JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J.—This appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi delivered in Sessions Trial No. 21 of 2001 whereby he has convicted the appellants (hereinafter referred to as the accused) for the offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC), Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC. All the accused have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- each for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. In default of payment of fine each of the accused have been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year. The accused have been also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC. They have also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC. All the aforesaid sentences have been directed to run concurrently. The case against the accused was that on 27.8.2000 at about 7.45 AM they committed the murder of Sh. Kanaura Ram and caused simple injuries to Rup Lal and Thalia Ram son of Kanaura Ram at Village Darbathu. The prosecution story as emanating from the evidence led before the learned trial Court is that accused Mast Ram, deceased Kanaura Ram and one Basant Ram were real brothers. They were holding separate lands in their respective possessions on the basis of some family partition. In the revenue records however their land was shown as joint holding. Accused Dinesh Kumar and Mohinder (c) Sanjay are the sons of Mast Ram accused. PW-5 Rup Lal and PW-6 Thalia Ram are the sons of Kanaura Ram. It was alleged that on 26.8.2000 Tej Ram who is the son of Basant Ram started the construction of his house near the house of deceased Kanaura Ram and accused Mast Ram. PW-5 Rup Lal, PW-6 Thalia Ram were working as Masons in the said construction. PW-5 Rup Lal and PW-6 Thalia Ram are the sons of Kanaura Ram. It was alleged that on 26.8.2000 Tej Ram who is the son of Basant Ram started the construction of his house near the house of deceased Kanaura Ram and accused Mast Ram. PW-5 Rup Lal, PW-6 Thalia Ram were working as Masons in the said construction. On the said date when the construction was going on, Dinesh Kumar accused, accompanying by one Ram Singh came and started objecting to the said construction work on the ground that the khata is joint and therefore no construction should be raised. Thereafter Kala Devi, Member Panchayat was called to inspect the spot but the work continued throughout the day. This is alleged to be the motive for the crime. According to PW-4 Bimla Devi she is married to Khub Ram son of deceased Kanaura Ram. On 27.8.2000, the day of occurrence, at about 7.30 in the morning, she was sitting in her kitchen alongwith her father-in-law and mother-in-law having tea. Thereafter, she had given a bucket of hot water to her father-in-law Kanaura Ram to have a bath on a cemented platform (Paira) outside the kitchen. PW-4 thereafter went inside the kitchen. As she entered the kitchen she heard sound of some people running towards her kitchen. She immediately came out and saw Dinesh accused having sword in his hand who attacked her father-in-law with that sword and inflicted injury on his abdomen. She further stated that Sanjay accused was holding a sickle (Darati) and he also inflicted injury to her father-in-law. Mast Ram accused was holding an iron rod (saria) and he also attacked her father-in-law. She raised an alarm and her brothers-in-law PW-5 Rup Lal and PW-6 Thalia Ram had immediately come on the spot and tried to save their father. The accused persons inflicted injuries on PW-5 and PW-6 with their respective weapons. She further states that while the incident was taking place Gulabi Devi, Kala Devi and her mother-in-law were present and other persons also gathered on the spot. Thereafter, the accused persons had run away alongwith their weapons. After this the villagers took Kanaura Ram. PW-5 Rup Lal and PW-6 Thalia Ram to the hospital in a vehicle and after some time she learnt that her father-in-law had died. Three unnamed persons gave first intimation with regard to the incident to the police. Thereafter, the accused persons had run away alongwith their weapons. After this the villagers took Kanaura Ram. PW-5 Rup Lal and PW-6 Thalia Ram to the hospital in a vehicle and after some time she learnt that her father-in-law had died. Three unnamed persons gave first intimation with regard to the incident to the police. PW-14 Constable Balbir Singh who was posted as MC at Police Station, Balh, has recorded this intimation in the daily diary. As per the evidence of PW-14 three persons came on a Scooter and informed him that some occurrence had taken place in village Darbathu in which three persons had suffered injuries out of whom one was seriously hurt and had been taken to CHC Ratti for treatment. Thereupon PW-17 K.D. Sharma, SHO, Police Station, Balh alongwith other police officials rushed to the Hospital. By the time they reached the Hospital, Kanaura Ram had died. The other two injured were being given treatment at CHC Ratti. He left two police officials in the Hospital and himself alongwith other police officials went to the spot. There he recorded the statement of PW-4 Bimla Devi under Section 154 Cr.P.C. which is Ext.PP. He thereafter conducted the detailed investigation in the case and after completion of investigation he filed the challan in the learned trial Court against the accused persons. The prosecution examined 17 witnesses in support of its case. The statements of all the three accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. It would be pertinent to mention that the accused in the defence have not denied the incident, or their presence at the spot. All the three accused have made an identical statement with regard to the occurrence which is as follows: "Both the parties had suffered injuries in a free fight at the spot. The complainant party was the aggressor party. The occurrence had taken place near the Danga of our field." It is in light of this defence that we shall scrutinize and examine the evidence against the accused. We have heard Sh. Rakesh Jaswal, learned Counsel for the accused and Sh. S.D. Vasudeva, learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of the State. Before considering the arguments of the Counsel for the parties it would be appropriate to first consider the evidence led by the prosecution. PW-1 Dr. We have heard Sh. Rakesh Jaswal, learned Counsel for the accused and Sh. S.D. Vasudeva, learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of the State. Before considering the arguments of the Counsel for the parties it would be appropriate to first consider the evidence led by the prosecution. PW-1 Dr. Jiwanand Chauhan is Medical Officer, zonal Hospital, Mandi who conducted the post mortem of the body of the deceased at about 3.30 PM on 27.8.2000. According to him he had found the following injuries on the body of the deceased: "1. There was incised bewelled wound on the parital area of skull wall lying obliquely backward of length 5 cm x 1 cm into bone deep with sharp oblique margins, the weapon entering from anterior obliquely to posterior side with sharp margin, lot of clotted blood over and around the wound. The skull appeared normal. The injury appeared ante mortem in nature caused by sharp edged weapon. 