JUDGMENT Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. — 1. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal by accused no.2 is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for offences punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 and Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’). Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Valsad, had recorded the judgment of conviction and had imposed sentence of five years for the first offence and no separate sentence was imposed for latter offence. Fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation was also imposed. 3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: On 26.11.1987 around 07:30 p.m. in village Kaanjan Ranchhod, Tal in Dist. Valsad, the appellant-accused no.1 called the complainant Kalaben Jagabhai Patel at Khadi to take money and also told her that he had some work with her. The accused no.2 also reached at the same place from where both the accused took the complainant in Vadi of Chamarbhai Revlabhai, where for about half an hour, they were talking and thereafter with an intention to kill the complainant they, forcibly made the complainant drink an insecticide used in Chilly Crop named as ‘Eka Laxys EC.25. The accused no. 2 caught hold of the complainant and thus, committed offence of an attempt to murder the complainant. The complainant was residing at Village ‘Kaanjan Ranchhod’ of Taluka Valsad along with her mother and brothers. The father of the complainant had expired about 6-7 years ago. She had studied upto 8th Standard. On 26.11.1987, the complainant had gone to Khadi for washing the clothes at about 12 noon. At that time, her aunt had also come to wash the clothes and after completing the work of washing clothes, she (the aunt) went away. Thereafter, around 2 noon, Satishbhai Nichhabhai and Ishwarbhai Khusalbhai, residents of the same Faliya as that of the complainant, had come to wash their clothes. The complainant, after getting her clothes dried around 3 O’clock, started to go to her house. On the way, the accused no.1 Jayantibhai Gulabbhai met her near his field and asked the complainant to come at Khadi in the evening to collect money. He (accused no.1) also told that he has some personal work with her. The complainant told him (accused no.1) that she will come in the evening and went to her home. On the way, the accused no.1 Jayantibhai Gulabbhai met her near his field and asked the complainant to come at Khadi in the evening to collect money. He (accused no.1) also told that he has some personal work with her. The complainant told him (accused no.1) that she will come in the evening and went to her home. Thereafter around 7:00 p.m., the complainant went to ‘Khadi’ where the accused no.1 was present. While she was talking with the accused no.1, the appellant-accused no.2 Chimanbhai Jagabhai reached there. Thereafter, both the accused took the complainant to Vadi of Chamarbhai. There they talked for about an hour. Thereafter, all of a sudden accused No.2 Chimanbhai Jagabhai caught hold of the complainant and accused No.1 Jayantibhai took out a bottle of poisonous medicine used as insecticide in chilly crop forcibly poured the same in the mouth of the complainant. As the complainant was caught hold of by the accused no.2 Chimanbhai Jagabhai, she could not shout. On medicine being administered to the complainant, she fainted and the accused ran away from the place. After sometime the complainant regained consciousness and she shouted for help. On hearing shouts of the complainant, her brother Nahhubhai, Ishwarbhai and Ukadbhai came running there and they brought the complainant to the house of Ishwar. There she was administered juice of Neem tree, where after the complainant vomited. The complainant was then admitted, in the hospital at Valsad. On the next day, Mamlatdar, Valsad, recorded the statement of the complainant. The real cause of the incident was the love affair between the complainant Kalaben and accused no.1 Jayantibhai as a result of which the complainant became pregnant. The accused Jayanatibhai advised the complainant and also gave some tablets to her to get the child aborted, but as it was not possible, the complainant asked the accused Jayantibhai to marry her. Initially, he agreed for the same, but then he turned around and did not marry the complainant. The brother of the complainant Nabhubhai then talked to Hirkabhai and meeting of ‘Caste Panch’ was called. There it was agreed that Jayantibhai and complainant be married. But as the accused Jayantibhai was not willing to marry the complainant, he tried to kill the complainant by administering the poison forcibly. The investigation was undertaken and charge sheet was filed. The brother of the complainant Nabhubhai then talked to Hirkabhai and meeting of ‘Caste Panch’ was called. There it was agreed that Jayantibhai and complainant be married. But as the accused Jayantibhai was not willing to marry the complainant, he tried to kill the complainant by administering the poison forcibly. The investigation was undertaken and charge sheet was filed. The trial court placed reliance on the evidence of the witnesses and found the appellant guilty. Emphasis was laid on the evidence of the complainant (PW 5), Nabhubhai Jagabhai (PW8), Balubhai Maganbhai (PW5) and Dr. Ram Ratan (PW2). Before the High Court the primary stand in appeal was that offence under Section 307 is not made out. It was also submitted that Section 34 has no application. The High Court did not accept this plea and found the appellant, who was A2 before the trial court, guilty. The High Court held that the present appellant rightly been convicted by application of Section 34 IPC. 4. The stand taken before the High Court was reiterated by learned counsel for the appellant. Additionally, it was submitted that out of the sentence of five years imposed, the appellant had already undergone sentence of more than 40 months and is entitled to certain remissions. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other hand supported the judgment of the trial court as affirmed by the High Court. 