JUDGMENT SUJIT BARMAN ROY, C.J. : This appeal at the instance of two appellants, namely, appellant No.1 Pradip Kumar Bhoi and appellant No.2 Ranjit Kumar Bhoi is directed against the judgment dated 1.7.1987 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Phulbani in Sessions Case No.11 of 1987 convicting the appellant No.1 under Section 307 I.P.C. and appellant No.2 under Section 307/34 I.P.C. and sentencing each of them thereunder to suffer R.I. for seven years. 2. Prosecution case mainly rests on the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 being the eye witnesses of the occurrence and evidence of P.W.1 Dr. Bhagaban Dixit who examined the injured P.W.2 and treated his injuries. 3. The evidence as given by P.W.2 Rohita Barik, in brief, is that he himself is the injured eye witness. In his evidence he stated that both the appellants were his co-villagers. During the preceding Dusshera month on a Wednesday at around noon time this witness had been to Tikabali Bus stand to purchase betel. After purchasing the betel when he was returning, the two appellants suddenly came there and appellant No.1 Pradip Kumar Bhoi inflict¬ed a blow on is left palm with a sword which caused incised wound. Appellant No.2 Ranjit Kumar Bhoi pushed this witness and as a result P.W.2 fell down and simultaneously appellant No.1 Pradip Bhoi inflicted another blow with the sword on his head. He inflicted further blow by sword on the right palm of this wit¬ness. To save himself from further assault, this witness stood up and ran up to a distance of 50 cubits and fell down on the open field and became senseless. Due to assault with sword, this witness sustained serious injuries on his left hand palm and also on the head. He also sustained injuries on his right palm. When he regained his sense after the incident, he found himself to be in the District Headquarters Hospital at Phulbani. From the said hospital, this witness was shifted to S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack for further treatment and in the hospital at Cuttack this witness had undergone treatment for further period of about 15 days as an indoor patient. He also stated in his evidence that P.W.3 Ramakrishna Patra and others had seen the occurrence. From the said hospital, this witness was shifted to S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack for further treatment and in the hospital at Cuttack this witness had undergone treatment for further period of about 15 days as an indoor patient. He also stated in his evidence that P.W.3 Ramakrishna Patra and others had seen the occurrence. On the previous day prior to the occurrence, in the said Bus Stand bazar accused Pradip being drunk created some problem and at that time as this witness protested, he was threatened by appellant No.1 that appellant No.1 would see him. This is in brief the evidence given by this witness during his examination in chief. I have scanned the evidence given by this witness during cross examination. I do not find any material whatsoever to disbelieve this injured eye witness. From the cross examination, I find no material to discard the evidence of this eye witness. The next important eye witness is P.W.3 Rama Krushna Patra. In his evidence, P.W.3 stated that in the previous Dussera month on a Wednesday at around 12 noon, this witness went to Nilamadhab betel shop at Tikabali Bus stand when the appellant No.1 Pradip Kumar Bhoi attempted to assault P.W.2 Rohita Barik on his neck. However, Rohita raised his hand to save him from the said assault, as a result Rohita Sustained cut injury on his left palm. Meanwhile, appellant No.2 Ranjit pushed P.W.2 and for this reason P.W.2 fell down and simultaneously appellant No.1 Pradip inflicted another a blow with sword on the head of Rohit. Appel¬lant No.1 inflicted another blow on the right palm of Rohit. Being so assaulted P.W.2 Rohit ran away and while appellant Pradip was chasing him leaving the sword there, this witness caught hold of appellant Pradip. Appellant No.2 Ranjit lifted the sword and threatened to leave appellant No.1 or else P.W.3 would be assaulted by appellant No.2 by the said sword. Being so threatened out of fear P.W.3 left appellant Pradip. Appellant No.2 Ranjit ran away from that place with the sword. People raised alarm. As the people raised alarm, appellant No.2 Ranjit threw away the sword near Durga Mandap and fled away. On being identified by this witness, the weapon of offence namely, sword was marked as Exhibit M.O.I. by which appellant Pradip had as¬saulted P.W.2 Rohita. Appellant No.2 Ranjit ran away from that place with the sword. People raised alarm. As the people raised alarm, appellant No.2 Ranjit threw away the sword near Durga Mandap and fled away. On being identified by this witness, the weapon of offence namely, sword was marked as Exhibit M.O.I. by which appellant Pradip had as¬saulted P.W.2 Rohita. This is in brief the evidence given by this witness during his examination in chief. I have also scanned the evidence given by this witness during cross examination. On scanning the same I find absolutely nothing to discard the trust¬worthiness of the evidence of this witness. From the place of occurrence along with the others injured Rohita was shifted to Tikabali Primary Health Centre for treatment. He was along with the injured in the said Primary Health Centre till he was shifted to Headquarters Hospital at Phulbani. 