Judgment A.P. Lavande, J :- Both these appeals are being disposed of by common judgment since they arise out of the judgment and order dated 21st March, 2003 passed by the Second Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal in Sessions Trial No. 17/2000. The appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 269/2003 are accused nos. 1 and 2 whereas the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 170/2005 is accused no.3 in Sessions Trial No. 17/2000. All the three appellants (hereinafter referred to as . The accused.) have been convicted by the trial court for the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 and 353 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 333 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. For the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the accused have been sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months each and in respect of the offence punishable under Section 353 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code the accused have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months each. 2. The accused shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the trial Court. 3. Briefly, the prosecution case is as under: On 18.8.1999 at about 4.15 a.m. P.W.1 Manohar Sonone received a telephonic message that dacoity had taken place at Ghatanji and victim had received severe injuries and culprits have taken away gold and silver ornaments after assaulting the victim. On receipt of this information Manohar called police staff viz. Head Constable Hanmant, Head Constable Sambhaji, Police Constable Prakash Wasekar, Police constable Ashok Mahalley (deceased) and driver Raju Bende. They all proceeded towards Ghatanji by police jeep at 5.30 a.m. and on the way they checked the vehicles. When they reached near hutment area of village Wadgaon at about 6.00 a.m. they saw three persons belonging to sikh community on the road. They stopped the jeep and inquired from them as to where they were proceeding. They disclosed that they were coming from Pandharkawada. One of them was having rexin bag. All of them started checking the said bag. They stopped the jeep and inquired from them as to where they were proceeding. They disclosed that they were coming from Pandharkawada. One of them was having rexin bag. All of them started checking the said bag. At that time one of the persons aged about 25 years suddenly started running towards hutment area of village Wadgaon. Police Constable Hanwante and driver Raju started chasing that person but could not catch him and he fled away. The second person also ran towards the school. When the said bag was opened, they found gold ornaments and a dagger. In the meanwhile deceased Ashok and Head Constable Sambhaji tried to catch the third person but he scuffled with the police squad. Meanwhile the third person i.e. accused no.1 Gurumitsing took out knife from his waist and assaulted Sambhaji by giving blow on his chest who saved himself from the blow of knife on the chest but Sambhaji received injury on his forearm. Deceased Ashok had caught the said person from back side. The said person got himself freed by giving jerk and gave a blow of the said knife on the left side of the chest of deceased Ashok and started running away. Ashok received severe bleeding injury and fell on the ground. Sambhaji and Prakash started chasing the said person but he fled away. Manohar called the police party and took Ashok in the police jeep to the civil hospital, Ghatanji. He was examined by the doctor at the hospital and was declared dead. Manohar lodged report at Ghatanji police station vide crime no. 00/99 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 353, 333 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, inquest panchanama was conducted on the dead body of Ashok and the dead body of Ashok was sent for post mortem examination. The spot panchanama was prepared. 4. On the very day, P.S.O., Gholap arrested one of the accused who when was brought on the spot disclosed his name as Gurumitsingh. He also received message on wireless stating that three accused were also caught near village Kurhad. He thereafter along with the police staff went to Kurhad and saw one of the accused who had disclosed his name as Jitendrasingh was caught by the villagers. He arrested Jitendrasingh. In the same night P.S.I., Gawai arrested third person viz. Kisansingh coming by truck. He thereafter along with the police staff went to Kurhad and saw one of the accused who had disclosed his name as Jitendrasingh was caught by the villagers. He arrested Jitendrasingh. In the same night P.S.I., Gawai arrested third person viz. Kisansingh coming by truck. White baniyan and black pant worn by Gurumitsingh was also seized under the panchanama. Thereafter, investigation was handed over to Dy. S.P. Sone who recorded the statement of Manohar. The articles seized were sent for analysis to the chemical analyser, Nagpur. 5. After completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed against all the three accused in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yavatmal under Sections 302, 353, 333 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was committed to the court of Sessions. In Session Trial No. 17/2000, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and produced several documents. The defence of the accused was of total denial and false involvement. 