ARUN KUMAR BHATTACHARYA, J. ( 1 ) THE present appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the ld. Sessions judge, 5th Bench, City Sessions Court, Calcutta in Sessions Case No. 34/83 (S. T. No. 1 of June, 1984) on 02. 04. 85. ( 2 ) SHORTLY put, the prosecution case is that on 03. 08. 79 at about 7. 30 p. m. the de facto complainant Paltu Seth, (P. W. 1) being accompanied by his friend victim Laloo Seth (P. W. 9) came via Hatibagan Market in front of the tea stall of one Debi Dayal Seth (P. W. 3) at premises No. 156/5, Acharya Prafulla Chandra road and at about 8. 00 p. m. when he was proceeding towards the lane to go to his in-law's house in the upper floor of the said premises and Laloo was standing near the said tea stall, on hearing a row he looked back and found accused bhupendra Singh @ Pappu assaulting Laloo with a nepala on his head, right chest and left thigh, for which he fell down on the ground. Accused Paresh singh @ Jhatua then assaulted him with a r; zor on his back and accused Kartick shaw @ Nebulal fired twice from his revolver aiming towards him. When laloo started running towards Nandan Bagan Lane, Nebulal again fired towards him and thereafter all the accused persons along with others fled away towards Hari Saha Market. On hearing the row of the complainant the parents of Laloo and others came there. The victim was removed in a taxi to Medical college and when Laloo was being treated in the operation theatre, a police officer came there and recorded his statement. ( 3 ) THE defence case, as suggested to P. Ws. 4 and 9 and as contended by the accused during his examination under section 313 Cr. PC is that the victim was not assaulted by accused Jhatua. ( 4 ) ALL the three accused persons were charged under section 307/34 IPC to which accused Paresh @ Jhatua alone pleaded guilty while other two accused persons pleaded not guilty. ( 5 ) THE ld. Court below did not accept the said plea of accused Paresh and trial proceeded. The case against accused Bhupendra Singh was filed for the present pending E. R. of WA vide order dated 30. 04. ( 5 ) THE ld. Court below did not accept the said plea of accused Paresh and trial proceeded. The case against accused Bhupendra Singh was filed for the present pending E. R. of WA vide order dated 30. 04. 84 of the ld. Court below. ( 6 ) THIRTEEN witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution, while none was examined on behalf of the defence, and after considering the facts, circumstances and materials-on-record, the ld. Court below while acquitted accused Kartick under section 232 Cr. PC on 26. 03. 85, found the present accused paresh guilty under section 307/34 IPC, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to suffer RI for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- i. d. to RI for six months. ( 7 ) BEING aggrieved by, and dissatisfied with, the said order, the convict paresh has preferred the present appeal. ( 8 ) ALL that now requires to be considered is whether the ld. Court below was justified in passing the above order of conviction and sentence. ( 9 ) OUT of the above witnesses P. Ws. 2, 4, 9, 11, 12 and 13 are vital, others being formal or post occurrence witnesses or of no aid to the prosecution. ( 10 ) P. W. 1 Paltu Seth (de facto complainant), who was declared hostile, deposed that on 03. 08. 79 at about 5. 00 p. m. he accompanied by his friend Laloo went to Hatibagan Market for purchasing a gramophone record and therefrom to the tea stall of Devi Seth (P. W. 3) at 156/5, A. P. C. Road. After taking tea from that tea stall along with other friends, he went to his in-law's house in the first floor of the said premises. At about 5. 30 or 6. 00p. m. on hearing a row he came down but it was dark by then and he proceeded towards his house. He found Laloo's father with Laloo in injured condition sitting on a bench inside their basti but he did not witness as to how Laloo sustained injuries. He accompanied Laloo's father, elder brother and others who took the injured Laloo to Medical College Hospital. He found Laloo's father with Laloo in injured condition sitting on a bench inside their basti but he did not witness as to how Laloo sustained injuries. He accompanied Laloo's father, elder brother and others who took the injured Laloo to Medical College Hospital. P. W. 3 Debi Dayal Seth, owner of the tea stall at 156/5, A. P. C. Road did not find Laloo and Paltu to come to his tea stall on that date nor any incident of assault on Laloo in front of his shop. P. W. 5 Dr. A. K. Chandra, Professor (Surgery) of Medical College Hospital, deposed regarding admission of Laloo in the Medical College Hospital in his unit on 04. 08. 79 at 2. 30 a. m. and conducting of operation by Dr. Bhabani Prasad Palit (P. W. 12)on Laloo. P. W. 6 Sarojit Kumar Sarkar is a witness to the seizure of bloodstained garments from Kalu Seth (P. W. 2 ). P. W. 7 Kalyan Roy chowdhury who being the record-keeper of the Medical College hospital produced the bedhead ticket of the patient before the police. P. W. 8 Anjali Seth while passing along Raja Dinendra Street found her son Laloo lying injured on the footpath at about 8/8. 