Judgment : D. D. SINHA, J.:- Heard Shri. Daga, learned Counsel for the appellants, and Shri. Fulzele, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction dated 12.1.2004 passed by the 1st Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur in Sessions Trial No.52/2002, the appellants have filed the present criminal appeal. 3. The circumstances, which have given rise to the prosecution, in nutshell, are as follows: On 1.10.2001 at about 1 p.m. PW 1 Panchfula (wife of deceased Ramkrishna) had gone to weekly market at village Anjangaon Surji whereas deceased Ramkrishna had gone to the field at about 12 noon for grazing she-buffaloes. PW 1 Panchfula returned home at about 7 p.m. from the weekly market. However, when she got down from the auto-rickshaw at village Dhanegaon bus stand, she came to know from the people that quarrel was going on between appellants and her husband. As soon as she came to know about the quarrel, she rushed to her house. When she reached near her house, she saw that appellant no. 1 Damodar was armed with an axe, appellant no.2 Wasudeo was armed with sickle and appellant no.3 Laxman was armed with stick. All the appellants assaulted her husband Ramkrishna with their respective weapons and she had witnessed the incident. On seeing the incident of assault, PW 1 Panchfula got frightened and went to village Borala where her brother resided. PW 1 Panchfula went to the Police Station Anjangaon Surji along with Jaikishan (son of her brother) for lodging complaint. However, Police brought her and Jaikishan to the spot of incident where Ramkrishna was lying dead. It is the case of the prosecution that fifteen days prior to the incident, Panchfula's son Sadanand had assaulted wife of appellant no.1 Damodar and, therefore, criminal prosecution was initiated against Sadanand, which was pending in the criminal Court at the relevant time. It is the Case of the prosecution that on account of the said incident, there was enmity between appellants and family of deceased Ramkrishna and, therefore, appellants assaulted Ramkrishna in order to take revenge. On the report given by Panchfula on 2.10.2001, crime under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code was registered against the appellants. The Investigating Officer after completion of formal investigation and obtaining post-mortem report filed a charge-sheet against the appellants in the competent criminal Court. On the report given by Panchfula on 2.10.2001, crime under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code was registered against the appellants. The Investigating Officer after completion of formal investigation and obtaining post-mortem report filed a charge-sheet against the appellants in the competent criminal Court. Charges were framed and explained to the appellants to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence of the appellants was of denial. 4. Shri. Daga, learned Counsel for the appellants, submitted that prosecution is based on testimonies of PW 1 Panchfula (wife of deceased Ramkrishna) and PW 2 Deonath, who are examined by the prosecution as eyewitnesses to the incident. It was contended that though PW 1 Panchfula claimed to have witnessed the incident, however, her subsequent conduct is most unnatural and creates doubt about her testimony. It was submitted that PW 1 Panchfula did not intervene to rescue her husband while the appellants were assaulting him. Similarly, instead of going to the Police Station, she went to another village where her brother resided. It was contended that at the Bus Stand, PW 1 Panchfula came to know that the appellants were assaulting her husband at her residence and it has come on record that from the bus stand, to reach the house of Panchfula, time required was about fifteen minutes. It was submitted that entire incident must have lasted for not more than five-six minutes and, therefore, by the time PW 1 Panchfula reached the spot of occurrence, the alleged incident of assault must have been over and PW 1 Panchfula must have seen only the dead body of her husband. It was submitted that the testimony of PW 1 Panchfula in the light of above referred circumstances creates serious doubt about authenticity of her version and genuineness of the prosecution case. 5. Learned Counsel Shri. Daga further contended that PW 2 Deonath is a chance witness and after seeing the incident, the subsequent conduct of not disclosing the same to anybody is most unnatural and creates serious doubt as to whether PW 2 Deonath in fact had seen the incident of assault or not. It was submitted that in his testimony, this witness has made a general statement that appellants were armed with axe, sickle and stick and assaulted deceased Ramkrishna with the said weapons. It was submitted that in his testimony, this witness has made a general statement that appellants were armed with axe, sickle and stick and assaulted deceased Ramkrishna with the said weapons. However, this witness has not specifically mentioned that which appellant was armed with which weapon and assaulted deceased Ramkrishna by which weapon. It was contended that considering totality of evidence of this witness and other eye-witnesses as well as the subsequent conduct of these witnesses, it is unsafe to rely on the testimonies of these witnesses since their evidence is untrustworthy. 6. It was further contended by learned Counsel Shri. Daga that in the instant case, the prosecution has not examined the Medical Officer, who had conducted postmortem examination and, therefore, probable cause of death has not been proved by the prosecution. It was submitted that though the defence has admitted' post-mortem report, however, it was incumbent on the prosecution to examine the Doctor at least to prove the probable cause of death mentioned in the postmortem report. Since prosecution has failed to do so, the medical evidence cannot be relied on as a corroborative piece of evidence. 