JUDGMENT M. M. DAS, J. : This appeal at the instance of three appel¬lants, namely, appellant No. 1-Bharat Khatei, appellant No.2-Bharat Swain and appellant No.3-Kabuli Swain, is directed against the judgment dated 13.8.1998 passed by the Sessions Judge, Puri in S.T. Case No.90 of 1997 convicting the three appellants under Sections 302/34, I.P.C. and sentencing them thereunder to suffer imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 13.5.1994 at about 9.00 P.M., P.W. 10-Bijaya Kumar Nayak appeared at Puri Sadar P.S. and lodged a written complaint alleging, inter alia, that on that day about 4.00 P.M. he along with his father and his elder brother-Raj Kishore Nayak (since deceased) were going to their land near village Barana with a bullock cart loaded with manure. All on a sudden, they heard the hullah from the side of the road connecting Barana village and they saw the appellants and many others named therein being armed with Bhali, Pharsa, Thenga and other weapons of offence rushing towards them from their back side while raising slogan saying “SALA KU MARA MARA”. However, this witness along with his father fled-away. But, as his elder brother-Raj Kishore Nayak was driving the bullock cart, he could not jump at once from the cart and for this reason, the appellants and their companion encircled the deceased. Despite the aforesaid, the deceased jumped out from the bullock cart and tried to run away from the spot. However, the appellants and other miscreants chased him and assaulted with weapons in their hands and yet while the deceased was still running and shouting, the deceased was assaulted by appellant No.2-Bharat Swain with a Bhali blow on has chest. Immediately the deceased fell down and the other accused persons encircled and assaulted him on his head, chest and back with various weapons of offence in their hands. Seeing this, he raised alarm stating “MARI DELE MARI DELE”. Hearing such alarm, the people rushed towards the spot and at this, the miscreants ran away from the spot. While thus run¬ning away, the accused persons scolded this informant in filthy language and accused-Babu Swain (since acquitted), the appellant No.3-Babuli Swain and appellant No.1-Bharat Swain assaulted him with a Bhali on his left arm. The informant has further stated that his father along with others present there carried the deceased in a Sabari to the clinic of Dr. While thus run¬ning away, the accused persons scolded this informant in filthy language and accused-Babu Swain (since acquitted), the appellant No.3-Babuli Swain and appellant No.1-Bharat Swain assaulted him with a Bhali on his left arm. The informant has further stated that his father along with others present there carried the deceased in a Sabari to the clinic of Dr. R. K. Das, who on exam¬ining the deceased declared him dead. The informant has further stated that P.W. 4, Raj Kishore Swain, P.W.9, Prahallad Naik and P.W.5, Kailash Chandra Nayak are eye witnesses to the occurrence. This witness also received some treatment at Puri District Head¬quarters Hospital for his injuries. He further stated in the written complaint that his elder brother was an active organizer and strong supporter of Janata Dal and the accused persons in¬cluding the appellants were supporting Congress Party and due to this, there was enmity and out of that enmity, they murdered the deceased. It was further mentioned by him in his aforesaid writ¬ten complaint that when Dr. Ratnakar Das- P.W.8, declared the deceased dead, the O.I.C. Puri Sadar P.S. was present at that place. On the basis of the said written complaint, an F.I.R. registered in the said police station against the appellants and other accused persons under Sections 147/148/307/302/324/323/149, I.P.C. After usual investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the appellants and twenty other accused persons. In due course of time, the case was committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge. It further appears from the record that the learned trial Court on perusal of the materials on record, framed charges under Sections 148/302 read with Section 149, I.P.C. against all the twenty three accused persons including the three appellants. The learned trial Court also framed charge under Section 307, I.P.C. against the accused-Balaram Swain as well as the appellant-Kabuli Swain and Bharat Khatei. The appel¬lants pleaded not guilty to the said charges. In course of trial, all the 13 witnesses were examined on behalf of prosecution. Out of them, it appears that four witnesses, namely, P.W.-Prahallad Nayak, P.W. 4-Rajkishore Swain, P.W. 5-Kailash Chandra Naik and P.W. 10-Bijaya Kumar Nayak are eye witnesses to the occurrence. The appel¬lants pleaded not guilty to the said charges. In course of trial, all the 13 witnesses were examined on behalf of prosecution. Out of them, it appears that four witnesses, namely, P.W.