2. There was a wedge shaped triangular nearly vertical penetrating incised wound on the back of chest right side with its upper and pointed and sharp edged and lower end rounded and lacerated, 4.9 cm. in length 2 cm. wide lower one third with clotted blood over and around the wound. The wound was penetrating the right peeural cavity. The upper end of wound was 6 cm. from inferior angle or right scapula. It piercerces between 8th and 9th rib abrading the periosteum of both 8th and 9th rib abrading the periosteum of both 8th and 9th rib along posterior axillary line, ruputuring peura, causing laceration of base lower lobe of right lung again pierces the diagrapham and then pierces the left liver lobe from its dorsal lateral side through and through upto the inferior surface near gall baladder with lot of clotted and flued blood along the whole track. This injury appeared ante mortem caused by sharp edged weapon. 3. There was penetrating lacerated wound on interior abdomental wall from mid-line to right side obliquely placed 1 cm. above umbilicus with loop of intestine and onentum coming out of the wound. The wound was lying transversely oblique of the length 8.5 cm. and 3 cm. wide with nearly circular pierce ring peritoneum and then causing laceration of superficial interior wall of stomach near pyloric and reddish in colour with lot of blood in wound and peritoneal cavity. 4. above umbilicus with loop of intestine and onentum coming out of the wound. The wound was lying transversely oblique of the length 8.5 cm. and 3 cm. wide with nearly circular pierce ring peritoneum and then causing laceration of superficial interior wall of stomach near pyloric and reddish in colour with lot of blood in wound and peritoneal cavity. 4. There was one skin deep incised wound lying transversely on left side of chest and back at posterior end and superficial in anterior half of its length 13 cm. x 1/2 cm. in the anterior half and 1 cm. wide in posterior l/3rd with red sharp margins and clotted blood over it. It was 12 cm. below nipple with its anterior end at the level of anterior axillary fold. There was one contusion above it in its anterior half 6x2 cm. in size reddish brown in colour. It appeared ante mortem in nature caused by sharp edged weapon with blunt margins. 5. There was a skin deep incised wound with clear cut margins on anterior medial aspect of right thigh extending from 4 cm. medial to upper whole of patella upward laterally with its upper end deep and wide and lower end was superficial with 14 cm. in length. In lower half edges were in close contact but in upper half edges were half cm. apart, reddish, sharp with lot of clotted blood over it. It appeared because by sharp edged weapon and was ante mortem in nature. He issued the post mortem report Ext.PD. He also examined the report of the Chemical Examiner Ext. PE and as per his final opinion Ext. PF the deceased died due to combined effect of haemorrhagic shock and ante-mortem injuries to vital organs. As per this witness the injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. PW-1 further opined that the injuries could be caused like sharp edged weapon like the Sword P-l shown to him in the Court. He further stated that injury No. 3 could also be caused with weapon like "darati" Ext. P~2. In cross examination the testimony of this witness has not been shattered. The only relevant point elicited is that the injuries in question were possible in a free fight between two groups with sharp edged weapons. PW-2 Dr. R.L. Jarial is Medical Officer, C.H.C. Ratti. P~2. In cross examination the testimony of this witness has not been shattered. The only relevant point elicited is that the injuries in question were possible in a free fight between two groups with sharp edged weapons. PW-2 Dr. R.L. Jarial is Medical Officer, C.H.C. Ratti. According to this witness on 27.8.2000 at about 7.55 a.m. Kanaura Ram was brought to the C.H.C. Ratti by his relatives. PW-5 Rup Lal and PW-6 Thalia Ram had also been brought in an injured condition. He has proved the reports Exts. PG and PH vide which the police had applied for getting the said witnesses examined. He had first examined PW-6 Thalia Ram and found six injuries on his person. He issued MLC Ext. PJ. According to the Doctor out of the six injuries found on the person of PW-6 Thalia Ram, one injury i.e. injury No. 4 could have been caused with iron rod Ext. P-3 and rest of the injuries could have been caused with the sword Ext. P-l. Five out of the six injuries were caused with sharp edged weapon. PW-2 Dr. R.L. Jarial also examined PW-5 Rup Lal and found four injuries on his person. These were also simple in nature. According to PW-2 one of the injuries could be caused by a blunt weapon like iron rod Ext. P-3 and the remaining three injuries could be caused with sword Ext. P-l and sickle Ext. P-2. In cross-examination he has admitted that none of the injuries caused to PW-6 Thalia Ram were possible with the middle portion of sickle Ext.P-2. PW-3 Dr. Chander Panday is the Medical Officer, CHC Ratti who has examined the three accused. He examined accused Mast Ram on 28.8.2000 at 9.30 PM and found one simple injury of swelling and tenderness on right shoulder. The accused Mast Ram was also complaining of pain in gums. On 30.8.2000 PW-3 Dr. Panday examined accused Sanjay and observed one simple injury i.e. scab on right arm and upper border of deltoid. On 30.8.2000 itself he examined Dinesh Kumar accused. He found five injuries on his person, which are as follows: "1. There was lacerated wound 2 cm x 2 cm. skin deep at that time on scalp. 2. There was incised wound 3 cm x 2 cm on scalp with clean clear margins and spinal shaped. 3. On 30.8.2000 itself he examined Dinesh Kumar accused. He found five injuries on his person, which are as follows: "1. There was lacerated wound 2 cm x 2 cm. skin deep at that time on scalp. 2. There was incised wound 3 cm x 2 cm on scalp with clean clear margins and spinal shaped. 3. There was abrasion 2 cm x 1 cm in size in upper posterior aspect of pinna. 4. There was abrasion on right fore hand 7.5 cm from wrist joint. The size of the abrasion was 5x5 cm. 5. There was freshly healed scar mark on left little finger 2 cm x 1 cm in size/ The Doctor opined that all these injuries were simple and stated that injuries 1, 3 and 4 were caused by blunt force and injury No. 2 was caused by a sharp weapon and with regard to injury No. 5 no opinion was given. He further stated that not only all injuries on all three accused are simple but they are superficial in nature. He further states that all the injuries received by the accused persons could have been caused while running through thorny or pointed bushes or through a fully grown up maize crops. PW-4 Bimla Devi is daughter-in-law of the deceased Kanaura Ram. She has supported the version given in her statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Reference is only being made to the relevant portion of her statement. She states that her brothers-in-law PW-5 Rup Lal and PW-6 Thalia Ram were working as masons on the house of Tej Ram son of Basant Ram. When the construction was being carried out accused Dinesh alongwith Ram Singh and his wife had come to the spot and objected to the construction on the ground that the land is in joint khata. There was some argument between Tej Ram and his wife on one side and Ram Singh and accused Dinesh on the other. On 27.8.2000 at about 7.30 AM she was sitting in her kitchen alongwith her father-in-law and mother-in-law having tea. Thereafter, she had given a bucket of hot water to her father-in-law Kanaura Ram to have a bath on a cemented platform (Paira) outside the kitchen. PW-4 thereafter went inside the kitchen. As she entered the kitchen she heard sound of some people running towards her kitchen. Thereafter, she had given