4. The next important witness is P.W.1 Dr. Bhagaban Dixit. In his evidence, P.W.1 stated that on 15.10.1986 as Medical Officer in-charge of Tikabali Primary Health Centre, he had to examine the injured. On examination, this witness found the following injuries on the person of P.W.2- “(i) cut injury involving all the tissues and bone of left palm below the wrist joint. The portion of the palm was hanging behind with skin and some soft tissue portion. (ii) cut injury of size 5" x 1" x 1" situated on scalp towards front in the mid-line involving skull bone with a raised edge of the bone on left side. (iii) cut injury 3" x 1/2" x 1/2" situated on the root of three medical fingers of right palm. (iv) cut injury 1/2" x 1/2" x 1/2" situated on left little fin¬ger. 5. P.W.1 in his evidence further opined that out of the aforesaid four injuries, injury Nos. (i) and (ii) were grievous and injury Nos. (iii) and (iv) were simple in nature. The age of these injuries was within twenty four hours from the time of examination. After preliminary aid, P.W.2 was referred to Dis¬trict Headquarters Hospital at Phulbani as he was required to be given further treatment. As regards injury No. (ii) it was opined that the bone was fractured which was visible to the naked eye. He also opined that all the aforesaid injuries could be inflicted by sword marked as M.O.I. in this case. This is in short the medical evidence available on record. As regards injury No. (ii) it was opined that the bone was fractured which was visible to the naked eye. He also opined that all the aforesaid injuries could be inflicted by sword marked as M.O.I. in this case. This is in short the medical evidence available on record. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that appellant No.2 Ranjit Kumar Bhoi gave merely a push with a view to save the injured from further assault. He further submitted that from the very fact that appellant No.2 gave only a push, it cannot be inferred that appellant No. 2 also shared any common intention for committing the offence of attempt to commit murder. 7. The aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is bound to be rejected in view of the fact that evidence on record does not disclose that appellant No.2 gave push to the injured with a view to save him from further assault. Rather it appears from the evidence on record that both the appellants came together with two bi-cycles and one carrying a sword. From the evidence on record, it does not appear that push was given by appellant No.2 with a view to save the injured. Rather, it appears that the push was given with a view to facili¬tate commission of the crime and not for preventing appellant No.1 from inflicting further blows upon the injured. It further appears from the evidence of P.W.3 that when P.W.3 caught hold of appellant No.1 Pradip Kumar Bhoi with a view to save P.W.2 from being further assaulted by him, it was appellant No.2 Ranjit Kumar Bhoi who picked up the sword left behind by appellant No.1 and with that sword he had threatened P.W.3 that unless he re¬leased appellant No.1, appellant No.2 Ranjit Kumar Bhoi would assault P.W.3 with the sword he had picked up. From this fact it clearly establishes that appellant No.2 Ranjit Kumar Bhoi also shared the common intention with appellant No.1 and therefore commission of the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. was indeed an act of joint venture and for that reason appellant No.2 should be held equally liable for the same offence punishable by invoking Section 34 I.P.C. 8. From this fact it clearly establishes that appellant No.2 Ranjit Kumar Bhoi also shared the common intention with appellant No.1 and therefore commission of the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. was indeed an act of joint venture and for that reason appellant No.2 should be held equally liable for the same offence punishable by invoking Section 34 I.P.C. 8. On analysing the evidence on record as aforesaid, I am constrained to hold that the charge against both the appellants has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt and the trial Court did not commit any mistake whatsoever in holding the appellant No.1 guilty under Section 307 I.P.C. and appellant No.2 guilty under Section 307/34 I.P.C. and the sentence awarded to each of them thereunder was justified in the circumstances of the case. 9. The appeal is therefore dismissed. Office is directed to transmit the record of this case along with copy of this judgment to the trial Court so that the remain¬ing part of the sentence awarded against the appellants is duly executed. Appeal dismissed.