-Prahallad Nayak, P.W. 4-Rajkishore Swain, P.W. 5-Kailash Chandra Naik and P.W. 10-Bijaya Kumar Nayak are eye witnesses to the occurrence. Some of the witnesses were examined in this case who arrived at the scene of occurrence being attracted by the alarm raised and they saw some of the appellants running away from the place of occurrence with the weapons of offence. They also heard about the incident from the eye witnesses. P.W. 11-Dr. Bhakatabandhu Mishra held post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. No witness was examined on behalf of the appellants in defence. In course of trial, it was suggested on behalf of the appellants and other accused persons that there was a free fight between the two parties. Therefore, presence of the appellants and other accused persons is impliedly admitted while giving such sugges¬tion to the prosecution witnesses. However, during examination under Section 313, Cr.P.C., the appellants did not adopt any such plea. As already stated P.W. 10-Bijaya Kumar Nayak is the inform¬ant in this case and is also an eye witness to the occurrence. He claims to have been injured in course of the same incident lead¬ing to the murder of the deceased. He is the younger brother of the deceased. On conclusion of the trial, only the three appel¬lants were convicted and sentenced as already stated. The other accused persons were acquitted. 3. As already stated P.W. 10-Bijaya Kumar Nayak is the informant in this case. On the basis of the written complaint lodged by him, an F.I.R. was registered in this case. He (P.W.10) happens to be the younger brother of the deceased. In his evi¬dence, he stated that he knew the accused persons present in the dock. On 13.5.1994 around 4.00 P.M. he took cow-dung manure in a bullock cart to his land. It is stated by P.W. 10 that while they were spreading manure in their land, they heard shouts coming from the side of Jharan and also saw 15/16 persons were coming to their land, raising shouts. They were armed with Tada, Bhali, Farsa and he identified them from a distance of 40 cubits from their land. It is stated by P.W. 10 that while they were spreading manure in their land, they heard shouts coming from the side of Jharan and also saw 15/16 persons were coming to their land, raising shouts. They were armed with Tada, Bhali, Farsa and he identified them from a distance of 40 cubits from their land. Immediately thereafter, he asked his brother and father to leave the land. This witness and his father came away from the scene of occurrence ahead of the deceased. The accused persons attacked the deceased from all sides. The appellant-Kabuli Swain dealt a blow with a Farsa on the right side head of the deceased from his backside. He dealt two blows on his head with a Farsa. Appellant-Bharat Swain dealt a pocking blow with a Bhali on the right side chest of the deceased. The deceased fell down on the ground and immediately thereafter appellant-Bharat Khatei dealt two blows with a Farsa on the right side forehead. Accused-Ramesh Swain instigated the other accused persons to kill the deceased saying that he would spend money to defend them. They assaulted the deceased with Tada and Farsa indiscriminately. Thereafter, the accused persons left the spot. He further stated that he came back to the place of occurrence to rescue his broth¬er. Seeing this, the appellants and other accused persons re¬turned back and surrounded P.W.10 and appellant-Kabuli Swain assaulted him on his head with a Tada and accused persons-Bharat Khatei and Babu Swain dealt blows on him with Farsa on his left armpit. Rajkishore Swain, Prahallad Naik and Kailash Naik saw the incident while working in their nearby fields. The villagers came and carried this witness and the deceased to the Hospital. One private medical practitioner at Chhaitana declared the deceased dead. The police also came to Chhaitana and bought them to Puri. After visiting the Hospital, he came back to the police station and lodged a written report. The written complaint lodged by him was written by P.W.7-Parbati Raman Patnaik who has scribed the report as dictated by him. He further stated during his cross-examination that P.W.1, Prahallad Nayak accompanied him with the deceased to one private medical practitioner at Chhaitana in an Auto Rickshaw and thereafter he also accompanied them to Puri Hospital. P.W.12-Sudam Charan Barik was also present at Chhaita¬na. He further stated during his cross-examination that P.W.1, Prahallad Nayak accompanied him with the deceased to one private medical practitioner at Chhaitana in an Auto Rickshaw and thereafter he also accompanied them to Puri Hospital. P.W.12-Sudam Charan Barik was also present at Chhaita¬na. However, this witness and others accompanying him did not narrate the incident to P.W.12 as he was in a hurry to come back. He has stated that without examining him, the Doctor at Chhaitana advised him to go to Puri. At around 8.30 P.M. this witness and others arrived at Puri. The dead-body was left in the hospital and he came to the police station. After lodging of the F.I.R., P.W.10 came back to the Hospital and got admitted as an indoor patient for treatment of the injuries sustained during the occur¬rence. He further stated in his cross-examination that the state¬ment in the F.I.R. that before lodging of the F.I.R., he already received medical examination at the District Headquarters Hospi¬tal, Puri, was not a correct statement. He further stated that Babuli, Kalu and Bharat had assaulted him with Farsa and Tada