a bucket of hot water to her father-in-law Kanaura Ram to have a bath on a cemented platform (Paira) outside the kitchen. PW-4 thereafter went inside the kitchen. As she entered the kitchen she heard sound of some people running towards her kitchen. She immediately came out and saw Dinesh accused having sword in his hand who attacked her father-in-law with the sword and inflicted injury on abdomen of Kanaura Ram. According to this witness Sanjay accused was holding a sickle (Darati) and he also inflicted injury to her father-in-law. Mast Ram accused was holding an iron rod (saria) and he also attacked her father-in-law. She raised an alarm and her brothers-in-law PW-5 Rup Lal and PW-6 Thalia Ram had immediately come on the spot and tried to save their father. The accused persons inflicted injuries on PW-5 and PW-6 with their respective weapons. She further states that while the incident was taking place Gulabi Devi, Kala Devi and her mother-in-law were present and other persons also gathered on the spot. Thereafter, the accused persons had run away alongwith their weapons. After this the villagers took Kanaura Ram, PW-5 Rup Lal and PW-6 Thalia Ram in a vehicle and after some time she learnt that her father-in-law had died. As per this witness the police arrived at her house at about 8.30 AM and had recorded her statement. 6. The cross examination of this witness has been directed mainly on two grounds. Firstly that there have been material improvements in her statement in the Court as compared to her statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. She has been confronted with her statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. with regard to various facts which she has mentioned in Court but are not recorded in her statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. These points of improvement are: (a) The names of Kala Devi and her mother-in-law being present at the time of occurrence are not mentioned in the statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Ext. PR (b) That in the statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Ext. PP it is not mentioned that on seeing her brothers-in-law the accused left her father-in-law who fell in the fields. (c) In statement Ext. PP it is not recorded that her father-in-law was given beating by Sanjay and Mast Ram with Darati and iron rod. (d) In Ext. PR (b) That in the statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Ext. PP it is not mentioned that on seeing her brothers-in-law the accused left her father-in-law who fell in the fields. (c) In statement Ext. PP it is not recorded that her father-in-law was given beating by Sanjay and Mast Ram with Darati and iron rod. (d) In Ext. PP it is not mentioned that she had gone back to the kitchen and came out of the kitchen on hearing sound of persons running towards the kitchen. (e) In Ext. PP it is not mentioned that ward Member Kala Devi was called on 26.8.2000. (f) In Ext. PP it is not mentioned that she alongwith her parents in-law was consuming tea before the occurrence in the kitchen. (g) In Ext. PP it is not stated that she had raised alarm and then PWs 5 and 6 had come on the spot. (h) In Ext. PP there was no mention of drizzling or rain. (i) In Ext. PP the particular place where Kala and Gulabi were standing was not mentioned. While answering all these questions regarding improvements made the witness had categorically stated that she had told the police all these facts. Further cross examination has been directed that the occurrence took place when Mast Ram accused was putting stones and boundary of the field (Maind) which had been dislocated by her family. She has denied the suggestion that Mast Ram accused was attacked by the deceased Kanaura Ram and PWs 5 and 6 with the result that one tooth of Mast Ram had broken. She denied the suggestion that thereafter Mast Ram had cried for help and then accused Dinesh and Sanju came to the spot to save their father and that a free fight took place. A suggestion has been put to this witness that her father-in-law Kanaura was having iron rod, PW Thalia was armed with sword and PW-5 Rup Lal was carrying a sickle (darati) which was denied by her. She denied the suggestion that in the free fight the sword had accidently struck the person of deceased Kanaura Ram. She has further denied the suggestion that she was not present at the time of incident. PW-5 Rup Lal is one of the injured persons. She denied the suggestion that in the free fight the sword had accidently struck the person of deceased Kanaura Ram. She has further denied the suggestion that she was not present at the time of incident. PW-5 Rup Lal is one of the injured persons. He has repeated the facts about the relationship of the parties and the fact that on the previous day the construction has been done on the house of Tej Ram. This witness further states that on 27.8.2000 the date of occurrence at about 7 a.m. his brother PW-6 Thalia Ram had come to his room and told him that at about 6.30 a.m. Thalia Ram had met Mast Ram and Dinesh accused near the shop and that they had quarreled with him. While both the brothers were talking they heard noise of quarrel coming from the side of their fathers kitchen. This witness immediately rushed towards the spot with PW-6 behind him. He saw Mast Ram, Dinesh and Sanju fighting with his father and he saw Dinesh accused giving the sword blow on the abdomen region of his father. This witness further states that he tried to catch hold of his father but all the accused persons attacked him. Accused Dinesh was armed with sword, Mast Ram with iron rod and Sanju with a sickle. They started beating this witness and inflicted injuries on his head with their weapons. This witness also states that the accused persons also inflicted injuries on his brother PW-6. As per this witness at the time of occurrence PW-4 Bimla and his mother were present. On hearing the noise of the fight Kala Devi and Gulabi PW-7 has also come. Thereafter other villagers had gathered. The deceased Kanaura was only wearing underwear at that time. They had taken the deceased to Ratti Hospital but he expired on the way. He and PW-6 Thalia Ram were medically examined at CHC Ratti. He states that he came back from the Hospital at about 10.30 a.m. At that time the police party was already there and took photographs of the place of the occurrence and collected blood stained clay from kitchen walls and the ground in his presence. According to him he handed over the pant Ext. P-8 which he was wearing at the time of occurrence to the police on 28.8.2000 vide seizure memo Ext. PQ. According to him he handed over the pant Ext. P-8 which he was wearing at the time of occurrence to the police on 28.8.2000 vide seizure memo Ext. PQ. This witness also states that the police had recovered sword Ext. P-l from the paddy fields on 27.8.2000 and that the sketch of the sword Ext. PR bears his signatures. The sword was taken into possession vide memo Ext. PS which also bears the signatures of this witness. The witness further states that when Mast Ram accused was apprehended he had stated that the clothes which all the accused were wearing at the time of occurrence have been handed over to his nephew Bhuru Ram. Thereafter the police party accompanied by Hari Ram, Mangat Ram and PW-5 had gone to the village of Bhuru Ram who had handed over a polythene bag containing the clothes of the accuses persons which were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ext. PT. In cross-examination this witness has denied the suggestion that no