Judgment :- The above appeals are preferred against the conviction by the trial court. 2. The case of the prosecution before the trial court against the accused 1 to 3 is as follows: On 05.04.1994 at about 03.00 p.m., near the house of the 1st accused in Nachanampatti Kaattu Valavu Azhagesan Kaadu, the 1st accused with the intention of causing death to Palanisamy, hit with a stick on his head. At the same time, accused 2 and 3 sharing the common intention, attacked Palanisamy with stones. A2 hit him on the cheek and A3 on the forehead and due to that injuries, he fell down and died on the spot. Therefore, the trial Court charged A1 for the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC and A2 and A3 for offences punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC. 3. To prove the case, prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 9, marked Exs. 1 to 13 and M.Os. 1 to 9. The trial Court after going through the evidence, convicted A1 for the offences punishable under Section 304 (2) IPC and A2 and A3 for the offences punishable under Section 304 (2) r/w 34 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three years. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused 1 to 3 have preferred these appeals. 4. P.W.1 is the resident of Vedappan Kaadu in Deevattipatti Village. He knows the deceased Palanisamy as well as the accused. A2 and A3 are his married sisters. A1 is related to A3. P.W.1 used to go to Kaliamman temple in Kadayampatti Village through Arasamara Kaadu. On the date of incident, when he was going to Kaliamman temple, near the land which was taken on lease by A1, a quarrel arose between the accused and the deceased. At that time, when he went there, A1 was questioning the deceased that he quarreled with him in the brandy shop in the morning and now he had come there again. Saying that, A1 hit the deceased with a stick on the left side of his head, A2 picked up the stone which was lying near the house and hit him on the cheeks and A3 also picked up the stone and hit him on the forehead. When P.W.1 shouted for help, the accused 1 to 3 ran away from the scene of occurrence, throwing the stick as well as stones. When P.W.1 shouted for help, the accused 1 to 3 ran away from the scene of occurrence, throwing the stick as well as stones. Thereafter, he proceeded to Nachampatti Village, where one Ganesan, brother of the deceased was running a tea stall. He informed Ganesan about the incident and both of then rushed to the scene of occurrence to take the injured to the hospital. But, when they returned back, they found Palanisamy lying dead. Thereafter, P.W.1 along with Ganesan went to Deevattipatti Police Station and gave a report. The statement of P.W.1 is recorded in the Police Station which is marked as Ex.P1. 5. At 04.00 p.m. on 05.04.1994, a case was registered by P.W.7 in Cr.No.250 of 1994 under Section 302 IPC which was marked as Ex. P11. He prepared the First Information Report and sent a copy of the same to the Court as well as to the higher authorities and the Investigating Officer concerned. 6. P.W.8, Investigating Officer received information at 04.30 p.m. and immediately took up the investigation. He went to the scene of occurrence at 5.30 p.m. on the same day and prepared Observation Mahazar Ex.P.2 in the presence of the witnesses. A sketch, Ex. P12 was also prepared. He conducted inquest between 6.30 and 10.00 p.m. and prepared Ex. P13, Inquest Report. During inquest, he examined P.Ws. 1 and 2 and two other witnesses. Thereafter, he sent the body of the deceased for autopsy through P.W.5, Police Constable. He also continued investigation and at about 10.15 p.m., he seized M.O.1 blood stained stick, M.O.2 stone, M.Os. 3 and 4 blood stained earth and sample earth and M.O.4 chappals under Ex.P3. At about 11.00 p.m., he arrested A1 near Panchayat Union Office, Kadayampatti, A2 on 07.04.1994 in Deevattipatti Bus Stand at about 06.00 a.m. and A3 on 09.04.1994 at about 08.30 a.m. in the same bus stand. 7. P.W.4 is the Doctor working in Omalur Government Hospital. He conducted autopsy of the body of the deceased on 06.04.1994 at about 11.30 a.m. Ex.P5 is the post-mortem report. In his report, the following external injuries were found by him on the body of the deceased: (1) A lacerated wound 10 c.m. X 3 c.m. X bone deep over the left occipital regions. (2) A lacerated wound 3 c.m. X 1 c.m. over the middle of the pinna of left ear. In his report, the following external injuries were found by him on the body of the deceased: (1) A lacerated wound 10 c.m. X 3 c.m. X bone deep over the left occipital regions. (2) A lacerated wound 3 c.m. X 1 c.m. over the middle of the pinna of left ear. (3) An abrasion 2 c.m. X 1 c.m. over the inner aspect of the left ear. (4) An abrasion 5 c.m. X 2 c.m. over the back of the left ear. (5) Multiple irregular abrasions over the right side of the forehead, right cheek. (6) A lacerated wound 10 c.m. X 3 c.m. bone deep over the left parietal region. (7) Contusion 8 c.m. X 4 c.m. over the left jaw. (8) Contusion 15 c.m. X 10 c.m. with multiple irregular abrasions over the back of the left shoulder. (9) Multiple irregular abrasion over the back of the left forearm left palm right forearm and right leg. He opined that external injuries 1 and the internal injury due to the external injury 1 caused the death of the deceased and the injury was fatal. 