and that none of the accused persons had assaulted him with Bhali. However, it appears from the F.I.R. that he made a statement therein that the accused persons-Babu, Kabuli and Bharat Khatei had assaulted him with a Bhali which is said to be a pointed weapon and Farsa is a sharp cutting weapon. It also appears that he did not state to the police that accused-Kabuli had assaulted him with Tada. The statements made by him in the F.I.R. that accused Bharat Khatei dealt a Farsa blow on the forehead of his brother was confronted to him in course of cross-examination. However, it needs to be stated here that in the F.I.R. it is stated that when they were proceeding to their land for spreading manure in a bullock cart, his elder brother was assaulted by the appellants on the way. But in the trial Court, his version has undergone some change in that regard and he stated that while he was spreading manure on their fields, his elder brother was assaulted by the deceased indiscriminately and thereafter he himself was assaulted. To this extent, there is some departure from the version given in the F.I.R. Apart from the aforesaid, we do not find any other serious infirmity with the evidence of this witness. To this extent, there is some departure from the version given in the F.I.R. Apart from the aforesaid, we do not find any other serious infirmity with the evidence of this witness. P.W.-1 Prahallad Nayak is also another eye witness to the occurrence. His name has also been mentioned in the F.I.R. It may be mentioned here that the F.I.R. was lodged within five hours at the police station which is situated at a distance of 200 feet from the place of occurrence. The F.I.R. was written by the scribe before it was lodged at the police station. The police also accompanied P.W.10 to the Hospital. In his evidence, P.W. 1-Prahallad Nayak stated that the deceased along with P.W. 10 and their father went to the land with manure. While they were spreading manure in their land, the accused persons came in an unlawful assembly to their land saying “MARA MARA DHARA DHARA”. The land of this witness is also at a distance of about 150 feet from the land of the deceased. At that time, he was working in his land. The accused persons came from the road leading to village Barana and that road is at a distance of 200 feet from the land of the deceased. Among the accused persons, he saw the appellant-Bharat Swain was armed with a Bhali, the appellant-Bharat Khatei was armed with a Farsa and the appellant-Kabuli Swain was also armed with a Farsa.He also stated that the other accused persons were armed with various weapons of offence though they were acquitted on conclusion of the trial. This witness has stated that seeing the accused person from the distance of about 50 feet, the informant-P.W. 10 and his father ran away from their land instructing the deceased to come away leaving the cart and when the deceased jumped from the cart to escape the accused persons threatened him and thereafter appellant Kabuli dealt a Farsa blow on the right side back of his head while he was run¬ning. At that time, appellant-Bharat swain stabbed the deceased on the right side chest with the Bhali.He stated that on sustain¬ing such injury, the deceased fell down when the appellant-Bharat Khatei dealt a Farsa blow on the back of his head on the right side and thereafter all the accused persons assaulted the de¬ceased indiscriminately. At that time, appellant-Bharat swain stabbed the deceased on the right side chest with the Bhali.He stated that on sustain¬ing such injury, the deceased fell down when the appellant-Bharat Khatei dealt a Farsa blow on the back of his head on the right side and thereafter all the accused persons assaulted the de¬ceased indiscriminately. This witness has further stated that at the time of such assault he was at a distance of 15 cubits from the deceased and was attempting to prohibit the accused persons from assaulting. On such protest being made by him, he has stated that some of the other accused persons chased him with intention to assault him and at this,he ran away to a distance. He further stated that when the informant-P.W.10 came to the spot raising alarm that the deceased was assaulted and when he reached the land of one Dijabar Nayak, he was assaulted by the appellant-Bharat Khatei with the blunt side of the Farsa on the left side of his chest. He stated that he accompanied the deceased to village Chhaitana and the Medical Officer at the said village examined the deceased and declared him dead. The deceased was then brought to the District Headquarters Hospital, Puri. This witness is also a witness to the inquest made by the police. 