clothes were recovered from Bhuru Ram. He further stated that his statement was recorded by the police at about 2 p.m. and that the statement of his Bhabhi Bimla Devi PW-4 had been recorded earlier. He has been confronted with his statement recorded before the Police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ext. DA. He has denied the suggestion that the incident had occurred when accused Mast Ram was raising a Danga which was objected to by the deceased whereupon a quarrel had started. He has denied the suggestion that they had given beatings to accused Mast Ram who raised hue and cry and then accused Dinesh and Sanjay had come to the spot to protect their father. He has also denied the suggestion that PW-6 was armed with the sword, deceased Kanaura Ram was carrying an iron rod and that he (PW-5) was armed with Darati. He has denied the suggestion that a free fight had taken place between the parties and in the melee PW-6 Thalia had accidentally struck sword blow to the deceased Kanaura Ram and also hit Dinesh accused. He has denied the suggestion that his mother and sister-in-law PW-4 were not present at the time of occurrence. He has also denied that other witnesses were not present and were introduced afterwards. PW-6 Thalia Ram is also one of the injured. He has denied the suggestion that his mother and sister-in-law PW-4 were not present at the time of occurrence. He has also denied that other witnesses were not present and were introduced afterwards. PW-6 Thalia Ram is also one of the injured. He has virtually repeated what has been stated by PW-5. With regard to the occurrence in question this witness states that he was talking with his brother PW-5 Rup Lal @ Kishan Chand in his room. The witness heard noise from the side of the kitchen of his father. PW-5 Rup Lal immediately rushed out and PW- 6 followed him to the spot. According to PW-6, Dinesh accused was having a Sword, Sanjay accused was having a darati and Mast Ram accused was having a danda. He further states that Dinesh accused inflicted injuries with sword to his father which struck the abdomen region of his father. He further states that when PW-5 Rup Lal went near his father to save him, accused Dinesh started inflicting sword blows on his brother and one blow struck the head of PW-5 Rup Lal. He further states that thereafter all the three accused started inflicting injuries on him with their respective weapons and he has suffered injuries in his hand, forearm and head. After the incident they took their father to Hospital who expired in the way. This witness also states that he was medically examined in Hospital and was allowed to come home from Hospital at about 7 p.m. on 27.8.2000. On the next day i.e. 28.8.2000 the police took into possession his blood stained clothes, Shirt Ext. P-9 and underwear Ext. P-10 which he was wearing the same at the time of occurrence, vide seizure memo Ext. PU. He also identified weapons sword Ext. P-l, darati Ext. P-2 and iron rod Ext. P-3 which the accused were holding on the day of occurrence. This witness has also been confronted with his statement made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ext. DB. He has denied the suggestion that he alongwith PW-5 and the deceased had attacked accused Mast Ram. He has also denied the fact that at the time of the occurrence he was having a sword, his father deceased Kanaura was having an iron rod and PW-5 was having a darati. DB. He has denied the suggestion that he alongwith PW-5 and the deceased had attacked accused Mast Ram. He has also denied the fact that at the time of the occurrence he was having a sword, his father deceased Kanaura was having an iron rod and PW-5 was having a darati. He has also denied the suggestion that he had directed a sword blow towards Dinesh accused which accidentally fell on deceased Kanaura. He denied the suggestion that during the free fight deceased Kanaura had fallen on the sword which was held by him. This witness has also denied the suggestion that they shifted the place of occurrence in connivance with the police. PW-7 is Gulabi Devi wife of Ramesh Kumar whose house is situated opposite the kitchen of Kanaura Ram deceased. In between her house and kitchen there is a maize field of Puran Chand. She states that about 7.30 or 8 am on 27.8.2000 she heard noise of quarrel from the side of kitchen of Kanaura Ram. She came out and noticed that deceased Kanaura Ram had suffered injuries on his abdomen and his intestines had come out. Kanaura Ram was holding the wound with his hand and staggering in the field and lastly fell in the field near the cowshed of this witness. PW-7 Gulabi Devi further stated that accused Dinesh was having sword in his hand. Mast Ram was having an iron rod (saria) and Sanju was having a darati. She states that she saw the accused inflicting injuries on PW-5 Rup Lal @ Kishan and PW-6 Thalia Ram. She further states that she had witnessed this occurrence from the field of Puran Chand. When hue and cry was raised by all present, the accused ran away towards their house with their weapons. She further states that Kala Devi had also witnessed the occurrence alongwith her and that Kala Devi is now dead. This witness has been confronted with certain alleged improvements as compared to her statement Ext. DC recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the Police. She has denied the suggestion that she was not present and no occurrence took place in her presence. She has denied the suggestion that the occurrence had taken place near the field of Mast Ram where the danga had been raised with stones. PW-8 Het Ram is Pradhan, Baggi Panchayat. DC recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the Police. She has denied the suggestion that she was not present and no occurrence took place in her presence. She has denied the suggestion that the occurrence had taken place near the field of Mast Ram where the danga had been raised with stones. PW-8 Het Ram is Pradhan, Baggi Panchayat. He states that on 27.8.2000 he was informed by Kala Devi at about 8/8.15 AM that the accused persons had given beatings to Kanaura deceased and his sons PW-5 and PW-6. He straightway went to Hospital. There he came to know that Kanaura Ram had expired and his sons were under treatment. He spent about one hour in Hospital and then went to the spot. He further states that when they were searching for the accused they noticed imprints of new path at paddy field on some distance from the house of the accused. They followed the path and recovered one sword which was lying in the field. He has identified the sword Ext. P-l which was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ext. PS. He has identified his signatures on the seizure memo. He has also identified his signatures on seizure memos Exts. PV and PW vide which the police had taken into possession blood stained earth from the kitchen wall and from the field. He has also proved that the police had taken into ossession pLaln clay vide seizure memo Ext. PX bearing his signatures. PW-9 Mangat Ram is resident of Village Darbathu. He states that on 27.8.2000 at about 6.45 or 7 a.m. when he was working in his field he saw PW-6 Thalia Ram coming from the direction of a shop. Accused Mast Ram was standing in front of shop. Mast Ram accused asked Thalia as to why he was staring on him. On this words were exchanged between them and he had told both of them not to fight in the morning and thereafter PW-6 Thalia Ram had left for his house. According to this witness after about 20-25 minutes he heard noise from the