent to Regional Forensic Science laboratory. Ex. P41 is the letter of advice. Ex. P42 is the Chemical Examination Report. Thus, on investigation, PW13 filed the charge-sheet. ( 11 ) THE defence of the accused is of total denial. It is also submitted that because of previous enmity and at the instigation of PW1 and his supporters, he has been falsely implicated in the case. ( 12 ) IN order to substantiate the prosecution case, prosecution examined pws. 1 to 13 and got marked Ex. P1 to P42. The defence examined DW1. Certain documents were marked in the cross- examination i. e. , Ex. D1 to D6. Out of the prosecution witnesses examined, PWs. 5 to 7 did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile. ( 13 ) IN order to establish that the accused caused the death of deceased, the prosecution led the evidence of PW13, the inspector of Police who had conducted inquest panchanama on the head as well as trunk of the deceased separately, as both the parts of the body were lying at different places. ( 14 ) PW10 and PW11 who happened to be the Civil Assistant Surgeons, conducted autopsy of the dead body. ( 14 ) PW10 and PW11 who happened to be the Civil Assistant Surgeons, conducted autopsy of the dead body. PW10 happened to be working as Civil Assistant Surgeon, government Headquarters Hospital, machilipatnam. On 20-8-1997 at about 12 Noon, he performed the post-mortem examination on the head of the deceased. On external examination, the following injuries were noted by him:"severed head separated from the body. Edges of the wound is clean and sharp running across all the structures of neck, cutting trachea at crico thyroid level, oesophagus all major blood vessels and spine at the level of 4th cervical vertebra. Blood vessels constricted, empty and blood clots present. No other external injuries on the face and scalp. " ( 15 ) AS per his observation, he issued the certificate which is produced and marked as Ex. P36. ( 16 ) PW11 happened to be the Civil assistant Surgeon in the Government hospital, Machiiipatnam. He performed the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and noticed the following external injuries:"external injuries: Head absent. 2. Clean incised wound on the neck separating head, trachea, thyroid, cartilage, C5-vertebra, oesophagus, thyroid gland (partly) are seen in the neck. 3. Abrasion on the right chest and abdomen about 20" long x 10" width. Erythema present. 4. Incised, elliptical, transverse wound below left scapula 6" x 4" x depth not known. Edges clear. 5. Vertical elliptical, incised wound on the medial aspect of the right scapula 6"x4"x bone deep. Edges clear. 6. Incised elliptical wound left loin, transverse disposition 10"x4" entering the peritoneal cavity. Small intestines are seen outside. Edges are clear. 7. Abrasion 8" x 5" behind the right knee. Erythema present. "on internal examination, he found the following internal injuries:"internal injuries. 1. Hyoid bone and criloid cartilage are absent in the neck wound. 2. Multiple rib fractures on the left chest. Injury on the back (injury No. 4 of external wounds) entered, plural cavity on the left side. 3. 10" x2" x2" long laceration of the left lung. 4. 100 ml. of blood present in left plural cavity. 5. Multiple small perforation of small intestines. 6. Great vessels were cut in the neck at C5 level. " ( 17 ) BOTH the doctors have opined that the deceased died because of multiple injuries of vital organ and decapitation of head. 4. 100 ml. of blood present in left plural cavity. 5. Multiple small perforation of small intestines. 6. Great vessels were cut in the neck at C5 level. " ( 17 ) BOTH the doctors have opined that the deceased died because of multiple injuries of vital organ and decapitation of head. ( 18 ) CONSIDERING the evidence led by the prosecution on the point of domicile death, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution, has been able to establish that the deceased had domicile death. ( 19 ) IN order to connect the accused with the crime, the prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of PWs. 1 to 4. PWs. 1 to 4 are eye-witnesses. PW1 happened to be the father of the deceased and PW2 is the mother of the deceased. On the date of incident, the father of the accused and the accused marched into the house of PW1. Accused No. 1 alleged to have threatened them with dire consequences. A1 tried to give a blow with the knife to PW1, but he was able to protect himself with the help of stick. At that juncture, other witnesses appeared at the scene of offence and thus, PW1 was able to escape from the clutches of the accused. The accused later went from the scene of offence. The above incident was also noticed by