4. We have gone through the cross-examination of this witness and we find nothing therein, so as to discredit this witness. The other eye witness, namely, Rajkishore Swain, P.W.4 has stated during his examination-in-chief that while he was proceeding to village Nuagaon on the embankment, he saw the accused persons coming from the northern side. He also saw that the accused-Bharat Swain was armed with Bhali, accused-Kabuli Swain was armed with Farsa and accused Bharat Khatei was also armed with Farsa and the others were armed with lathies and Tada and their father and the younger brother of the deceased were present in their land at that time. He has corroborated the statements of other eye witnesses and nothing substantial has been elicited from this witness during the cross-examination. Therefore, his statement has remained unshaken and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. He has corroborated the statements of other eye witnesses and nothing substantial has been elicited from this witness during the cross-examination. Therefore, his statement has remained unshaken and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. P.W.5- Kailash Chandra Naik is another eye witness to the occurrence from whose statement it is found that he has also corroborated in almost all material par¬ticulars, the statement of the other eye witnesses and there is nothing in his cross-examination to discredit him. P.W.9 is the Doctor who examined the injured-informant, P.W.10 on police requisition. He has stated regarding the injuries found on the person of the informant P.W.10 which more or less corroborates the statements of the eye witnesses. P.W.11 is the Medical Offi¬cer who conducted post mortem on the body of the deceased. He found four incised wounds on various parts of the head of the deceased and several other lacerated injuries on the body of the deceased. 5. Though the learned counsel for the appellants vehement¬ly argued that the contradictions found in the statements of the eye witnesses are material contradictions and submitted that the Court below acted illegally in not disbelieving the statements of the eye witnesses and in not holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, we are unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the appel¬lants as we do not find any material contradictions or omissions in the statements of the eye witnesses. As a matter of fact, on scrutinizing the evidence of the Doctor who examined the inform¬ant and the Medical Officer who conducted the post mortem on the body of the deceased, we are of the view that injuries sustained by the informant and the deceased and the injuries as found during examination of the informant and post-mortem on the body of the deceased corroborate the statements of the eye witnesses. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that since the prosecution has failed to prove that the alleged offence was committed in furtherance of the common intention of all the appellants, the learned Sessions Judge has acted illegally in convicting all the three appellants under Sections 302/34, I.P.C.. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that since the prosecution has failed to prove that the alleged offence was committed in furtherance of the common intention of all the appellants, the learned Sessions Judge has acted illegally in convicting all the three appellants under Sections 302/34, I.P.C.. It is well settled in law that the existence of a common intention amongst the participants in a crime is an essen¬tial element for application of Section 34, I.P.C. As has been observed in the case of Ashok Kumar -v- State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 109 , it is not necessary that the acts of the several persons charged for the commission of an offence jointly must be the same or identically similar. It is further observed that 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. 7. In the case of Harbans Kaur and another -v- State of Haryana, AIR 2005 SC 2989 , while discussing the scope and ap¬plicability of Section 34, I.P.C., the Supreme Court held as follows : “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 Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh ( AIR 1993 SC 1899 ), Section 34 is ap¬plicable 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.” 8. As was observed in Ch. Pulla Reddy and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh ( AIR 1993 SC 1899 ), Section 34 is ap¬plicable 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.” 8. We do not feel it necessary to delve into this point any further. The scope of Section 34, I.P.C. has been repeatedly gone into by the apex Court as well as this Court in innumerable cases. However, application of said Section 34, I.P.C. to a par¬ticular case depends on the facts of the case and the materials produced before the Court by the prosecution. 9. Considering the materials available and the evidence adduced by the prosecution in the present case, we are of the view that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly held that all the appellants are liable for the offence of murder under Section 302, I.P.C. by attracting the provisions of Section 34, I.P.C. as the common intention of all three appellants can be gathered from the materials available on record and the nature of offence com¬mitted can be safely concluded to have been done in furtherance of the common intention of the appellants. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order of conviction and to alter or change the sentence passed in the impugned judgment by the learned Sessions Judge. 10. In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. S. B. ROY, C.J. I agree. Appeal dismissed.