side of kitchen of Kanaura Ram and he rushed towards that side. By the time he reached the occurrence was over. Kanaura Ram was lying injured in the field near the cow-shed of Ramesh. According to this witness after about 20-25 minutes he heard noise from the side of kitchen of Kanaura Ram and he rushed towards that side. By the time he reached the occurrence was over. Kanaura Ram was lying injured in the field near the cow-shed of Ramesh. The witness states that in addition to the family members of Kanaura, Gulabi Devi and Kala Devi were also present. The injured were taken to Hospital and Kanaura Ram died on the way. He returned from the Hospital at about 11 AM and the police was carrying out investigation. He further states that Mast Ram accused was apprehended the next day. On the asking of the police. Mast Ram accused had told that the clothes which he and the another accused were wearing at the time of occurrence had been given to his nephew Bhuru Ram who lived in village Bhour. He further stated that thereafter he and Hari Ram accompanied the police and Mast Ram accused to village Bhour to the house of Bhuru Ram and at that time Bhuru Ram handed over a polythene bag which contained the clothes of accused persons. The same were taken into possession vide Ext- PQ which bears the signatures of this witness. In cross examination he has denied that he had never witnessed any exchange of words between Thalia Ram and Mast Ram and Dinesh in the morning. PW-10 Gopal Singh is also a resident of Village Darbathu and according to this witness Mast Ram accused had got recovered one iron rod which was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ext. PY which bears the signatures of this witness. This witness further states that accused was already in custody at the time when the recovery took place at about 5-6 Pm on 30.8.2004. PW-11 Prem Singh has proved the recovery of one Pant Ext. P-ll, Banyan Ext. P-12 which accused Sanju had handed over to the police on 1.9.2000. These were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ext. P-2 which bears the signatures of this witness. He further states that on 2.9.2000 Sanju had produced darati to the police which was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ext. PAB. PW-12 Amar Singh is the photographer who took photographs of the spot and the sword. The negatives of the photographs are Exts. PAC/1 to PAC/6 and the photographs are Exts. PAC/7 to PAC/12. He further states that on 2.9.2000 Sanju had produced darati to the police which was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ext. PAB. PW-12 Amar Singh is the photographer who took photographs of the spot and the sword. The negatives of the photographs are Exts. PAC/1 to PAC/6 and the photographs are Exts. PAC/7 to PAC/12. PW-13 is the Patwari who prepared the aks tatima Ext. PAD. PW-14 Balbir Singh, Constable Police Station Balh has stated that he was posted as M.C. Police Station Balh. According to him on 27.8.2000 three persons come on the Scooter and informed about the occurrence which he had recorded on daily diary and thereafter SHO alongwith other police officials went to C.H.C. Ratti. In cross examination he admits that the names of the persons who informed the police are not mentioned in the daily diary report. PW-15 Head Constable Shyam Lal has stated that he was posted as MHC Police Station, Balh. On 27.8.2000 at about 9.20 AM, LHC Kishan Lal had brought one statement of Smt. Bimla Devi, Ext. PP recorded by PW-17 the then SHO under Section 154 Cr.P.C, Ext. PP bears his endorsement Ext. PP/1. This witness further states that 14 sealed parcels were deposited with him from 28.8.2000 till 2.9.2000 and that he had sent all the parcels to FSL through LHC Tek Chand on 4.9.2000 and that during the time the parcels remained with him they have not been tampered with. PW-16 LHC Tek Chand states that on 4.9.2000 PW-15 had handed over 14 sealed parcels to deposit the same in FSL Junga. He states that he had handed over the parcels to FSL Junga and nobody had tampered with the parcels when they remained in his possession. PW-17 is the Investigating Officer and has stated that he came to know about the incident on 27.8.2000 at about 7.55 AM and he immediately rushed to CHC Ratti with other police officials after recording of the DDR Ext. PAE. By the time they reached Hospital one of the injured had died. The other two injured were being given treatment. He left two police officials in the Hospital and himself alongwith other police officials went to the spot. There he recorded the statement of PW-4 Bimla Devi which is Ext. PP. He made his endorsement Ext. PAE. By the time they reached Hospital one of the injured had died. The other two injured were being given treatment. He left two police officials in the Hospital and himself alongwith other police officials went to the spot. There he recorded the statement of PW-4 Bimla Devi which is Ext. PP. He made his endorsement Ext. PP/2 over the said statement and sent the same to Police Station, Balh through constable Kishan Chand. He then deputed some police officials to guard the spot and went back to the hospital. In the hospital he prepared the inquest papers Ext. PA, PB and PC. The dead body of the deceased Kanaura Ram alongwith the inquest papers etc. were sent to the Zonal Hospital, Mandi. He then came back to the spot and prepared the spot map Ext. PAG. He also got the spot and the kitchen wall photographed vide photographs Exts. PAC/7 to PAC/12. He collected blood from the place where the injured were stated to be lying in injured condition which was sealed and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ext. PB in the presence of witnesses Het Ram and Vinod Kumar. Thereafter, he went in search of the accused persons and noticed some footprints in the paddy field and found some sword Ext. P-l lying there. 7. The sketch of the sword Ext. PR was prepared. The sword was taken into possession vide seizure Memo Ext. PS. He also took into possession bloodstained clay from the wall vide seizure memo Ext. PW and other plain clay from the spot vide seizure Memo Ext. PX. He thereafter recorded the statements of the witnesses and supplementary statement of Bimla Devi. On the next day he again visited the place of occurrence where he took into possession the clothes of the injured Thalia Ram Exts. P-9 and P-10 vide seizure memo Ext. PU. He also took into possession Ext. P-8, Pant of PW-5 Rup Lal vide seizure Memo Ext. PQ. He thereafter recorded the statements of Thalia Ram and Kishan Chand. According to him accused Mast Ram was apprehended on 29.8.2000. On interrogation accused Mast Ram told this witness that the clothes he and his co-accused were wearing at the time of occurrence had been handed over to his nephew Bhuru Ram. Thereafter, PW-17 alongwith Mast Ram accused and other witnesses went to Village Bhour. According to him accused Mast Ram was apprehended on 29.8.2000. On interrogation accused Mast Ram told this witness that the clothes he and his co-accused were wearing at the time of occurrence had been handed over to his nephew Bhuru Ram. Thereafter, PW-17 alongwith Mast Ram accused and other witnesses went to Village Bhour. There Bhuru Ram on the asking of the witness had handed over a polythene bag which contained pant Ext. P-4, kameez Ext. P-5, Pajama Ext. P-6 and Shirt Ext. P-7 which were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ext. PD. Accused Mast Ram had also got recovered one iron rod (saria) Ext. P-3. on 30.8.2000 itself the other two accused Dinesh and Sanjay were also