7. Shri. Daga, learned Counsel for the appellants, further argued that so far as other prosecution evidence is concerned, the same is of a formal nature and does not improve the case of the prosecution. It was contended that so far as memorandum statement and discovery of weapons are concerned, the blood which was found on axe and sickle was the human blood, however, the blood group could not be determined and, therefore, this circumstance by itself is also not a clinching circumstance particularly when the evidence of eye-witnesses itself is not straight-forward and truthful. It was, therefore, submitted that the conviction awarded by the trial Court is unsustainable in law. 8. Shri. Fulzele, learned Additional Public Prosecution for the respondent, submitted that evidence of PW 1 Panchfula and PW 2 Deonath is free from material contradictions and omissions and is consistent with the material particulars of the prosecution case. It was contended that both these eyewitnesses specifically stated in their evidence that the appellants were armed with axe, sickle and stick and assaulted deceased Ramkrishna with the said weapons. The post mortem report was admitted by the defence, which completely corroborates the evidence of these eyewitnesses. It was contended that both these eyewitnesses specifically stated in their evidence that the appellants were armed with axe, sickle and stick and assaulted deceased Ramkrishna with the said weapons. The post mortem report was admitted by the defence, which completely corroborates the evidence of these eyewitnesses. It was submitted that since postmortem report was admitted by the defence, it was not necessary for the prosecution to examine the Doctor to prove the contents thereof and the contents of the post-mortem report are admissible in law. It was further argued that finding of human blood on the axe and sickle also corroborates the prosecution case and, therefore, the trial Court was justified in convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 9. We have considered the rival contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the parties and scrutinized the prosecution case. The prosecution has examined number of witnesses. However, the case of the prosecution mainly depends upon evidence of PW 1 Panchfula and PW 2 Deonath, who are examined by the prosecution as eye- witnesses and, therefore, it is necessary to carefully scrutinize their evidence. 10. PW 1 Panchfula in her examination-in-chief has stated that on the day of incident, she had gone to weekly' market situated at Anjangaon Surji and returned from the weekly market at about 7 p.m. At Bus Stand, Dhanegon, discussion was going on that quarrel had taken place between appellants and her husband at her house. PW 1 Panchfula, therefore, rushed to her house and when she reached her house, she witnessed that appellant no.1 Damodar was armed with axe, appellant no.2 Wasudeo was armed with sickle and appellant no.3 Laxman was armed with stick. According to the version of PW 1 Panchfula, all the appellants assaulted her husband Ramkrishna and as a result of the said assault, Ramkrishna fell down on the ground. It has come in her testimony that her husband had sustained severe injuries on his right and left legs as well as on his head behind the ear and on the back. It has also come in her testimony that after witnessing the said ghastly incident, she got frightened and went to Borala village and from there went to Police Station along with Jaikisan and orally informed the Police about the incident. It has also come in her testimony that after witnessing the said ghastly incident, she got frightened and went to Borala village and from there went to Police Station along with Jaikisan and orally informed the Police about the incident. She has also identified the articles - sickle and axe in the Court as weapons of offence. 11. The defence wanted to make a capital out of admission given by PW 1 Panchfula in the cross-examination that when she returned to her house from Anjangaon Surji, the dead body of her husband was lying in front of her house. However, this witness in the cross-examination has specifically stated that she had witnessed the incident from the distance of about 20 feet from her house and she had not gone near the dead body of her husband and saw the dead body from the distance of about 20 feet. This witness has also stated in her cross-examination that due to fear, she went to village Borala. The material brought out in the cross-examination of this witness by the defence, in our view, instead of destroying the credibility of the testimony of PW I Panchfula, reaffirms the prosecution case and in absence of material contradictions and omissions, the trial Court was justified in placing reliance on the evidence of PW I Panchfula. 12. PW 2 Deonath in his evidence has stated that at about 7 -7.30 p.m. he heard shouts from the house of deceased Ramkrishna and, therefore, he went towards the house of deceased Ramkrishna and when he reached near the house of deceased Ramkrishna, he saw appellant Damu (Damodar), father of Damodar, i.e. appellant Wasudeo and appellant Mohod were present on the spot of occurrence armed with axe, sickle and stick and assaulted deceased Ramkrishna with the said weapons. Nothing tangible has come in the cross-examination of this witness in order to discredit his testimony. The testimonies of both the eye-witnesses, namely, PW 1 Panchfula and PW 2 Deonath, in our view, corroborate the material particulars of the prosecution case, which is further corroborated by the medical evidence. 