6. The trial court upon appreciation of the evidence led by the prosecution held that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 and 353 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against all the accused. The trial Court acquitted all the accused for the offence punishable under Section 333 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code since the prosecution had not proved that Sambhaji had suffered any injuries by examining the doctor who had issued injury certificate. 7. We have heard Mr. Amol Mardikar, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. T.A.Mirza, learned A.P.P. for respondent and perused the record. 8. Mr. Mardikar, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the conviction of the accused for the offences under Sections 302 and 353 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is not sustainable and all the accused are liable to be acquitted, inter alia, on the following grounds. i) No identification parade was held by the prosecution to prove the identity of the accused. ii) In so far as accused 2 and 3 are concerned, even if the prosecution story is accepted, the same does not prove common intention on their part along with the accused no. 1 and, therefore, the conviction of the accused 2 and 3 for the offences under Section 302 IPC with the aid of Section 34 IPC is clearly unsustainable in law. 1 and, therefore, the conviction of the accused 2 and 3 for the offences under Section 302 IPC with the aid of Section 34 IPC is clearly unsustainable in law. According to Mr. Mardikar, the evidence on record suggests that accused no.1 stabbed deceased Ashok after accused nos. 2 and 3 had fled away. In support of his submission that Section 34 is not attracted the learned counsel relied upon the following judgments: i) Dajya Moshya Bhil and other. vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1984 Supreme Court 1717. ii) Bechara Kora Modi & others .vs. State of West Bengal 2005 AIR SCW 6289 iii) Shankar Rajling Raskonda & another vs. State of Maharashtra. 2006 ALL MR(Cri)353. iii) Even if the prosecution case is accepted at the most offence punishable under Section 304 (part II) is proved against the accused no.1 inasmuch as it is the case of the prosecution itself that the accused no.1 gave only one knife blow on the chest of deceased Ashok. In support of the submission that at the most the offence under Section 304 (part II) is made out on account of single blow given by the accused no.1 Mr. Mardikar placed reliance upon the following Judgments. i) Ravi Kumar vs. State of Punjab 2005 AIR SCW 1359. ii) Panchaiah and others vs. State of Karnataka AIR 1994 Supreme Court 963. iii) Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 1876 iv) Noor @ Noordhin vs. State of Karnataka 2007 ALL MR (Cri) 3264. 9. Per contra, Mr. T.A.Mirza, the learned A.P.P. submitted that three eye witnesses examined by the prosecution viz. P.W.1 Manohar Sonone, P.W. 2 Sambhaji Binkar and P.W. 3 Prakash Wasekar had occasion to see all the accused for a considerable length of time and fix their identity and, therefore, failure to hold identification parade by the prosecution is not fatal to the prosecution. He further submitted that the evidence of three eye witnesses is cogent and inspires confidence and clearly proves complicity of all the three accused in the commission of offence for which they have been convicted. He further submitted that the accused nos. 2 and 3 while they were running away exhorted accused no.1 to take out knife and kill and, therefore, common intention on the part of the accused no.2 with accused no.1 has been clearly established by the prosecution. He further submitted that the accused nos. 2 and 3 while they were running away exhorted accused no.1 to take out knife and kill and, therefore, common intention on the part of the accused no.2 with accused no.1 has been clearly established by the prosecution. He further invited our attention to the fact that the trial court has wrongly recorded that P.W. 2 Sambhaji Binkar and P.W. 3 Prakash Wasekar had not stated in their police statements that accused nos. 2 and 3 said .Take out and kill.. Mr. Mirza further submitted that Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is clearly attracted in the present case. In so far as the argument of Mr. Mardikar that at the most offence punishable under Section 304 (part II) is made out against the accused no.1 is concerned, Mr. Mirza submitted that considering the circumstances of the case, weapon used and the manner of assault by accused no.1 on deceased Ashok, the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is clearly made out. In support of his submissions, Mr. Mirza relied upon the following judgments. i) Surjan Singh and another vs. State of Haryana (1998) 7 Supreme Copurt Cases 336. ii) Dhupa Chamar and others vs. State of Bihar AIR 2002 Supreme Court 2834. iii) Pulicherla Nagaraju alias Nagaraja Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2006 CRI L.J. 3899 10. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.P.P. for the respondent and perused the judgments relied upon by the rival parties. 11. Since the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of the three eye witnesses viz. P.W.1 Manohar Sonone, P.W.2 Sambhaji Binkar and P.W. 3 Prakash Wasekar, it would be appropriate to deal with their evidence first. P.W. 1 Manohar who lodged report (Exh. 40) deposed that on 18.8.1999 at about 4.15 a.m. he received message on phone that there was a dacoity at Ghatanji. Therefore, he along with P.W. 2 Sambhaji and P.W. 3 Prakash, Police Constable Ashok and driver Raju proceeded to Ghatanji at about 6.00 p.m.. He saw that three sardarji persons were coming walking and one of them had rexin bag. He made inquiry with the said three persons. They disclosed that they are coming from Pandharkawada by walk. Therefore, he along with P.W. 2 Sambhaji and P.W. 3 Prakash, Police Constable Ashok and driver Raju proceeded to Ghatanji at about 6.00 p.m.. He saw that three sardarji persons were coming walking and one of them had rexin bag. He made inquiry with the said three persons. They disclosed that they are coming from Pandharkawada by walk. Since three of them were coming walking early in the morning he suspected and checked the bag carried by one of them. In the bag, there was a new pant piece and inside some gold ornaments were found in a small hand bag. Just then one of them started running towards Wadgaon. He was followed by Head Constable Hanmante and driver Raju. Just then another person also started running towards school of Wadgaon. He was chased by Police Constable Prakash. The second person while running away said .Nikalkar Mar Saleko. (Take out and assault). He identified accused no. 3 as the person who escaped and accused no.2 as a person who ran towards the School. He thereafter deposed that Ashok and Sambhaji tried to take the accused no.1 in the jeep. Suddenly, accused 1 took out knife and assaulted Sambhaji who received injuries on his left hand. Sambhaji saved himself from the fatal attack. Ashok was behind accused no.1. He immediately caught him from back side. Accused no.1 gave blow of knife on the chest near the heart of Ashok on account of which Ashok received bleeding injury on his chest. Thereafter accused started running. Ashok fell on the ground on account of the injury suffered by him. Thereafter, Sambhaji and Prakash started chasing the accused no.1. However, since Ashok was having bleeding injury he took injured Ashok to Ghatanji hospital. The witness identified accused no.1 as the person who had given blow on deceased Ashok. He took bags and ornaments with him along with them and along with injured by police jeep came to Ghatanji Hospital. There the doctor declared Ashok dead. He thereafter went to Ghatanji police station and lodged report Exh. 40 pursuant to which police registered First Information Report (Exh.41). According to the witness report was lodged at 7.00 a.m.. He thereafter prepared inquest panchanama and sent the body for post-mortem. In the meantime, he received message by wireless that three accused were caught hold near village Kurhad. He along with staff went to village Kurhad. 40 pursuant to which police registered First Information Report (Exh.41). According to the witness report was lodged at 7.00 a.m.. He thereafter prepared inquest panchanama and sent the body for post-mortem. In the meantime, he received message by wireless that three accused were caught hold near village Kurhad. He along with staff went to village Kurhad. He saw one of the accused who was arrested who disclosed his name as Jitendrasingh.. On the same day at about 5.00 p.m. he prepared spot panchanama (Exh. 47) in presence of panchas. He also seized clothes of the deceased viz. shirt and baniyan. There was a hole to shirt and banyan of deceased on left chest and they were stained with blood. The witness identified the clothes of deceased Ashok. On the very day, P.S.I., Gholap arrested one of the accused and brought him on the spot. The witness identified the said accused Gurmitsingh who had assaulted deceased Ashok. In the same night, one of the accused viz. Kisansingh (accused no.3) was arrested by P.S.I. Gavali while he was coming by truck and he was the person firstly ran away from the spot. Thereafter, on 19.8.1999 at about 1.00 p.m. he seized one baniyan and shirt with blood stains worn by the accused no.1 under seizure panchanama (Exh. 53). The witness identified the said clothes. Thereafter, he handed over the investigation to Dy. S.P., Sone. In the cross-examination the witness admitted that he had not stated in the report that second person while he was running told the third person to take knife and assault. He denied the suggestion that accused no.2 did not tell the third person (accused no.1) to take knife and assault. Witness denied all suggestions put to him on behalf of the accused denying their involvement in the crime. 