JUDGMENT : All the four appellants were put on trial along with others namely, Asha Bobonga and Tuni Mai Bobonga to face charges under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder of one Budh Ram Bobonga in furtherance of their common intention. The trial court while acquitting two persons, namely, Asha Bobonga and Tuni Mai Bobonga found these four appellants guilty for the offences and hence, sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life. The case of the prosecution is that on 28.4.1998 Budh Ram Bobonga (deceased) at about 5 A.M. left home to see Manki, of his village Niranjan Bobonga (P.W.1) to let him know that a case has been decreed in his favour so that he may make it known to all the villagers. After visiting the house of P.W.1, when he was returning home and reached near his house at about 7 A.M, he was accosted by one of the accused, namely, Roya Bobonga (since died) by holding knife in his hand and as such, Budh Ram Bobonga called his daughter Meena Kumari (P.W.5) to come out, upon which she came out of the house and saw appellant Rabi Bobonga rushing towards his father by taking bow and arrow as well as iron rod. At the same time, Bibhisan Bobonga came rushing by taking farsa in his hand. All the three persons by dragging Budh Ram Bobonga brought him to a field. At the same time, other appellants Nandlal Bobonga by taking knife and Shambhu Charan Bobonga as also Asha Bobonga and Tuni Mai Bobonga reached over there and all of them started assaulting Bodh Ram Bobonga. Meanwhile, the appellant Shambhu Charan Bobonga by taking farsa from Bibhisan Bobonga gave blow on the neck of the deceased. Thereafter Bibhisan Bobonga took farsa from Shambhu Charan Bobonga and gave three blows on the head and neck of the deceased. Ravi Bobonga assaulted the deceased with iron rod whereas other appellants, namely, Asha Bobonga, Tuni Mai Bobonga and Roya Bobonga assaulted the deceased with fists and slaps and also with stone, as a result of which the deceased died and thereafter Bibhisan Bobonga declared that by committing murder of Budh Ram Bobonga he has kept his promise. Thereafter the appellants fled away. Thereafter the appellants fled away. Further case is that while the deceased was being assaulted by the accused persons, Shanti Purti, (P.W.4) wife of the deceased came at that moment from the field and saw the occurrence and then out of fear, she came to the house of Niranjan Bobonga (P.W.1) to inform him about the occurrence. Later on Meena Kumari (P.W.5) daughter of the deceased also came to the house of Niranjan Bobonga (P.W.1) and told him about the occurrence, who then came to the Noamundi Police Station and informed that a murder has taken place in village Regarbera. Upon which an entry was made in the station diary and the Officer-in-Charge of Noamundi Police Station came to the place of occurrence at 11 A.M. and recorded the Fardbeyan (Ext.2) of Meena Kumari (P.W.5), who stated about the occurrence, as has been stated above and also stated that his father was done to death on account of land dispute going on since long but the case had been decreed in favour of her father. The Officer-in-Charge Md. Asgar Hussain (P.W.6) took up the investigation and held inquest on the dead body of the deceased and prepared inquest report (Ext.4). The Investigating Officer when found blood at the place of occurrence, he seized earth smeared with blood under seizure list (Ext.6) . Further on the confession made by accused Bibhisan Bobonga, farsa as well as iron rod was recovered from the house of Bibhisan Bobonga which was seized under a seizure list Ext.8. Thereafter the dead body was sent for post mortem examination, which was conducted by Dr. Ranvir Singh (P.W.7) and found the following injuries: (i) A sharp cut wound on the left side of neck starting from back of neck obliquely to upwards and forwards to the lateral aspect of left cheek 8” x 2” x 2-½ “ cervical vertibra and cervical portion of the spinal code were cut. There was fracture of left temporal bone. (ii) A sharp cut wound on left arm just below the left elbow joint on posterior aspect 4” x 1-½ “ x 1-½ “. There was fracture of left temporal bone. (ii) A sharp cut wound on left arm just below the left elbow joint on posterior aspect 4” x 1-½ “ x 1-½ “. (iii) A sharp cut wound on the medial aspect of right leg below the knee joint ½” x ½” x 1” (iv) A sharp cut wound on the posterior aspect of right side of neck ½ “ x ½ “ x 1” (v) A sharp cut wound on the right shoulder joint 1” x ½ “ x ½ “ . Accordingly, Doctor issued post mortem examination report (Ext.5) opining therein that the deceased died on account of shock and haemorrhage due to above injuries caused by sharp cut weapon such as farsa. After completion of investigation, when police submitted charge sheet against these appellants as well as Asha Bobonga and Tuni Mai Bobonga, who were acquitted by the trial court and also against Roya Bobonga (since died in course of trial), cognizance of the offence was taken and in due course, when the case was committed to the court of sessions, charges were framed to which the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In course of trial, the prosecution in order to prove charges examined seven witnesses. Of them, Niranjan Bobonga (P.W.1) of Manki village testified that on getting information about the occurrence from the wife and daughter of the deceased, he came to the place of occurrence and then informed to the police station. Meena Kumari, daughter of the deceased and Shanti Purti, wife of the deceased claimed themselves to be the eye witnesses have been examined as P.Ws. 4 and 5. After closure of the case of the prosecution, the appellants were questioned under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure about the incriminating circumstances appearing against them to which they denied. The trial court having placed implicit reliance on the testimonies of both the eye witnesses did find these appellants guilty and as such were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. However at the same time two persons named above were acquitted on giving benefit of doubt. Being aggrieved with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence the appellants have preferred this appeal. However at the same time two persons named above were acquitted on giving benefit of doubt. Being aggrieved with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence the appellants have preferred this appeal. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that all the appellants, though related to the deceased have been falsely implicated in this case on account of family feud,and that testimony of P.W.5, regarding the manner in which occurrence took place does not find corroboration from the medical evidence and as such, her evidence does not inspire confidence to be believed, still her evidence was considered to be worth reliable and as such, the trial court erred in recording the order of conviction and sentence against the appellants. It was further submitted that though Rabi Bobonga, appellant no.3 has been alleged to have assaulted the deceased with iron rod but no such corresponding injury has been found by the Doctor and, therefore, it can easily be assumed that he never assaulted the deceased and, therefore, Ravi Bobonga and Nandlal Bobonga, who have not been alleged specifically to have assaulted the deceased cannot be said to have been sharing the common intention and in that view of the matter, they are entitled to be acquitted. As against that, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that regard being had to the testimonies of the eye witnesses, the trial court has rightly convicted all the appellants including Ravi Bobonga and Nandlal Bobonga, who, in the facts and circumstances, can easily be said to have shared the common intention. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record, we do find that Meena Kumari (P.W.5) daughter of the deceased and Shanti Purti (P.W.4) wife of the deceased are the eye witnesses. P.W.5 appears to be the natural witness as she, according to her evidence, on being called by the deceased to come out, came out from the house and saw Roya Bobonga preventing the deceased from proceeding ahead and then Ravi Bobonga came with bow and arrow and also with iron rod whereas Bibhisan Bobonga came rushing over there by taking farsa in his hand. Thereafter Nandlal Bobonga as well as Shambhu Charan Bobonga and also Asha Bobonga and Tuni Mai Bobonga came over there and started assaulting the deceased and then they made him to fall on the ground. Thereafter Nandlal Bobonga as well as Shambhu Charan Bobonga and also Asha Bobonga and Tuni Mai Bobonga came over there and started assaulting the deceased and then they made him to fall on the ground. Thereupon, Shambhu Charan Bobonga by taking farsa from Bibhisan Bobonga gave blow on the neck and thereafter Bibhisan Bobonga also gave three blows by Farsa on the neck and head of the deceased. According to her, Ravi Bobonga gave iron rod blow whereas other persons assaulted with fists and slaps and also with piece of stone. Testimony of P.W.5 gets corroboration by the statement made by her in the Fardbeyan and at the same time, it also gets corroboration from the evidence of P.W.4 Shanti Purti who though is not so specific on the point of assault but has testified that all the accused persons assaulted her husband. Further we do find testimony of P.W.5 getting corroboration from the medical evidence so far accusation made against Shambhu Charan Bobonga and Bibhisan Bobonga are concerned as Doctor has found sharp cut wounds likely to be caused by Farsa on the persons of the deceased. That apart, finding of the earth smeared with blood at the place of occurrence also support testimonies of P.W.5 and 4. Under these circumstances, the trial court has rightly convicted the appellants Shambhu Charan Bobonga and Bibhisan Bobonga. So far other appellants, namely, Ravi Bobonga and Nandlal Bobonga are concerned, they never seem to have caused any injury to the deceased. Though Ravi Bobonga has been alleged by P.W.5 to have given blows by the end point of the iron rod to the deceased and the appellant, Nandlal Bobonga is also said to have assaulted the deceased with fists and slaps and with a piece of stone along with other accused but no such corresponding injury has been found by the Doctor and, therefore, it can easily be assumed that they did not commit any overt act but still on account of being in the company of the other accused, they can be held guilty if they are found to have been sharing common intention with other accused to commit murder of the deceased. Common intention as enshrined under section 34 of the Indian Penal Code embodies the principle of joint liability in the doing of a criminal act and the essence of that liability is existence of common intention. Common intention as enshrined under section 34 of the Indian Penal Code embodies the principle of joint liability in the doing of a criminal act and the essence of that liability is existence of common intention. In other words, common intention implies acting in concert, existence of pre-arranged plan and this is to be proved either from conduct or from circumstances or from any incriminating fact. Therefore, we need to consider as to whether circumstances appearing in the case do suggest about sharing of the common intention by these two appellants with other persons. From the evidence of P.W.5, it does appear that when the deceased was accosted by other accused, the appellant Ravi Bobonga came with bow and arrow and also with iron rod and similarly, the appellant Nandlal Bobonga came rushing with knife in his hand but they never seem to have inflicted injury to the deceased with the weapon which they were holding, rather from the circumstances appearing in the case do indicate that Bibhisan Bobonga and Shambhu Charan Bobonga were sharing the common intention as according to prosecution case Bibhisan Bobonga came having farsa in his hand but Shambhu Charan Bobonga took farsa from the hand of Bibhisan Bobonga and gave one blow, thereupon, Bibhisan Bobonga took farsa back in his hand and then gave three blows on the neck and head of the deceased. Thereafter when the deceased died, Bibhisan Bobonga declared that now he has kept his promise. Thus, the circumstances do establish that only those two persons were sharing the common intention and under these circumstances, the appellants, namely, Ravi Bobonga and Nandlal Bobonga certainly deserve benefit of doubt. In the result, the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants, Shambhu Charan Bobonga and Bibhisan Bobonga is hereby confirmed whereas order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants Ravi Bobonga and Nandlal Bobonga is hereby set aside and they are acquitted of the charges levelled against them and are discharged from the liability of the bail bonds. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part.