PW2 who happened to be the wife of PW1. Both the witnesses were scared and therefore, they were waiting outside the site. At that time, they saw that the deceased was returning to their house. When he reached near the shop of Ratnamohan Rao, all the accused came from the backside of the deceased and started chasing him. The accused 2 and 3 alleged to have held the hands and legs of the deceased and accused no. 1 stabbed the deceased with a knife. Firstly he gave a blow with the knife on the rear side of the neck. Then he again hacked twice on the back of the deceased. He also hacked the deceased on the left side of the abdomen. The intestine came out. The deceased fell on the ground, accused Nos. 2 and 3 caught hold of the arms and legs of the deceased and then accused No. 1 severed his head from the trunk. PWs. Then he again hacked twice on the back of the deceased. He also hacked the deceased on the left side of the abdomen. The intestine came out. The deceased fell on the ground, accused Nos. 2 and 3 caught hold of the arms and legs of the deceased and then accused No. 1 severed his head from the trunk. PWs. 1 and 2 begged the accused not to harm their only son, but the accused did not listen. ( 20 ) THEREAFTER, all the three accused alleged to have ran away from the scene of offence. ( 21 ) WHILE commenting upon this part of evidence, the learned Counsel, Mr. C. Padmanabha Reddy, appearing for the defence submits that the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 does not inspire confidence. It was brought to our notice from the evidence of pws. 1 and 2 that there was cattle shed in between the shop of Ratnamohan Rao and therefore, this story preferred by the pw1 that they could watch the accused stabbing the deceased has to be rejected. This Court is not in agreement with the submission of Mr. C. Padmanabha Reddy. Therefore, such contention, in our view, has no legal sanction. Moreover, it can be seen from the evidence on record that immediately after the incident, PW1 went to the Police Station and lodged complaint with the police. By reading the First information Report, it is evident that he has categorically stated that he has been eyewitness to the incident. The whole testimony of PWs. 1 and 2 is perfectly corroborated by fir, Ex. P1. We do not find any reason as to why the version of PWs. 1 and 2 should be discarded. ( 22 ) WE further have the evidence of two more witnesses, who are independent witnesses. PW3 happened to be Sarpanch of the village. According to his evidence, he knew the deceased for more than two years. He was also knowing that there was boundary dispute between the family of the deceased on the one hand and the accused herein on the other hand. The said witnesses further depose that 3 days prior to the incident in question, accused no. 2 had removed boundary stones. PW1 made a complaint to the elderly members of the village. The accused were chastised by them and boundary stones were lifted and placed at the proper place. The said witnesses further depose that 3 days prior to the incident in question, accused no. 2 had removed boundary stones. PW1 made a complaint to the elderly members of the village. The accused were chastised by them and boundary stones were lifted and placed at the proper place. ( 23 ) THE evidence of PW3 further discloses that on the date of incident, in the morning, he was talking to some persons. At that time, he had seen the deceased proceeding towards his own house. He had also seen accused 2 to 3 exhorted saying choostavemira narikeyye peedavadilipotundi" meaning thereby "kill him". According to his version, accused No. 1 dealt a blow with knife on the neck of the deceased. Accused No. 1 further gave two more blows on either side of the back in the lower portion. At that time, the accused 2 and 3 had caught hold of the deceased. When stab was given on the intestine of the deceased by A1, the intestine came out. The evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 and 2. ( 24 ) PW4 is one more eye-witness, who happened to be the brother of the deceased. He runs a small baddy shop at nadupuru village. The incident in question, according to his version, took place about 9 to 9. 