12. The evidence of P.W. 2 Sambhaji who accompanied P.W. 1 Manohar also on similar line. However, according to him, when the bag was being searched both the persons while running said to the third person viz. accused no.1 .Take out and kill.. This witness also identified all the three accused as the persons who were stopped at Wadgaon. He also identified accused no.1 as the person who gave blow on deceased Ashok. In the cross-examination he stated that he had not stated in the police statement that accused nos. 2 told the third accused to take out and kill. This witness also identified all the three accused as the persons who were stopped at Wadgaon. He also identified accused no.1 as the person who gave blow on deceased Ashok. In the cross-examination he stated that he had not stated in the police statement that accused nos. 2 told the third accused to take out and kill. But having regard to the situation in which two accused uttered these words it is clear that the words uttered by both the accused were directed to the accused no.1. Therefore, in our opinion, the admission by the witness in the cross-examination is not much relevant and is not fatal to the prosecution case. 13. The evidence of P.W. 3 Prakash Wasekar is on the same line as of P.W. 2 Sambhaji. He has also identified three accused as the persons who were stopped at Wadgaon and accused no.1 as the person who had injured P.W. 2 Sambhaji by giving knife blow and the person who gave blow on the chest of deceased Ashok. In the cross-examination, he denied that the persons involved in that crime ran away from the spot and all the three accused were falsely implicated. He also stated that he had stated in his police statement that two accused to take out and assault. However, he admitted that he did not mention about third person. 14. Upon close scrutiny of the evidence of the above three witnesses, we have no hesitation to hold that their evidence inspires confidence for several reasons. Firstly, P.W. 2 Sambhaji was himself injured and although all the accused have been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 333 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal code on the ground that the prosecution did not examine the doctor who had examined the said witness and given certificate, the fact remains that the presence of these witnesses on the spot at the time of the commission of the offences cannot be disputed. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that the accused have also not disputed the incident as such but their defence appears to be that the accused were not involved but they have been falsely implicated. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that the accused have also not disputed the incident as such but their defence appears to be that the accused were not involved but they have been falsely implicated. Another important factor which lands credence to the testimonies of these three witnesses is that the first information report was lodged at Ghatanji Police Station at 7 a.m. i.e. within an hour of the incident and that too after deceased Ashok was taken to the hospital since he was having severe bleeding injuries. No doubt, P.W. 1 Manohar in his evidence has stated that only one of the accused stated 'take out and assault' whereas the other two witnesses have stated that both the accused 2 and 3 stated so. In our opinion, having regard to the manner in which the sequence of events took place, slight variation in the testimonies of the three witnesses is not fatal to the prosecution case. 15. In so far as the argument of Mr. Mardikar that in the absence of identification parade all the accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt is concerned we find no merit in the said submission. The incident had taken place early in the morning at about 6.00 a.m. where all the three eye witnesses had opportunity to see all the accused for quite some time thereby fixing the identity of the three accused in their minds. Moreover, all the three accused were arrested in a short time in suspicious circumstances. Therefore, failure to hold identification parade in the present case is not fatal to the prosecution case. It is well settled by catena of decisions of the Apex Court that substantive evidence before the court is identification of the accused by the witnesses and identification parade is a part of investigation and the same only lends assurance to the identification of the accused by the witnesses in the Court. In a case where the witnesses do not have opportunity to observe the accused for a reasonable time so as to fix their identity it is necessary for the prosecution to have identification parade so that the evidence of the witnesses in the court about the identification of the accused can be accepted. However, in the present case as stated above the three witnesses had opportunity to see the accused after they were intercepted at Wadgaon. However, in the present case as stated above the three witnesses had opportunity to see the accused after they were intercepted at Wadgaon. Therefore, in our opinion, failure to hold identification parade cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution case. 16. The next point which arises for our consideration is whether Section 34 is attracted in the present case. The evidence of P.W. 2 Sambhaji and P.W. 3 Prakash which clearly establishes that all the three accused were stopped when they were coming on foot and when the bag carried by the accused no.1 was being searched which was having gold ornaments the accused nos. 2 and 3 