ORDER 1. There are seven appellants who have impugned the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 793 of a 1995 dated 30-9-2003. Before the High Court there were eight appellants but out of them A-2 is said to have died before this appeal was preferred and therefore, we are concerned with seven appellants only . they were tried by the Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai in Sessions Case No. 33 of 1994. The learned Sessions Judge found A-I, A-2 (since deceased) and A-5 to A-8 guilty under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and A-3 and A-4 guilty of b the offence under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC. All of them were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Their appeal was dismissed by the High Court by the impugned judgment and order. 2. The incident giving rise to this appeal took place on 25-8-1993 at about 6.30 p.m. in which, according to the prosecution, the appellants participated and caused injuries to one Chinnapaiyan Sikari who succumbed to his injuries on the next day at about 2.30 p.m. while being treated in the hospital. 3. It appears that the deceased as well as the prosecution witnesses are residents of Village Poosanipadithangal while the appellants are residents of Village Marusur. It appears that these villages are at a distance of only a furlong and half from each other and for all purposes both the villages are d treated as one, in the sense that all disputes and problems are discussed in the Panchayat of Village Marusur which is a larger village with about 400 houses as compared to Village Poosanipadithangal where there are about 20 to 30 houses only. There is evidence on record to show that on many issues differences had arisen between the villagers of these two villages and on several occasions villagers of Village Poosanipadithangal had convened Panchayat or reported matters to the authorities against the misdeeds of the residents of Village Marusur. We have perused the material on record. It appears that most of the issues on which the villagers had disputes were trivial and were not of very serious nature. However, the relationship between the villagers of the two villages was not cordial. We have perused the material on record. It appears that most of the issues on which the villagers had disputes were trivial and were not of very serious nature. However, the relationship between the villagers of the two villages was not cordial. The villagers of Village Marusur were particularly aggrieved by the leading role played by the f deceased in sending his sons to complain and moving the authorities to intervene in the disputes between the two villages. 4. The case of the prosecution is that on the date of occurrence, the appellants came to Village Poosanipadithangal and accosted the deceased who was in his house. It is the case of the prosecution that A-I charged the deceased of sending his children to lodge complaints against them. He further admonished him and stated that unless his limbs are broken he will not learn a lesson and stop complaining against them. It is alleged that the appellants were armed with sticks which have been described as thorny sticks. After this altercation between A-I and the deceased, A-3 and A-4 caught hold of the deceased from behind and held his arms so that he was rendered helpless. A-I hit the deceased on his head with a stick while A-2 (since deceased) assaulted the deceased on his face and cheek with his stick. PW 2, the wife of the deceased intervened but A-I attacked her on her head and hands. It is the case of the prosecution that A-5 to A-8 also assaulted the deceased on his chest, back, legs and knee. After the assault, the deceased fell down unconscious and was taken to Arani Government Hospital. He was thereafter shifted to Vellore ore Government Hospital for further treatment. 5. It also appears from the record that first information report was lodged by PW 1, the son of the deceased who is also an eyewitness. On the basis of the FIR the case was registered and investigated. As noticed earlier the trial court found the appellants guilty and the conviction recorded by the trial court has been affirmed by the High Court in appeal. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the prosecution has not come out with a true version of the occurrence. There are inconsistencies in the evidence of the eyewitnesses which render them unreliable. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the prosecution has not come out with a true version of the occurrence. There are inconsistencies in the evidence of the eyewitnesses which render them unreliable. The role ascribed to A-5 to A-8 is not proved inasmuch as no injuries have been found on the person of the deceased which could be attributed to the assault on the deceased by these appellants. It was also submitted that so far as A-I is concerned, his conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC is not justified because it was never the common intention of the appellants to commit the murder of the deceased. At best they had come to teach him a lesson. He also submitted that the charge against A-5 is not established and therefore, he is entitled to be acquitted. In any event it is submitted that A-I cannot be held guilty under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC because he did not intend to cause the death of the deceased. 7. Learned counsel for the State, however, submitted that the appellants came armed with sticks and the facts disclose that the sticks carried by them were not so harmless as they were projected to be, because injuries caused to the deceased by A-I and A-2 resulted in the fracture of the skull which led to his death. A-I and A-2 cannot be absolved of their liability under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. So far as A-3 and A-4 are concerned, it is consistent evidence that they caught hold of the deceased so as to disable him from defending himself, and this facilitated the commission of the offence. They have been rightly convicted with the aid of Section 109. According to him they should also be held guilty of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC because they abetted the commission of the murder. This argument is based on the assumption that the common intention, which motivated the appellants, was to commit the murder of the deceased. 8. The medical evidence on record discloses the following injuries found on the person of the deceased by the doctor who performed the post-mortem examination: "1. Contusion 20 cm x 10 cm right shoulder. 2. Abrasion 1 cm x 1/2 cm right elbow. 3. Multiple abrasions 2, 3,4 fingers right hand. 4. 8. The medical evidence on record discloses the following injuries found on the person of the deceased by the doctor who performed the post-mortem examination: "1. Contusion 20 cm x 10 cm right shoulder. 2. Abrasion 1 cm x 1/2 cm right elbow. 