30 am. According to his further version, accused 2 and 3 instigated accused no. 1 to kill the deceased. Accordingly, accused 2 and 3 caught hold of the hands of the deceased. Accused No. 1 stabbed the deceased on the vital organs of the body and then he fell down and died on the spot. ( 25 ) WHILE commenting upon this part of the evidence, the learned Counsel, Mr. C. Padmanabha Reddy, submits that there has been discrepancies in the version of four witnesses. Firstly, it was contended by the learned Counsel that PW1 has not stated in the evidence that accused Nos. 2 and 3 instigated the accused No. 1 to kill the deceased. Therefore, it was submitted by the learned Counsel that accused Nos. 2 and 3 had not instigated accused No. 1. It was also pointed out from the evidence of PWs. 2 and 3 that they came with a theory that accused Nos. 2 and 3 instigated accused no. 2 and 3 instigated the accused No. 1 to kill the deceased. Therefore, it was submitted by the learned Counsel that accused Nos. 2 and 3 had not instigated accused No. 1. It was also pointed out from the evidence of PWs. 2 and 3 that they came with a theory that accused Nos. 2 and 3 instigated accused no. 1 to kill the deceased and therefore, it was submitted that if the Accused are convicted, it will be unnatural and unjust to the parties. ( 26 ) ONE cannot expect that the evidence of four witnesses will be as cyclostyled documents. Some discrepancies here and there are bound to be there, when human element is involved and therefore, this Court is not inclined to give any importance to such minor discrepancies in the evidence of PWs. 1 to 4. ( 27 ) IT is now, undoubtedly, stands established that accused No. 1 had severed the head of the deceased, which was noticed by PWs. 1 to 4. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the appeal filed by accused No. 1, appellant in Crl. A No. 1551 of 2000 has to be dismissed. Accordingly, the said Appeal is dismissed. ( 28 ) NOW, the point that arises for our consideration is whether the accused nos. 2 and 3 share the common intention of killing the deceased. The learned Counsel, mr. C. Padmanabha Reddy, submitted that unless there is a positive evidence on record to show that there was meeting of minds of all the three persons, the common intention on the part of the accused Nos. 2 and 3 cannot be inferred. It was further contended by the learned Counsel that it may be a fact that accused Nos. 2 and 3 had caught hold of the hands and legs of the deceased. But, they may not be knowing that the accused No. 1 really wanted to kill the deceased. They may not also be aware that accused No. 1 intended to severe the head of the deceased from the trunk. Therefore, accused Nos. 2 and 3 cannot be held responsible for causing the death of the deceased by sharing common intention with accused No. 1. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel, Mr. They may not also be aware that accused No. 1 intended to severe the head of the deceased from the trunk. Therefore, accused Nos. 2 and 3 cannot be held responsible for causing the death of the deceased by sharing common intention with accused No. 1. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel, Mr. C. Padmanabha Reddy, relied upon a ruling reported in Rana Pratap v. State of Haryana, air 1983 SC 680 , in which their Lordships in paragraph 11 of the judgment held as under:"in our view, the only question worthy of consideration in this case is whether Rana pratap and Sat Pal can be said to have shared a common intention with Manmohan to kill the deceased so as to be liable for the offence under Section 302 read with section 34 IPC. The case of the prosecution was that there was ill-feeling between manmohan and the deceased as the deceased was demanding from Manmohan money which was due to him and in that connection, he had abused and slapped him a few days earlier. On the day of occurrence, which was a Sunday, the deceased and his brother, Yash Pal, Public Witness 3, were going towards their shops in order to clean them. On the way they were met by Manmohan, Rana Partap and Sat Pal, who came from the opposite direction. Manmohan shouted that we would teach a lesson to the deceased who had insulted him. Thereupon, Rana Partap and Sat Pal caught hold of him and Manmohan gave him state injuries on the right side of the abdomen, left side of the chest and left shoulder. Yash Pal, brother of the deceased then took out his belt which he was wearing around his waist and attacked the accused with it. PWs. 4 and 5, a milk vendor and a vegetable and fruit hawker, who also witnessed the occurrence, threw brickbats at the accused. The accused left the deceased and ran away. The deceased was then taken to the hospital where he died later. Yash Pal, Public Witness 3 went to the police station and gave the first information report. The evidence, while it discloses that there was some previous trouble between the deceased and Manmohan, does not disclose any special ill-feeling between the deceased and Rana Partap and Sat Pal. The deceased was then taken to the hospital where he died later. Yash Pal, Public Witness 3 went to the police station and gave the first information