started running saying 'Take out and kill' (Nikal Ke Mar Sale Ko) and were successful in fleeing from the spot. The utterance of these words by accused 2 and 3 clearly establishes that both of them exhorted accused no. 1 to take out knife and kill. These clearly establish that these words were directed to accused no.1 asking him to take out the knife which he was carrying and to kill the person. The evidence brought on record clearly establishes that accused 2 and 3 were very much aware that accused no.1 was carrying the knife and accused nos. 2 and 3 having been caught along with accused no.1 with gold ornaments wanted the accused no.1 to kill the person catching him by assaulting him with knife. Thus, common intention on the part of the accused 2 and 3 to commit murder of the person catching accused no.1 is clearly established. It is well settled by catena of decisions of the Apex Court that in order to attract section 34 there must be a common intention which can even occur on the spur of moment. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been able to establish that accused 2 and 3 shared common intention with accused no.1 to cause injuries to the deceased Ashok resulting in his death. The evidence of the above three witnesses also stand corroborated by the medical evidence tendered by P.W. 7 Dr. Vishnu Giri who conducted the post mortem on the dead body of deceased Ashok. 17. P.W. 7 Dr. Vishnu Giri deposed that he conducted post mortem on the dead body of Ashok and noticed following external injuries. The evidence of the above three witnesses also stand corroborated by the medical evidence tendered by P.W. 7 Dr. Vishnu Giri who conducted the post mortem on the dead body of deceased Ashok. 17. P.W. 7 Dr. Vishnu Giri deposed that he conducted post mortem on the dead body of Ashok and noticed following external injuries. i) Incised wound in mid axillary region obliquely placed, 3 ½ inches from axilla. Diameter is 1 ½ inch x ½ inch with red margin. On putting gloved finger it was directed towards midline towards chest through intercaste space/ caused by sharp and pointed instrument. He further deposed that on pening the throax he noticed that there was huge collection of blood within the throax on left side and lung parenchyama on left side corresponding to the external injury was lacerated from chest wall to heart. There was rentin heart with sharp margins 1½ inch obliquely placed over left Atrium through and through on left boarder of heart exactly corresponding to external injury. He further deposed that all the injuries are mentioned in the column no. 17 and 20 of the post mortem report were ante mortem and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. In his opinion the death occurred as a result of penetrating injury to heart with resultant haemorrhagic shock. He identified his signature on the post mortem report (Exh. 83) and confirmed its contents as correct. He further deposed that he had examined the weapon the knife (Article 1) which was sent to him by P.S.O. Ghatanji. He had examined the weapon which was having length of 32 cms and handle of 14 cms of black colour. He also found blood stains on the knife. According to the witness the weapon was sufficient to cause death of Ashok. In cross examination nothing tangible has been brought on record. Therefore, the evidence of this witness clearly proves that the death of Ashok was homicidal and Ashok died on account of stab injuries on the chest. 18. The next question which arises for our consideration is what offence is made out. Mr. Mardikar, submits that since only a single blow was given, at the most an offence punishable under Section 304 (part II) is made out. We do not deem it necessary to refer all the authorities cited by both the sides in support of rival submissions. The next question which arises for our consideration is what offence is made out. Mr. Mardikar, submits that since only a single blow was given, at the most an offence punishable under Section 304 (part II) is made out. We do not deem it necessary to refer all the authorities cited by both the sides in support of rival submissions. However, we would refer to the Judgment of the Apex Court in Pulicherla Nagaraju alias Nagaraja Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (supra) in which the Apex Court has considered several authorities of the Apex court in which the Apex Court has converted the offence punishable under Section 302 into 304 (part II) on the ground that single blow was given by the accused. In paragraph no. 16 of the Judgment the Apex Court has referred to several judgments of the Apex Court in which the Apex Court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II on the ground that single blow was given. It would be appropriate to quote paragraph 18 of the said Judgment in which the Apex Court has laid down several factors to be considered to find out whether the evidence on record establishes offence punishable under Section 302 or under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. Paragraph no. 18 reads as thus; .18. Therefore, the court should proceed to decide the pivotal question of intention with care and caution as that will decide whether the case falls under Section 302 or 304 Part I or 