13. In the instant case, post-mortem report has been admitted by the defence. In columns 17 and 19 of the post-mortem report, following injuries are mentioned: Column 17 : (1) Incised wound 4 cm. in length, 1 cm. in breadth and 1 cm. 13. In the instant case, post-mortem report has been admitted by the defence. In columns 17 and 19 of the post-mortem report, following injuries are mentioned: Column 17 : (1) Incised wound 4 cm. in length, 1 cm. in breadth and 1 cm. in depth shaping present muscle deep on front right leg 4 cm. below the right knee. (2) Incised wound 1 cm. in length, 1 cm. in breadth and 1 cm. in depth muscle deep 3 cm. above the one right ankle joint on the right leg. (3) Abrasion 1 cm. x 1/2 cm. right arm, 3 cm. above right elbow. (4) Abrasion 1 cm. x 1/2 cm. right arm 2 cm. medial to abrasion no.3 over right arm. (5) Incised wound 5 cm. in length, 1 cm. in breadth, 1 1/2 in depth transversing places at back at just right side of L. Vertebra. (6) Incised wound 1 cm. in length, 1/2 c.m. in breadth depth at back just right side at 1enial of T-5 vertebra obliquely below. (7) Incised wound 1 cm. L. x 1/2 breadth and depth 5 cm. above the ear at occipital region. (8) Bruise reddish coloured 6 cm. x 1 cm. transversely places below left scapula at bone. (9) Bruise reddish green coloured 6 cm. x 1 cm. at right scapula at top. (10) Bruises reddish green coloured 5 cm. x 1 cm. at right scapula, 2 cm. upper from bruise no.6. (11) Clear-cut fracture haematoma with angulation of right upper third of leg present. Opening the wound upper third of tibia and tibula are fractured in multiple pieces with blood collected about 600 ml.. In fracture ends, one surrounding muscles are also lacerated. (12) Clear-cut fracture with haematoma with obvious angulation of middle third of left leg. On operation the wound the left tibia and tibula are fractured in multiple pieces leading to Haematoma about 500 ml. around the fractured tissues, the surrounding muscles are also lacerated due to fractured bone. Column 19: Head. Incised wound identical to injury no.7 at occipital region on right side. Intact, no fracture. The probable. cause of death mentioned in the post-mortem report is acute cardio-respiratory failure due to instant shock caused by multiple injuries and blood loss as described in columns 17 and 18. It is no doubt true that prosecution has not examined Medical Officer, who has conducted post-mortem report. Intact, no fracture. The probable. cause of death mentioned in the post-mortem report is acute cardio-respiratory failure due to instant shock caused by multiple injuries and blood loss as described in columns 17 and 18. It is no doubt true that prosecution has not examined Medical Officer, who has conducted post-mortem report. However, the post mortem report being a report of the expert and if it is admitted by the defence, it is admissible in evidence. However, the rule of prudence is to examine the Medical Officer, who has conducted post-mortem examination. At the same time, non-examination of the Medical Officer by itself does not render the post-mortem report inadmissible in law specially when it is admitted by the defence. The contention canvassed by the learned Counsel for the appellants in this regard, in our view, cannot be accepted. 14. In the instant case, considering the totality of the evidence of eye-witnesses coupled with the post-mortem report as well as other corroborative circumstances, we are of the view that the trial Court was justified in holding that prosecution succeeded in bringing home the guilt of the appellants. However, learned Counsel Shri. Daga contended that since eye-witnesses have not specifically mentioned in the irrespective testimonies, which injury was resulted from which blow given by which appellant and by which weapon and, therefore, even if it is presumed that the appellants assaulted deceased Ramkrishna, however, in absence of positive evidence about role played by each one of the appellants while committing assault on deceased Ramkrishna, it is not possible to hold that all the appellants shared the common intention of causing murder of Ramkrishna and inflicted the blows on the person of deceased Ramkrishna by their respective weapons. In order to substantiate the contentions, reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Rajesh Kumar Vs. State of H.P. (2008(4) Crimes 252). 15. The Apex Court in para (9) of its judgment in the case of Rajesh Kumar (cited supra) has observed thus: "9. 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. 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. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh ( AIR 1993 SC 1899 ), Section 34 is applicable 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. " The above referred observations clearly show that if the offence is committed by more than one accused, the evidence of prosecution should be able to prove that the role played by each one of them in committing crime though different, but both of them had shared the common intention to commit the crime and, therefore, the Supreme Court has observed that Section 34 of Indian Penal Code is applicable even if no injury has been caused by a particular accused and for applying Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, it is not necessary to show some overt act on the part of the accused. Considering the prosecution evidence in the present case, in the backdrop of the law laid down by the Apex Court, we are of the view that prosecution has succeeded in proving that appellants did share the common intention of committing murder of Ramkrishna and, therefore, the above referred decision of the Apex Court is of no help to the appellants. 16. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the criminal appeal suffers from lack of merit and hence, the same is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.