15 p. m. on 03. 08. 79. On her query as to the reason for his sustaining injuries, Laloo could not make any statement but only raised his hand while she found injuries on his head and back as also bullet injuries. She stated that laloo's father (P. W. 2) and the local people took the injured to the hospital. P. W. 10 Paresh Chandra Sarkar, Ward Master, Medical College Hospital, simply stated that if any bullet is extracted from the person of any patient it is deposited with the C. B. , Ward Master. ( 11 ) ACCORDING to the evidence of P. W. 9 Laloo Seth, on 03. 08. 79 at about 8/8. 15 p. m. when he was standing near the tea stall of Debi Dayal (P. W. 3), accused Paresh Singh @ Jhatua, and 4/5 others came and assaulted him. Jhatua assaulted him on his back with a razor and others assaulted him with nepala. When he was running away, one of them fired at him, but he could not recognize other assailants. He ran towards their house and his father who was taking bath seized him. Jhatua assaulted him on his back with a razor and others assaulted him with nepala. When he was running away, one of them fired at him, but he could not recognize other assailants. He ran towards their house and his father who was taking bath seized him. Afterwards his father and others took him to Medical College hospital. He identified his wearing apparels [mat Ext. I (Coll.)]. The above evidence in material particulars is corroborated by P. Ws. 2 and 4. It is the evidence of P. W. 4 that on 03. 08. 79 at about 8. 15 p. m. when she was standing in front of a betel shop by the side of the tea stall of Debi Dayal (P. W. 3), she found a blue coloured car to stop near Hari Saha Market when Laloo (P. W. 9)and 3/4 other boys were standing near the tea stall of Debi Dayal. About 4/5 persons came out of the said car and one of them assaulted Laloo with a nepala, for which he fell down on the ground. Jhatua assaulted Laloo on his back with a razor. When Laloo got up and started fleeing away, one of the said boys who was stout built fired at him. He could not recognize other boys. The assailants made good their escape by the said car. P. W. 2 Kalu Seth on that date at about 8. 15 p. m. found his son Laloo (P. W. 9) coming to their basti running with bleeding injuries and reported on his query that Jhatua and 3/4 others had assaulted him, and there is no denial of it in his cross-examination. P. W. 12 Dr. Bhabani prasad Palit, the then M. O. of Medical College Hospital, on examination of laloo on 04. 08. P. W. 12 Dr. Bhabani prasad Palit, the then M. O. of Medical College Hospital, on examination of laloo on 04. 08. 79 found as many as nine injuries viz (1) multiple cut injuries on his body near right iliac fossa, (2) one sharp cut injury on left breast obliquely placed extending up wards towards suprasternal notch about 3" x " x 1/4" (3)one sharp injury on back in the midline about 4" x 1/4" x 1/4", (4) one injury, stitched at emergency, 2" in length over the vault of skull, (5) one stitched up injury over right index finger, (6) injury over left thigh, (7) another injury over back, (8) abdomen distended tender liver dullness, obliterated, peritoneal sound was present and (9) one penetrating injury on right vertebra. The patient was discharged on 26. 08. 79 at 10 a. m. and the injuries were grievous in nature, said he. P. W. 11 S. I. A. M. Bhowmick on receipt of a telephonic information on 03. 08. 79 at about 20. 30 hrs. from an unknown person diarised the same in g. D. No. 228 dated 03. 08. 79 (Ext. 4) and left for premises No. 156/5, A. P. C. Road with force. On coming to learn that the injured had been removed to medical College Hospital, after placing a guard there he left for the hospital but came to know from the hospital that the injured Laloo had been taken to the operation theatre. He could not examine the injured as the doctor of the hospital did not permit him. One Paltu Seth (P. W. 1) made a statement which was recorded (Ext. 1/1) by him and after coming back to the spot at about 22. 40 hrs. , he examined Smt. Maya Das (P. W. 4), Anjali Seth (P. W. 8), Debi Dayal seth (P. M. 3) etc. and recorded their statements. After returning to the P. S. he drew up formal FIR (Ext. 1/2 ). On the following day he seized the bloodstained wearing apparels [mat Ext. I (Coll.)] from the house of Kalu Seth (P. W. 2) under a seizure list (Ext. 2/2) in presence of witnesses. He went to the Medical College hospital but could not record the statement of the injured as he was not physically fit to make any statement as informed by the attending doctor. On 08. 08. 79 at about 14. I (Coll.)] from the house of Kalu Seth (P. W. 2) under a seizure list (Ext. 2/2) in presence of witnesses. He went to the Medical College hospital but could not record the statement of the injured as he was not physically fit to make any statement as informed by the attending doctor. On 08. 08. 79 at about 14. 00 hrs. he recorded the statement of the injured Laloo at the hospital. On 13. 08. 