arrested and got medically examined. All the three accused were examined by PW-3 Dr. Chander Panday. The articles seized were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga through PW-16 Tek Chand, Constable. He further states that on completion of investigation and receipt of the reports of Chemical Examiner Exts. PE and PAM he has prepared the challan which was filed before the Court. He has been cross-examined with regard to the time he reached the spot and he stated that he reached the spot at 8.25/8.30 AM. He made inquiries for 5-6 minutes and then recorded the statement of Bimla Devi. He prepared the spot map at about 10-45 AM. He has denied the suggestion that it was not raining on the said date. He has denied the suggestion that the names of Gulabi Devi and Kala Devi were planted as witnesses. Thereafter, the statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. The defence of the accused is that the deceased and his sons had attacked Mast Ram accused and other Sanju and Dinesh accused had come to the rescue of their father and thereafter a free fight ensued in which both parties suffered injuries. All the accused stated that they did not want to lead any evidence in defence. Sh. Rakesh Jaswal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused has argued that the accused have been falsely implicated in the case and the medical evidence with regard to the injuries received by the deceased does not found support from the occular evidence. All the accused stated that they did not want to lead any evidence in defence. Sh. Rakesh Jaswal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused has argued that the accused have been falsely implicated in the case and the medical evidence with regard to the injuries received by the deceased does not found support from the occular evidence. According to him there are major improvements especially in the statement of PW-4 Bimla Devi and she has added the portions regarding inflicting injuries on Kanaura Ram deceased in the statement in the Court which were not there in her statement Ext.PP recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. He further argued that as per the first version only Dinesh accused had struck sword blow on the stomach of the deceased and there is no explanation with regard to the other injuries found on the body of the deceased. In support of his argument he has referred to the inquest papers and the statement of Bimla Devi Ext. PP as well as the statement of PWs 4 and 5 who only mentioned about one sword blow being struck by Dinesh accused in the abdomen of the deceased. Sh. Jaswal has further argued that the statement Ext. PP of Smt. Bimla recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. had been recorded after due deliberation and cannot be relied upon. He has attacked the investigation of the case on the ground that the police came to know about the cognizable offence in the Hospital and should have recorded the FIR in the Hospital itself and also should have recorded the statements of the injured in the Hospital. He says that these facts show that the investigation has been unfair and the statements have been recorded after deliberation and the scene and manner of occurrence have been suppressed. He has also argued that the presence of Gulabi Devi PW-7 on the spot is highly doubtful since she is not even mentioned in the FIR. He further submits that the prosecution has failed to explain the injuries on the person of the accused party. Last but not the least he has strongly and vehemently argued that the provisions of Section 34IPC are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case since there is nothing to show that there was any common intention of pre-meditated plan hatched by the accused to kill the deceased Kanaura Ram. Last but not the least he has strongly and vehemently argued that the provisions of Section 34IPC are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case since there is nothing to show that there was any common intention of pre-meditated plan hatched by the accused to kill the deceased Kanaura Ram. He has argued that there was no shout given to kill Kanaura Ram and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove common intention. He further submits that in case this Court holds that the accused party is the aggressor party then also the various injuries have not been separately attributed to the accused and even if the accused are not entitled to, they can only be convicted for offences under Section 323 IPC. On the other hand Sh. S.D. Vasudeva, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that mere fact that the accused were armed with lethal weapons such as Sword, sickle and iron rod and that three of the accused had attacked Kanaura Ram deceased who was alone at the time having a bath itself is a clear indication of the fact that they had come with the common intention of murdering Kanaura Ram deceased. He has further argued that minor discrepancies in the case cannot affect the prosecution version. Since all the points raised by learned Counsel for the accused are closely interlinked we shall deal with all of them together. The facts which clearly emerge from a perusal of the evidence are that Kanaura Ram deceased was attacked by all the three accused persons while he was having a bath outside his kitchen. Kanaura Ram deceased was only wearing underwear at the time of occurrence. The defence setup that in fact Mast Ram was repairing the maind (boundary) of his field and was attacked by Kanaura Ram and his sons PW-5 and PW-6 does not appear to be correct. The incident took place at about 7.30 a.m. Ratti is at about 8 kms from Village Dharbathu where the occurrence had taken place. It is in evidence that the injured had reached the Hospital at about 8.10 a.m. This is evident from the MLCs Ext. PJ and PK. Sh. Jaswal has referred to Ext. PAE the daily diary report which has been recorded at 7.55 a.m. He then has made reference to Ext. It is in evidence that the injured had reached the Hospital at about 8.10 a.m. This is evident from the MLCs Ext. PJ and PK. Sh. Jaswal has referred to Ext. PAE the daily diary report which has been recorded at 7.55 a.m. He then has made reference to Ext. PG which is an application by the police for recording statement of Kanaura Ram. On this application there is an endorsement by PW-1 Dr. R.N. Jarial that Kanaura Ram had been brought dead at 7.55 a.m. and the dead body was handed over to the police. Sh. Jaswal has vehemently argued that since the body has been handed over to the police at 7.55 a.m. therefore the occurrence must have taken place much earlier than shown in the FIR. We do not find much substance in this argument. In fact the endorsement first states that the body was brought at 7.55 a.m. The DDR has also been recorded at 7.55 a.m. Thereafter the police had come to the Hospital and only thereafter the Doctor could have handed over the body to the police. Further submission of Sh. Jaswal that the investigation is not fair because of the statements of the injured witnesses Exts. PW-5 and PW-6 were not recorded in the Hospital also is of little consequence. We cannot loose site of the fact that at that time both these witnesses were under treatment in Hospital. 