3. Multiple abrasions 2, 3,4 fingers right hand. 4. Contusion 156 cm x 5 cm centre of scalp with lacerated injury 3 cm x 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm. 5. Contusion 17 cm x 9 cm right-side face and scalp. 6. Extravasation of black clotted blood 150 ml below the skin of scalp and just above skull bone. 7. Parietal and temporal bones right side extending to interior right black blood 15 ml seen over the dura mater. 8. Subdural haemorrhage (black) 300 ml seen over the brain right side. 9. Laceration of right parietal lobe of brain 2 cm x 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm with blood clots and bleeding inside the brain. 10. Stomach contains 150 ml of brownish liquid. Heart empty. Liver (sic) spleen (sic) lung congested. No fracture of ribs, spine or pelvis." 9. According to the doctor (PW 11) who conducted the post-mortem examination, Injuries 4, 5 and 6 were external injuries while Injuries 7, 8 and 9 were the corresponding internal injuries. Apart from these the only other injuries found were contusion on right shoulder and abrasion on the right elbow and multiple abrasion on the fingers of the right hand. There are no injuries on the chest, back, legs or the knees of the deceased. Injuries 4, 5 and 6 are on the scalp which resulted in fracture on the skull. 10. The first question is whether the appellants shared a common intention to commit an offence and if so, what offence. Counsel for the appellants submits that having regard to the disputes between the villagers of the two villages, the only intention of the appellants would have been to teach the deceased a lesson for reporting the matters now and then to the authorities which could be amicably settled in the Panchayat. With this in mind they had gone to beat him up. At best they could have anticipated that grievous hurt may be caused to the deceased. With this in mind they had gone to beat him up. At best they could have anticipated that grievous hurt may be caused to the deceased. They did not carry any dangerous weapons such as firearm or sharp-cutting weapon, and this itself indicates that they did not intend to cause any serious injury which may result in the death of anyone. 11. As we have noticed earlier there were several points of dispute between the villagers of the two villages, but we find them to be very insignificant and of trivial nature. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the manner in which the villagers of Village Marusur proceeded to the village of the deceased, we are satisfied that they certainly did not come with the intention to cause death of anyone, and it was not their intention to commit the offence of murder. However, they would have certainly known that grievous hurt may be caused in prosecution of their common intention to teach the deceased a lesson. It is true that they only wanted to teach the deceased a lesson and with that in view they had come to his house. The utterances of A-I also indicate that they intended to give him a good beating and nothing more. We are satisfied that such of the appellants who participated in the assault shared the common intention of causing grievous hurt punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC at the inception. 12. This takes us to the role played by A-I. The evidence is consistent h that he was the leader of the group of Village Marusur. He was the one who admonished the deceased and stated that he will teach him a lesson. It was he who first of all hit the deceased on the head causing a fracture of the skull. The facts do disclose that the injury caused by him on the head of the deceased resulted in his death. We find substance in the submission of the counsel for the appellants that A-I and A-2 hit on the head of the deceased almost simultaneously with such force as to fracture his skull. They are certainly guilty of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. A-2 is dead. We, therefore, uphold the conviction of A-I under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. 13. They are certainly guilty of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. A-2 is dead. We, therefore, uphold the conviction of A-I under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. 13. So far as A-3 and A-4 are concerned, admittedly they did not assault the deceased. They simply caught hold of the deceased with a view to facilitate the others to assault. Since we have held that the common intention of the accused was only to cause grievous hurt and not murder, we set aside the conviction of A-3 and A-4 under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC, and instead find them .guilty under Section 324 read with Section 109 IPC and sentence them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. So far as appellants A-5 to A-8 are concerned, it appears that they did not take part in the assault at all and the allegations made against them are not established by the evidence on record, particularly the medical evidence. PW 1, PW 2 and PW 6 claim to be eyewitnesses. PW 1, the son of the deceased has not ascribed any role to A-5 but PW 2 and PW 6 have alleged that he assaulted the deceased on his leg and back. Similarly, the prosecution witnesses have ascribed roles to A-6, A-7 and A-8 and according to them, they assaulted the deceased with sticks on his chest, legs, knees, etc. The medical evidence discloses that there were no injuries on these parts of the body of the deceased and therefore, it is doubtful if A-5 to A-8 took part in the occurrence. Having regard to the fact that there was certain amount of animosity between the villagers of the two villages, one cannot rule out the possibility of false implication. We consider it safe to give the benefit of doubt to those whose participation in the occurrence is not established by the evidence on record. So far as A-5 to A-8 are concerned, we find that though the eyewitnesses have stated that they assaulted the deceased, we find no corresponding injury on the person of the deceased. In these circumstances, we consider it safe to give A-5 to A-8 the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, they are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. 14. In the result; the appeal of Appellant I Pichai is dismissed. In these circumstances, we consider it safe to give A-5 to A-8 the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, they are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. 14. In the result; the appeal of Appellant I Pichai is dismissed. Appellants 2 and 3 Balu and Shivalingam are found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. The appeal of Appellants 4 to 7 is allowed and they are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. 15.The appeal is partly allowed accordingly. 16. We are told that the appellants are in custody. Appellant 1 shall serve out the remainder of the sentence. Appellants 2 and 3 are entitled to set70ff under Section 428 CrPC. Appellants 4 to 7 shall be released forthwith unless required in any other case.