ORDER : B.P. Singh, J. 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 1995 dated 30th September, 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 A1, A2 (since deceased) and A5 to A8 guilty under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and A3 and A4 guilty of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 109 Indian Penal Code. All of them were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Their appeal was dismissed by the High Court by the impugned judgement 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 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 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 Poosani and accosted the deceased who was in his house. It is the case of the prosecution that A1 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 A1 and the deceased, A3 and A4 caught hold of the deceased from behind and held his arms so that he was rendered helpless. A1 hit the deceased on his head with a stick while A2 (since deceased) assaulted the deceased on his face and cheek with his stick. PW2, the wife of the deceased intervened but A1 attacked her on her head and hands. It is the case of the prosecution that A5 to A8 also assaulted the deceased on his Chest, back, legs and knee. After the assault the deceased fell down unconscious and was taken to the Arani Government Hospital. He was thereafter shifted to Vellore Government Hospital for further treatment. 5. It also appears from the record that first information report was lodged by PW1, the son of the deceased who is also an eye-witness. 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 eye-witnesses 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 eye-witnesses which render them unreliable. The role ascribed to A5 to A8 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 A1 is concerned, his conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code 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 A5 is not established and therefore, he is entitled to be acquitted. In any event it is submitted that A1 cannot be held guilty under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code 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 fact disclose that the sticks carried by them were not so harmless as they were projected to be, because injuries caused to the deceased by A1 and A2 resulted in the fracture of the skull which led to his death. A1 and A2 cannot be absolved of their liability under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. So far as A3 and A4 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 Indian Penal Code 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 postmortem examination :- "1. Contusion 20 cm x 10 cm right shoulder 2. Abrasion 1 cm x ½ cm right elbow 3. 8. The medical evidence on record discloses the following injuries found on the person of the deceased by the doctor who performed the postmortem examination :- "1. Contusion 20 cm x 10 cm right shoulder 2. Abrasion 1 cm x ½ 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 ½ cm x ½ cm 5. Contusion 17 cm x 9 cm right side face and scalp 6. Extravasation of black clotted blood 150ml below the skin of scalp and just above skill bone. 7. Parietal and temporal bones right side extending to interior right black blood 15 ml seen over the dura matter. 8. Sub dural haemorrhage (black) 300 ml seen over the brain right side. 9. Laceration of right parietal lobe of brain 2 cm x ½ cm x ½ cm with blood clots and bleeding inside the brain. 10. Stomach contains 150 ml of brownish liquid. Heart empty. Liver spleen. Lung congested. No fracture of ribs, spines or pelvis." 9. According to the doctor (PW 11) who conducted the postmortem examination, injuries 4, 5 and 6 were the 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 fire arm 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 A1 also indicates that they intend 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 Indian Penal Code. 12. This takes us to the role played by A1. The evidence is consistent 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 A1 and A2 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 Indian Penal Code. A2 is dead. We, therefore, uphold the conviction of A1 under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. 13. They are certainly guilty of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. A2 is dead. We, therefore, uphold the conviction of A1 under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. 13. So far as A3 and A4 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 A3 and A4 under Section 302 read with Section 109 Indian Penal Code, and instead find them guilty under Section 324 read with Section 109 Indian Penal Code and sentence them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. So far as appellants A5 to A8 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. PW1, PW2 and PW6 claim to be eye-witnesses. PW1, the son of the deceased has not ascribed any role to A5 but PW2 and PW6 have alleged them he assaulted the deceased on his leg and back. Similarly, the prosecution witnesses have ascribed roles to A6, A7 and A8 and according to them, they assaulted the deceased with sticks on their 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 A5 to A8 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 A5 to A8 are concerned, we find that though the eye-witnesses have stated that they assaulted the deceased, we find no corresponding injury on the person of the deceased. 14. In these circumstances, we consider it safe to give A5 to A8 the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, they are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. 15. In the result, the Appeal of Appellant No.1 Pichai is dismissed. Appellant Nos. 14. In these circumstances, we consider it safe to give A5 to A8 the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, they are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. 15. In the result, the Appeal of Appellant No.1 Pichai is dismissed. Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 Balu and Shivalingam are found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 109 Indian Penal Code and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. The Appeal of Appellant Nos. 4 to 7 is allowed and they are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. 16. The Appeal is partly allowed accordingly. 17. We are told that the Appellants are in custody. Appellant No.1 shall serve out the remainder of the sentence. Appellants 2 and 3 are entitled to set off under Section 428 Criminal Procedure Code The Appellants 4 to 7 shall be released forthwith unless required in any other case. Appeal Partly Allowed.