8. After completion of investigation, P.W.8 filed charge sheet. 9. The trial Court after perusing the evidence, convicted the first accused for the offences punishable under Section 304 (2) IPC and the second and third accused for the offences punishable under Section 304 (2) IPC r/w 34 and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three years. 10. Learned counsel for the first accused submitted that to prove the charge that the first accused caused injury, the prosecution examined only one witness viz., P.W.1. P.W.1 is not the resident of that village and he is the only eye witness. In his evidence, P.W.1 has stated that he saw the incident when he was going to Kaliamman temple. It is unbelievable that a person was proceeding to temple at 03.00 p.m. in the month of April. He also admits that there were two women near the place of occurrence. But, they were not examined before the Court. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 is very doubtful. It is unbelievable that a person was proceeding to temple at 03.00 p.m. in the month of April. He also admits that there were two women near the place of occurrence. But, they were not examined before the Court. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 is very doubtful. Further, the learned counsel also submitted that P.W.1 did not even inform the father of the deceased who was in the same village, instead, he says that he went to the shop run by the brother of the deceased, which was 1 « kilometres away from the place of occurrence. Admittedly, P.W.1 is having a corn in his leg and for the same, he used to go to Kaliamman temple. Therefore, such a person could not have gone to the next village and returned back to the place of occurrence and even thereafter both of them could not have proceeded to the police station which was 2 kilometres away by walk. Therefore, the entire evidence of P.W.1 is unbelievable. When there is one solitary witness and his presence itself is doubtful, the case of the prosecution cannot be accepted at all, the learned counsel submitted. There were 9 injuries found on the deceased. According to P.W.1, A1 caused only one injury with the stick; But according to the doctor, there were seven injuries caused by the stick; The other two injuries were caused by the stones; Therefore, the counsel argued that presence of P.W.1 is itself very doubtful. Therefore, on the solitary evidence of P.W.1, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the accused caused the injuries. He also submitted that it is the deceased who had come to the place of A1 to pick up a quarrel. Therefore, it is a right of private defence when A1 retaliated or attacked him. Therefore, his act will not be punishable under the Act. 11. Learned counsel for the second accused submitted that accused 2 and 3 have no enmity whatsoever with the deceased. Absolutely, there is no motive for A2 and A3. Therefore, A2 and A3 participated in the attack without any motive. The only witness who was examined to prove the motive also turned hostile. There is no evidence to corroborate the evidence of P.W.1. Absolutely, there is no motive for A2 and A3. Therefore, A2 and A3 participated in the attack without any motive. The only witness who was examined to prove the motive also turned hostile. There is no evidence to corroborate the evidence of P.W.1. Further, even if it is assumed that accused 2 and 3 caused injuries, it cannot be stated that they shared the common intention of causing death of the deceased. They only picked up the stones which were lying nearby. It was not a pre-planned attack. Since it is an individual act and the injury caused by them are simple in nature, they cannot be punished under Section 304 (2) IPC r/w 34. In support of his argument, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in AIR 1995 SCW 368 where the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the High Court, convicted the accused for the individual acts. Therefore, in this case also, A2 and A3 cannot be said to have shared the common intention of A1 to cause death of the accused. He also relied upon the other judgment of the Supreme Court AIR 1994 SCW 820 where the accused were punished only for their individual acts, but not for the common intention. Therefore, in this case also they could be convicted, if at all, only for their individual acts. 12. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submitted that the participation of the accused in the crime is proved by P.W.1. To prove the common intention, there is no necessity for a meeting of mind prior to the commencement of incident. Such common intention can develop during the course of quarrel or during the course of the incident. All the three accused caused injuries mainly on the head. There is no necessity to prove the motive when there is an eye witness; but it is sufficient if the common intention is proved from the circumstances. The conduct of P.W.1 in not informing the father of the deceased who is residing in the very same village and informing the brother of the deceased in the next village is not something strange. The conduct of P.W.1 in not informing the father of the deceased who is residing in the very same village and informing the brother of the deceased in the next village is not something strange. He referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in 2000 SC(cri) 222 where the Supreme Court has stated that "different witnesses react differently under different situations: whereas some become speechless, some start wailing while some others run away from the scene and yet there are some who may come forward with courage, conviction and belief that the wrong should be remedied. As a matter of fact, it depends upon individuals and individuals. There cannot be any set pattern or uniform rule of human reaction and to discard a piece of evidence on the ground of his reaction not failing within a set pattern is unproductive and a pedantic exercise ". Therefore, merely because P.W.1 did not inform the father of the deceased in the same village, does not make his evidence unbelievable. He argued that it is not the case of the accused that the deceased came there armed to cause injury to the accused. Therefore, there is no right of private defence for the accused. Therefore, the argument of the counsel for A1 cannot be accepted. The trial Court has rightly convicted them and the conviction cannot be altered. 13. Common intention can be inferred from various aspects; the common intention can emerge even during the course of the incident. Further, common intention can be inferred from the nature of injuries caused by the persons and also the place of injuries. Bearing this view in mind and on a perusal of the post mortem certificate it is seen that A1 hit the deceased with a stick on the back of the head, A2 hit on the cheeks with stone and A3 hit on the right of the temple with the stone. All the injuries are directed only on the head. Therefore, all the accused wanted to hit the deceased only on the head. It is not as if A2 and A3 threw stones and it had accidentally fell on the head and caused injury. It is fortunate that those injuries were not serious in nature. The first accused caused injury on the back of the head with a stick, which are fatal. 14. It is not as if A2 and A3 threw stones and it had accidentally fell on the head and caused injury. It is fortunate that those injuries were not serious in nature. The first accused caused injury on the back of the head with a stick, which are fatal. 14. The argument of the learned counsel for the first accused that only one injury was caused by the stick is not acceptable. P.W.1 only says that the first accused hit the deceased on the left side of the head with a stick. From this, it is very difficult to hold that only one injury was caused by the first accused. Further, P.W.4 has stated that injuries 1, 2 and 6 could have been caused by one hit and they are fatal. When the accused 1 to 3 caused these injuries, they had the knowledge that by hitting a person on the head with stick and stone either on the temple or on the back of the head is likely to cause such an injury which may result in death. Though, there was no intention to cause the murder, the knowledge that it is likely to cause death can be attributed from the nature of the injuries caused by the accused. That is the reason why the trial Court has convicted all the accused. It is seen that the injuries were sufficient to cause death and such knowledge was attributable to the accused. Hence, such a conclusion of the trial Court cannot be said to be illegal. Therefore, the conviction cannot be altered. Hence, the conviction of A1 under Section 304 (2) IPC is legal and therefore it is confirmed. 15. Though A2 and A3 are not having any other reason to attack the deceased, they also joined in the attack and hit the deceased on the temple and cheek. Therefore, they also shared the common intention of the first accused in attacking the deceased. The intention of A1 is also attributed to A2 and A3. Therefore, the trial Court was right in convicting A2 and A3 under Section 304 (2) IPC r/w 34 and the conviction of A2 and A3 is also confirmed. 16. Regarding sentence, the learned judge has imposed three years rigorous imprisonment on all the accused. The intention of A1 is also attributed to A2 and A3. Therefore, the trial Court was right in convicting A2 and A3 under Section 304 (2) IPC r/w 34 and the conviction of A2 and A3 is also confirmed. 16. Regarding sentence, the learned judge has imposed three years rigorous imprisonment on all the accused. Since only a very lenient sentence of three years under Section 304 (2) IPC, has been imposed, this Court do not find any reason to reduce the sentence any further. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is dismissed.