report. The evidence, while it discloses that there was some previous trouble between the deceased and Manmohan, does not disclose any special ill-feeling between the deceased and Rana Partap and Sat Pal. But the circumstance that the three accused came together, and that two of them held the deceased while the third one stabbed him clearly indicates that they shared some common intention. The question is whether the common intention was to do away with the deceased ? The evidence is not very clear whether Rana Partap and Sat Pal continued to hold the deceased even after manmohan started stabbing him. Neither rana Partap nor Sat Pal is alleged to have said anything to indicate that they wanted the deceased to be done away with. Manmohan himself did not say that he was going to finish the deceased. He only said that he wanted to teach him a lesson. In the circumstances, we are unable to hold that the only inference possible is that rana Partap and Sat Pal shared the common intention with Manmohan to kill the deceased. No doubt they held the deceased and this facilitated the stabbing by Manmohan. But there is nothing whatever to indicate that they knew that Manmohan would cause fatal injuries to the deceased, though they must have anticipated that he would cause grievous injuries. It is one of those borderline cases where one may with equal justification infer that the common intention was to commit murder or to cause grievous injury. But the benefit of any such doubt must go to the accused. In the circumstances, we conclude, but not without hesitation, that the common intention of the accused has not been established, beyond reasonable doubt, to be to cause the death of the deceased. But it certainly was to cause grievous injuries to the deceased. The conviction of Rana Partap and Sat Pal under Section 302 read with Section 34 and the sentence of life imprisonment are therefore set aside and instead they arc convicted under Section 326 read with section 34 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years each. The conviction of Rana Partap and Sat Pal under Section 302 read with Section 34 and the sentence of life imprisonment are therefore set aside and instead they arc convicted under Section 326 read with section 34 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years each. So far as Manmohan is concerned, the three stab injuries inflicted by him are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. His conviction and sentence are confirmed. " ( 29 ) THE learned Counsel has also relied upon the judgment reported in Ramashish yadav v. State of Bihar, AIR 1999 SC 3830 . Their Lordships were pleased to hold in paragraph 3 as under:"coming to the question of applicability of section 34 for the murder of Tapeshwar, we find from the evidence of the three eyewitnesses that while Ram Pravesh Yadav and Ramanand Yadav caught hold of tapeshwar, accused Samundar Yadav and sheo Layak Yadav came with gandasa and gave blows on the head of Tapeshwar, as a result of which Tapeshwar died. Section 34 lays down a principle of joint liability in the doing of a criminal act. The essence of that liability is to be found in the existence of common intention animating the accused leading to the doing of a criminal act in furtherance of such intention. The distinct feature of Section 34 is the element of participation in action. The common intention implies acting in concert, existence of a prearranged plan which is to be proved either from conduct or from circumstances or from any incriminating facts. It requires a pie- arranged plan and it pre-supposes prior concert. Therefore, there must be prior meeting of minds. The prior concert or meeting of minds may be determined from the conduct of the offenders unfolding itself during the course of action and the declaration made by them just before mounting the attack. It can also be developed at the spur of the moment but there must be pre-arrangement or premeditated concert. The prior concert or meeting of minds may be determined from the conduct of the offenders unfolding itself during the course of action and the declaration made by them just before mounting the attack. It can also be developed at the spur of the moment but there must be pre-arrangement or premeditated concert. This being the requirement of law for applicability of Section 34 Indian Penal code, from the mere fact that accused Ram pravesh Yadav and Ramanand Yadav came and caught hold of Tapeshwar, whereafter samundar Yadav and Sheo Layak Yadav came with gandasa in their hands and gave blows by means of gandasa it cannot be said that the accused Ram Pravesh Yadav and Ramanand Yadav shared the common intention with accused Samundar