79 S. I. S. K. Bose arrested accused Bhupendra Singh @ pappu, and on 08. 11. 79 he made over the case diary to D. D. , Lalbazar as per direction of O. C. , Dacoity and Robbery Squad, Lalbazar. P. W. 13 S. I. U. S. Lahiri of D. D. , Calcutta took up charge of further investigation of the case on 09. 11. 79 under the order of D. C. , D. D. , arrested Kartick Shaw @ Nebulal and Paresh singh @ Jhatua and after completion of investigation submitted chargesheet on 16. 04. 81 against the accused persons. ( 12 ) MR. Bag, ld. Counsel for the appellant, at the outset, adversely criticized the impugned judgment for its cryptic nature. Mr. Bag on referring to the evidence of P. W. 11 contended that he did not find any blood on the spot nor seized any blood-stained earth and so far P. W. 4 is concerned she is in inimical terms with his client, and accordingly no reliance should be placed upon her testimony. Mr. Bag further contended that the victim did not disclose the name of the assailant or of any person as offender/offenders either to his mother (P. W. 8) or to doctor (P. W. 12), and as such on the basis of sole testimony of p. W. 9 which is uncorroborated, the conviction should not be sustained. ( 13 ) MERELY because the judgment is cryptic and there was scope for elaboration it is no ground for reversal of the same particularly when it does not lack the reasoning for arriving at the decision. ( 14 ) CORROBORATION does not mean that all the witnesses must have to depose in one voice each and every incident nor the principle of corroboration demands that absence of corroboration of a particular fact on the part of one witness will amount to discarding his testimony in toto treating it as false. ( 14 ) CORROBORATION does not mean that all the witnesses must have to depose in one voice each and every incident nor the principle of corroboration demands that absence of corroboration of a particular fact on the part of one witness will amount to discarding his testimony in toto treating it as false. As a general rule Court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness though uncorroborated provided he is truthful and trustworthy on material fact. It is to be borne in mind that witnesses have to be weighed and not counted since quality matters more than quantity in human affairs. The question of corroboration arises only in the case of witness who is neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable where the Court is called upon to be circumspect, as was held in the case of Vedivelu Thevar vs. State of Madras, reported in AIR 1957 sc 614 . Reference may also be made to the case of State of Gujarat vs. R. V. Baxi, reported in AIR 1985 SC 1092 . Corroboration as a rule of prudence requires on material fact which in the case on hand exists since the evidence of P. W. 9 is fully buttressed by P. W. 4 who appears to be an independent witness. She categorically denied the suggestion that she had a quarrel with accused Paresh. It is her Specific evidence that she knows him from his childhood. No animus of the said P. W. 9 and P. W. 4 against the accused having been established it improbabilises the hypothesis of their false implication of accused Paresh. That apart, the incident having taken place in their presence and P. W. 9 himself being the victim they cannot exculpate the real offender. Immediately after the occurrence P. W. 9 went running with bleeding injuries to his house and disclosed to his father (P. W. 2) the name of Jhatua as an offender who along with 3/4 others assaulted him. The FIR was recorded bearing out the name of appellant jhatua along with two others by P. W. 11 at the hospital when the victim was in the operation theatre. The evidence of P. Ws. 2, 4 and 9 is supported by medical testimony of P. W. 12 who found as many as nine injuries, two of which viz injury Nos. 3 and 7 being on back. The evidence of P. Ws. 2, 4 and 9 is supported by medical testimony of P. W. 12 who found as many as nine injuries, two of which viz injury Nos. 3 and 7 being on back. The evidence of P. W. 11 reveals that when he had been to hospital, the injured was in the operation theatre and he was not allowed to examine the victim. So merely because the victim did not disclose the lame of appellant or others to the doctor, it will not give rise to any suspicion. In regard to non-seizure of blood, it is the specific evidence of P. W. 11 that he searched for blood but it was washed away by rain water. So, on the face of the said clear evidence, the above contention of Mr. Bag is not at all tenable. ( 15 ) AS regards motive, the prosecution is not to prove the same for it is known only to the accused, as was held in the case of State of Haryana vs. Sher singh, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1021 . Proof of motive satisfies the judicial mind about likelihood of the authorship but its absence only demands deeper search and cannot undo the effect of evidence otherwise sufficient. The existence or non-existence of motive is not relevant when there is direct and credible evidence like the case on hand. Men