ORDER 1.Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. The appellant herein, along with his sister, was tried for the offence of murder and both of them were convicted for the offence of murder for causing the death of Umapathy the wife of PW 1. The second accused Ramayal is the wife of Veeraboyan. It seems that Veeraboyan had certain properties and he distributed the same among their children and PW I had also been given certain properties. This was not liked by the stepmother of PW 1 and the appellant herein attacked the deceased Umapathy, the wife of PW 1 and according to the prosecution she sustained six injuries and died. 5. The counsel for the appellant drew our attention and contended that the appellant herein had only caused one injury on the hand of the deceased and thereafter he left the weapon there and ran away from the scene of occurrence and the second accused had caused various other fatal injuries. It is argued that in that view of the matter the appellant herein did not share the common intention with the second accused, therefore, the offence committed by him will not come under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. 6. The counsel for the State submitted that there is evidence to show that the appellant and the second accused came to attack the deceased as they were armed with weapons. But we do not find any evidence as to how the incident originated. It is true that the accused and Appellant 2 were armed with weapons and the incident happened in the agricultural field and it is not clear whether the incident suddenly started or the accused and Appellant 2 a came with the sole intention to cause the death of the deceased Umapathy. The evidence in this case as deposed by witnesses is that the appellant caused only one injury and left the place and there is also no evidence that he had in any way enabled the second accused to cause the injuries on the deceased Umapathy. 7. On a consideration of the evidence as a whole it appears that the b appellant did not share the common intention to cause the death of the deceased, therefore, the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC is not sustainable. 7. On a consideration of the evidence as a whole it appears that the b appellant did not share the common intention to cause the death of the deceased, therefore, the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC is not sustainable. The prosecution evidence shows that the appellant caused a grievous injury on the deceased Umapathy with a deadly weapon and the offence committed by the accused comes under Section 326 IPC. In the result, we partly allow the appeal and c set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. He is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 5 years. He is entitled to set off the sentence, if any, already undergone.