8. The Investigating Officer, PW-17 left two police officials at the Hospital and immediately proceeded to the spot. He wanted to see the spot immediately and also record the statements of the other eye-witnesses. We do not find any illegality or infirmity in his action. Sh. Jaswal, learned Counsel has further argued that though the statement of PW-5 has been recorded on the same day the statement of PW-6 has been recorded on the next day giving rise to the suspicion that the statements have been recorded and tailored and to suit the prosecution. We do not find any substance in this submission also. PW-5 Rup Lal was discharged from the Hospital at 10.30 a.m. and his statement has been recorded by the police on the same day and on the other hand PW-6 Thalia Ram was discharged at 7 Pm on 27.8.2000 and his statement was recorded the next day Sh. We do not find any substance in this submission also. PW-5 Rup Lal was discharged from the Hospital at 10.30 a.m. and his statement has been recorded by the police on the same day and on the other hand PW-6 Thalia Ram was discharged at 7 Pm on 27.8.2000 and his statement was recorded the next day Sh. Jaswal in support of his submission has cited a case titled Anil Phukan v. State of Assam, 1993 Cri. L.J. 1796. We do not find that the decision of that case is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The other major submission of Mr. Jaswal, learned Counsel is that there are improvements in the statements especially of PW-4 Bimla Devi. It is no doubt true that what Bimla Devi has stated in the Court is more detailed version than what has been stated in a statement Ext. PP recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. With regard to all the improvements which have been detailed while discussing the statement she has emphatically stated that she had told these facts to the Police though they do not find mention in Ext. PP. A statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. is not a statement on oath. Greater credence has to be given to the statement made on oath unless it can be shown by the cross-examination that the witness has made the improvements with an intention to falsely implicate the accused party. The mere fact that there are some minor changes or improvements in the two statements cannot be a ground to discard the statement of the witness totally. When we consider the facts of this case we find that with regard to the genesis of the occurrence there is no difference in the statements. In statement Ext. PP as well as statement recorded in the Court PW-4 Bimla Devi has clearly and categorically stated that three accused persons had attacked her father in law. The main ground of challenge with regard to the improvement in the statement in Court is that while in a statement Ext. PP she has only talked about one sword blow being struck by Dinesh Kumar accused on the person of deceased Kanaura Ram, in the statement in Court she has also attributed some of the injuries to accused Rup Lal and Thalia Ram. PP she has only talked about one sword blow being struck by Dinesh Kumar accused on the person of deceased Kanaura Ram, in the statement in Court she has also attributed some of the injuries to accused Rup Lal and Thalia Ram. The statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. is the first information and it is not necessary that it should give encyclopaedic details of the occurrence. Further details can be given in the statement in Court which is recorded under oath. Even if we were to exclude this part of the statement of PW-4 Bimla Devi it would make no difference to the ultimate decision of the case unless we hold that Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is not applicable to the facts of the case. The argument of Sh. Jaswal that the presence of PW Gulabi Devi is doubtful and that she has been introduced by the prosecution later on also does not hold water. Her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has been recorded soon after the occurrence. Her house is about 25-30 ft. opposite to the kitchen of the deceased. It is but natural for a neighbour when she hears sounds of a fight to come out. She has also admitted that there is a field of Puran Chand between her house and the kitchen of the deceased in which there was a maize crop of 7-8 ft. Therefore, she had come to the field of Puran Chand to witness the occurrence. There is nothing to belie the testimony of this witness. Learned Counsel for the appellants has also argued that the recoveries have not been proved and especially with regard to the weapons he has argued that the sword has been recovered on 27.8.2000 from an open field and the recovery of the weapons is not proved in accordance with law. These are common weapon and could have been planted. His further submission is that as per the report of the Chemical Examiner Ext. PAM no blood has been found on any of the three weapons. Even if we accept the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the weapons shown to have been recovered cannot be directly connected with the offence we cannot discard the ocular and medical evidence. PAM no blood has been found on any of the three weapons. Even if we accept the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the weapons shown to have been recovered cannot be directly connected with the offence we cannot discard the ocular and medical evidence. Another important point is that the defence in cross examination to all the eye-witnesses has made a specific suggestion that PW-6 Thalia Ram was armed with sword, PW-5 Rup Lal was armed with a darati and deceased Kanaura Ram was armed with an iron rod (saria). Therefore, there is no dispute between the parties that it was these three weapons which caused the injuries. 9. This is also supported by the statements of Doctors PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the entire evidence both oral and documentary produced before us we are of the considered view that deceased Kanaura Ram was attacked by Dinesh Kumar who gave him a blow with the sword in his abdomen. The aggressor party was the three accused. When the deceased was attacked, on hearing sound of the quarrel PWs 5 and 6 came on the spot and thereafter they also suffered injuries. Deceased Kanaura Ram suffered major serious injuries which led to his death. All these injuries can be attributed to a sharp edged weapon like a sword Ext. P-l. Both the injured PWs 5 and 6 have also suffered injuries, which though simple in nature, have been caused by sharp edged weapon like Exts. P-l and P-2 and blunt weapon like iron rod Ext. P-3. On the other hand the accused party has only suffered superficial injuries which PW-3 has opined could have also been caused while running through the fields. It has also come in the statements of all the witnesses that first person to suffer the injuries was deceased Kanaura Ram and thereafter a fight took place in which PWs 5 and 6 suffered comparative more injuries than the accused persons. All the accused have admitted the occurrence and the existence of the weapons. It cannot be believed that in case the deceased and the injured had been armed with these lethal weapons and were the aggressors, the accused party would have suffered only superficial injuries. Sh. All the accused have admitted the occurrence and the existence of the weapons. It cannot be believed that in case the deceased and the injured had been armed with these lethal weapons and were the aggressors, the accused party would have suffered only superficial injuries. Sh. Jaswal in support of his contention that in case of conflict between medical and oral evidence the benefit should be given to the accused has cited Ram Narain; Jaggar Singh and others v. The State of Punjab, AIR 1975 SC 1727, Manx Ram and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh, and 1994 Cri. L.J. 3848, Devatha Venkataswamy alias Rangaiah v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. (2003) 10 SCC 700. We feel that all these cases have been decided on their particular facts and have no applicability to the facts of the present case. The last but main question is whether Section 34 IPC is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code reads as under: "34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.