do not act wholly without motive and failure to discover the motive of the offence does not signify the non-existence of the crime nor proof of motive is ever an indispensable factor for conviction, as was held in the case of Ashok Kumar vs. State (Delhi Administration), reported in 1996 Cr. LJ 421 (SC ). ( 16 ) IN regard to the contention of Mr. Bag relating to non-application of section 307/34 IPC in the present facts and circumstances in view of the nature of injuries suffered by the victim on back and as accused Kartick @ Nebulal was acquitted and not a single witness uttered the name of accused Bhupendra singh @ Pappu who is still absconding, as an offender, Mr. Roy on referring the case of Gurdial Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported in 1995 SCC (Cri) 947, submitted that in such a case appellant alone is liable for his individual act and he cannot be convicted with the aid of section 34 IPC. Roy on referring the case of Gurdial Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported in 1995 SCC (Cri) 947, submitted that in such a case appellant alone is liable for his individual act and he cannot be convicted with the aid of section 34 IPC. ( 17 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution case, accused Bhupendra @ Pappu struck the victim with nepala on his head, right chest and left thigh, accused Paresh @ Jhatua assaulted him on his back with razor and accused Kartick @ Nebulal fired from his revolver. The victim sustained nine injuries, out of which injury nos. 3 and 7 on back must have been caused by accused Jhatua. So, the balance seven injuries might have been caused by other offenders. As per evidence of p. W. 2, his son, as reported, was assaulted by accused Jhatua and 3/4 others. Similar is the evidence of P. W. 4 who found 4/5 persons including Jhatua to come out of the car. P. W. 9 deposed that he was attacked by Jhatua and 4/5 others whom he could not recognize. In the absence of any evidence, accused kartick @ Nebulal was acquitted and there is also no evidence regarding involvement of accused Bhupendra @ Pappu who is now absconder. ( 18 ) TO invoke the aid of section 34, it must be shown that the criminal act complained against was done by anyone of the accused persons in furtherance of the common intention of all. If this is shown, any one of the accused persons may be made liable for the crime, in the same manner as if the act was done by him alone. To convict an accused for an offence by invoking section 34, it is necessary to establish that the criminal act was done in concert pursuant to a pre-planned design. It is difficult, if not impossible, to procure direct evidence to prove the intention of a person. Therefore, Courts, in most cases, have to infer the intention from the act or conduct of a particular person or from other relevant circumstances of the case. It is difficult, if not impossible, to procure direct evidence to prove the intention of a person. Therefore, Courts, in most cases, have to infer the intention from the act or conduct of a particular person or from other relevant circumstances of the case. In Joginder Singh vs. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 1994 SC 461 , it was held that it is equally settled law that the intention of the individual has to be inferred from the overt act or conduct or from other relevant circumstances and therefore the totality of the circumstances must be taken into consideration in order to arrive at conclusion whether the accused had a common intention to commit the offence under which they could be convicted. In H. P. Thakore vs. State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 1977 SC 710 , referred to in the said Gurdial Singh's case, it was held that the proposition is plain that even if some out of several accused are acquitted but the participating presence of a plurality of assailants is proved, the conjoint culpability for the crime is inescapable. The cases of Moina Singh vs. State of rajasthan, 1976 SCC (Cri) 332 and Piara Singh vs. State of Punjab, 1980 SCC (Cri) 499, so discussed in Gurdial case also speak in the same tune. So, notwithstanding the acquittal of one accused and absence of any evidence against another, the conjoint culpability for the crime under section 307/34 ipc is inescapable considering involvement of other unnamed offenders and the serious nature of injuries inflicted on vital parts of the body. Therefore, neither of the above contentions of Mr. Bag and Mr. Roy is acceptable. ( 19 ) IN the premises, in the light of the above discussion, there being no material to interfere with the decision of the ld. Court below, the present appeal be dismissed. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the ld. Court below is hereby affirmed. ( 20 ) ALAMATS, if any, be destroyed after the period of appeal is over. ( 21 ) THE appellant is directed to surrender before the ld. Court below immediately to serve out the remaining period of sentence. In default, the ld. Court below will secure his presence in due course of law. Appeal dismissed.