Yadav and Sheo Layak Yadav. Consequently, accused Ram Pravesh Yadav and Ramanand yadav cannot be held guilty of the charge under Section 302/34, Indian Penal Code but accused Sumunder Yadav and Sheo layak Yadav did commit the offence under section 302/34, having assaulted deceased tapeshwar on his head by means of gandasa on account of which Tapeshwar died. The accused Ram Pravesh Yadav and ramanand Yadav are, therefore, acquitted of the charges levelled against them and they be set at liberty forthwith. So far as the two other appellants are concerned, namely, Ramashish Yadav and Sukhdeo yadav, they have merely caused injury to the informant by means of a knife and for causing such injury they can only be convicted under Section 324/34 Indian. Penal code and are sentenced to imprisonment for two years. But they have already been in custody for more than seven years by now, they should also be set at liberty forthwith. In the net result, therefore, the conviction of appellant Ram Das Yadav under section 302 Indian. Penal Code and sentence of imprisonment for life is upheld and his appeal stands dismissed. Conviction of all other appellants under Section 302/149 is set aside. Conviction of appellants Samundar yadav and Sheo Layak Yadav under section 302/34 Indian Penal Code and sentence of imprisonment for life is upheld. Appeal by them, therefore, stands dismissed accused Ram Parvesh and Ramanand are acquitted of the charges and be set at liberty forthwith. Conviction of all other appellants under Section 302/149 is set aside. Conviction of appellants Samundar yadav and Sheo Layak Yadav under section 302/34 Indian Penal Code and sentence of imprisonment for life is upheld. Appeal by them, therefore, stands dismissed accused Ram Parvesh and Ramanand are acquitted of the charges and be set at liberty forthwith. Accused Ramashish Yadav and Sukhdeo Yadav are convicted under section 324/34 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment and since they have already been in custody for more than seven years, they are directed to be set at liberty forthwith. " ( 30 ) WHILE refuting the aforesaid argument, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the State submitted at the Bar that there is clinching evidence on record to show that accused Nos. 2 and 3 shared the common intention with accused no. 1 to kill the deceased. Firstly, it was contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that, admittedly, there has been enmity between the two groups. It may be that the accused wanted to grab the lands of the deceased and his father and therefore, they were removing the boundary stones now and then and creating trouble for the deceased and his father. On the date of incident itself, accused 1 to 3 had gone to the house of PW1 and accused No. 1 tried to give blow with a knife on the person of pw1. Fortunately, he was able to ward off the said blow with the help of the stick. On the intervention of other people, he was rescued. He and his wife came out of the house and they were waiting for their son to return from the fields. When their son was returning to the house, all the accused came out of the house. Accused nos. 2 and 3 were instigating accused No. 1 in very clear words to kill him and while saying so, they had caught hold of the hands and legs of the deceased and thereafter, accused No. 1 stabbed the deceased at various parts of the body and ultimately, the head was severed and accused No. 1 ran away. The above fact stands established that accused Nos. 2 and 3 themselves instigated accused No. 1 to kill the deceased. It is not necessary to elaborate. It is suffice to say that they shared the common intention to kill the deceased. The above fact stands established that accused Nos. 2 and 3 themselves instigated accused No. 1 to kill the deceased. It is not necessary to elaborate. It is suffice to say that they shared the common intention to kill the deceased. Their intention was nothing short of killing the deceased. We cannot have better evidence of the sharing of common intention than the present one. Under these circumstances, we hold that the learned Sessions Judge wrongly acquitted accused Nos. 2 and 3. Therefore, we pass the following order. ( 31 ) CRIMINAL Appeal No. 1551 of 2000 filed by the accused No. 1 - Appellant, is dismissed. Criminal Appeal No. 929 of 2001 filed by the State against the order of acquittal against accused Nos. 2 and 3 is hereby allowed and the accused Nos. 2 and 3 are sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. The accused to surrender before the sessions Judge for undergoing the sentence imposed upon them within one week. ( 32 ) THUS, both the appeals are disposed of.