— When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone." The law with regard to common intention is succinctly Laid down by the Privy Council in Mahbub Shah v. Emperor, A.I.R. (32) 1945 Privy Council 118: "Common intention within the meaning of Section 34 implies a prearranged plan. To convict the accused of an offence applying Section 34 it should be proved that the criminal act was done in concert pursuant to the pre-arranged plan. It is no doubt difficult if not possible to procure direct evidence to prove the intention of an individual; it has to be inferred from his act or conduct or other relevant circumstances of the case. Care must be taken not to confuse same or similar intention with common intention; the partition which divides "their bounds" is often very thin; nevertheless, the distinction is real and substantial, and if overlooked will result in miscarriage of justice. Care must be taken not to confuse same or similar intention with common intention; the partition which divides "their bounds" is often very thin; nevertheless, the distinction is real and substantial, and if overlooked will result in miscarriage of justice. The inference of common intention within the meaning of the term in Section 34 should never be reached unless it is a necessary inference deducible from the circumstances of the case." This judgment has been approved in a number of judgments of the Honble Supreme Court of India. We need not multiply the various judgments and we will refer only to one judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Girija Shankar v. State ofU.R 2004 Cri.L.J. 1388, wherein the Honble Apex Court has Laid down as under : "9. Section 34 has been enacted on the principle of joint liability in the doing of a criminal act. The Section is only a rule of evidence and does not create a substantive offence. The distinctive feature of the Section is the element of participation in action. The liability of one person for an offence committed by another in the course of criminal act perpetrated by several persons arises under Section 34 if such criminal act is done in furtherance of a common intention of the persons who join in committing the crime. Direct proof of common intention is seldom available and, therefore, such intention can only be inferred from the circumstances appearing from the proved facts of the case and the proved circumstances. In order to bring home the charge of common intention, the prosecution has to establish by evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, that there was plan or meeting of mind of all the accused persons to commit the offence for which they are charged with the aid of Section 34, be it prearranged or on the spur of moment; but it must necessarily be before the commission of the crime. The true concept of Section is that if two or more persons intentionally do art act jointly, the position in law is just the same as if each of them has done it individually by himself. As observed in Ashok Kumar v. State of Punjab (AIR 1977 SC 109), the existence of a common intention amongst the participants in a crime is the essential element for application of this Section. As observed in Ashok Kumar v. State of Punjab (AIR 1977 SC 109), the existence of a common intention amongst the participants in a crime is the essential element for application of this Section. It is not necessary that the acts of the several persons charged with commission of an offence jointly must be the same or identically similar. The acts may be different in character, but must have been actuated by one and the same common intention in order to attract the provision. 10. The Section does not say "the common intention of all", nor does it say "and intention common to all". Under the provisions of Section 34 the essence of the liability is to be found in the existence of a common intention animating the accused leading to the doing of a criminal act in furtherance of such intention. As a result of the application of principles enunciated in Section 34, when an accused is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34, in law it means that the accused is liable for the act which caused death of the deceased in the same manner as if it was done by him alone. The provision is intended to meet a case in which it may be difficult to distinguish between acts of individual members of a party who act in furtherance of the common intention of all or to prove exactly what part was taken by each of them. As was observed in Ch. Pulla Reddy and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1993 SC 1899), Section 34 is applicable even if no injury has been caused by the particular accused himself. For applying Section 34 it is not necessary to show some overt act on the part of the accused." In view of the law Laid down by the Honble Apex Court it is clear that to apply the provisions of Section 34 it is not necessary to show that there was a pre-mediated plan to come to a conclusion that there was common intention between the parties. The common intention can be inferred from various facts which preceded the occurrence, happened during the course of the occurrence and the conduct of the accused after the occurrence. The common intention can be inferred from various facts which preceded the occurrence, happened during the course of the occurrence and the conduct of the accused after the occurrence. It is by now well settled that the common intention can be pre-arranged or on the spur of the moment but it must necessarily be before the commission of the offence. In our opinion the facts of the present case clearly show that the accused had a common intention to cause the death of Kanaura Ram deceased. They had come armed with lethal weapons such as Sword, iron rod and sickle. Kanaura Ram deceased was aged about 55 years and he was attacked by his younger brother and two young nephews who were lethally armed. The deceased was having a bath and was only wearing an underwear and as such he was virtually in a helpless condition. He was given a blow with the sword in his abdomen with the result that his intestines came out. Thereafter also the other accused persons attacked his sons PW-5 and PW-6 when they came out to save their father. After the incident all the accused ran away together alongwith their weapons. All these facts show that they had come with a pre-arranged plan to murder the deceased Kanaura Ram. The entire evidence clearly reveals a common intention on the part of the accused to do away with the deceased Kanaura Ram. For the reasons stated above we do not find any good reason to upset the conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused by the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi and we hold that the accused have rightly been convicted and sentenced for the offences under Sections 302 read with Section 34, Section 323 read with Section 34 and Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In the result, the appeal being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed. The case property be dealt with as per the orders/directions of the trial Court. Appeal dismissed.