304 Part II. Many petty or insignificant matters plucking of a fruit, straying of a cattle, quarrel of children, uttering of a cattle, quarrel of children, utterance of a rude word or even an objectionable glance, may lead to altercations and group clashes culminating in deaths. Usual motives like revenge, greed, jealousy or suspicion may be totally absent in such cases. There may be no intention. There may be no pre-meditation. In fact, there may not even be criminality. At the other end of the spectrum, there may be cases of murder where the accused attempts to avoid the penalty for murder by attempting to putforth a case that there was no intention to cause death. There may be no intention. There may be no pre-meditation. In fact, there may not even be criminality. At the other end of the spectrum, there may be cases of murder where the accused attempts to avoid the penalty for murder by attempting to putforth a case that there was no intention to cause death. It is for the courts to ensure that the cases of murder punishable under section 302 are not converted into offences punishable under section 304 Part I/II, or cases of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, are treated as murder punishable under section 302. The intention to cause death can be gathered generally from a combination of a few or several of the following a month other circumstances: i) nature of the weapon used; ii) whether the weapon was carried by the accused or was picked up from the spot; iii) whether the blow is aimed at a vital part of the body; iv) the amount of force employed in causing injury; v) whether the act was in the course of sudden quarrel or sudden fight or free for all fight; vi) whether the incident occurs by chance or whether there was any pre-meditation; vii) whether there was any prior enmity or whether the deceased was a stranger; viii) whether there was any grave and sudden provocation, and if so, the cause for such provocation; ix) whether it was in the heat of passion; x) whether the person inflicting the injury has taken undue advantage or has acted in a cruel and unusual manner; xi) whether the accused dealt a single blow or several blows. The above list of circumstances is, of course, not exhaustive and there may be several other special circumstances with reference to individual cases which may throw light on the question of intention. Be that as it may.. 19. In the present case the prosecution has been able to establish that the accused no.1 intended to cause death of Ashok and accused nos. 2 and 3 shared common intention with accused no.1. Firstly, accused no.1 was carrying knife having blade of 18 cms and the blow was inflicted on the chest with some force. The blow was given with a view to flee away from the police who had caught the accused with gold which must have come in possession of the accused by committing robbery. Firstly, accused no.1 was carrying knife having blade of 18 cms and the blow was inflicted on the chest with some force. The blow was given with a view to flee away from the police who had caught the accused with gold which must have come in possession of the accused by committing robbery. Therefore, the mere fact that the accused did gave a single blow on the chest of deceased Ashok by itself could not bring the case down from the offence punishable under section 302 to 304 (part II) of the Indian Penal Code. The authorities relied upon by Mr. Mardikar do not advance the case of the accused inasmuch as the facts in all these cases are not identical with the facts in the present case. The evidence on record clearly establishes the intention on the part of the accused no.1 to cause injuries to deceased Ashok on vital part which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the submission of Mr. Mardikar that at the most the offence punishable under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the accused. In our opinion, accused 2 and 3 shared common intention with accused no.1 to cause injury which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and, therefore, offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is clearly made out. 20. The ocular testimony is also corroborated by recovery of knife (Article I) from the accused no. 1 Gurumitsing which has been duly proved through the evidence of P.W. 9 Prabakar Padmawar. We find no reason to reject the testimony of P.W. 9 Prabhakar which establishes the recovery of knife having blade of 18 cm from the accused no.1. 21. Having re-appreciated the evidence led by the prosecution we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 and Section 353 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against all the accused/ appellants. In our opinion the findings recorded by the trial court have been arrived at upon proper appreciation of the evidence. Therefore, the conviction of the accused and the sentences imposed on them cannot be faulted. 22. In our opinion the findings recorded by the trial court have been arrived at upon proper appreciation of the evidence. Therefore, the conviction of the accused and the sentences imposed on them cannot be faulted. 22. For the reasons aforesaid we find no merit in both the appeals. Consequently, both the appeals are dismissed.