6. The essential ingredients required to be proved in the case of an offence under Section 307 are: (i) that the death of a human being was attempted; (ii) that such death was attempted to be caused by, or in consequence of the act of the accused; and (iii) that such act was done with the intention of causing death; or that it was done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as: (a) the accused knew to be likely to cause death; or (b) was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or that the accused attempted to cause death by doing an act known to him to be so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause (a) death, or (b) such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the accused having no excuse for incurring the risk of causing such death or injury. 7. 7. Section 34 has been enacted on the principle of joint liability in the commission of a criminal act. The Section is only a rule of evidence and does not create a substantive offence. The distinctive feature of the Section is the element of participation in action. The liability of one person for an offence committed by another in the course of criminal act perpetrated by several persons arises under Section 34 if such criminal act is done in furtherance of a common intention of the persons who join in committing the crime. Direct proof of common intention is seldom available and, therefore, such intention can only be inferred from the circumstances appearing from the proved facts of the case and the proved circumstances. In order to bring home the charge of common intention, the prosecution has to establish by evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, that there was plan or meeting of mind of all the accused persons to commit the offence for which they are charged with the aid of Section 34, be it pre-arranged or on the spur of moment; but it must necessarily be before the commission of the crime. The true contents of the Section are that if two or more persons intentionally do an act jointly, the position in law is just the same as if each of them has done it individually by himself. As observed in Ashok Kumar v. State of Punjab1 ( AIR 1977 SC 109 ), the existence of a common intention amongst the participants in a crime is the essential element for application of this Section. It is not necessary that the acts of the several persons charged with commission of an offence jointly must be the same or identically similar. The acts may be different in character, but must have been actuated by one and the same common intention in order to attract the provision. 8. 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 commission of a criminal act in furtherance of such intention. 8. 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 commission 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. v. State of Andhra Pradesh2 ( 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. 9. In the background of the aforesaid provisions the trial court and the High Court was justified in holding that the appellant was guilty of offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. 10. Coming to the question of sentence considering the nature of the accusations, the role played by the appellant and the period of custodial sentence already undergone without remission, the same is restricted to the period already undergone. The appellant shall be released from custody forthwith unless required to be in custody in any other case. 11. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. The appellant shall be released from custody forthwith unless required to be in custody in any other case. 11. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. *********** Long Editorial Note:— Basic principles in view of Forgery of hand-writing: Forgery defined exhaustively: The meaning of forgery is deceiving people by way of forged documents or producing unreal document as real document by way of forgery to snatch the right of others, the truth is that the forgery is a way adopted by criminal minded people to achieve the goal of unlawful gain by falsely signing or altering signatures or any portion of the true document or by way of offering, transferring or issuing such type of writing in an attempt to deceive others. The reason, the cases of forgery are increasing not only in India but in the whole universe is the growth of industrialization beside so much spread of education and greed for money to fulfil their desire to achieve the goal of high standard of living even at the stake of attracting conviction. A — The truth successful forgeries are very rare. B — The truth cannot be denied that the success of simulated forgery would very much depend on the quality and quantity of writing involved in a particular case. C — The quality of line should be very carefully examined—Must observe the following: (i) Whether uniform or divergent. (ii) Whether rough or smooth. (iii) Whether inconsistent in parts. (iv) The basic defect in a forgery is poor line quality. D — While the signatures which are genuine lacks halts and hesitation rather they are written in a continuous flow. E — While we compare the genuine signatures with the forged signatures, the truth, forged signatures are longer than the genuine signatures. F — Line endings must be carefully seen while suspect signatures as the ends of the ink line while in a case of forgery thickened. G — It has mostly been observed that in cases of such forgeries, the forger would make connection on the base. H — Disputed signatures and genuine signatures are to be carefully examined side by side. I — While in the case of disputed signatures, exact point of contact of connecting stroke in cursive writing must be noted. G — It has mostly been observed that in cases of such forgeries, the forger would make connection on the base. H — Disputed signatures and genuine signatures are to be carefully examined side by side. I — While in the case of disputed signatures, exact point of contact of connecting stroke in cursive writing must be noted. J — While you compare forged signatures with real signature, the truth must very carefully observe, the freedom while speed of writing, the pressure of the pen as well as position of the pen beside muscular co-ordination. As per Dato K.C. Vohrah [Retired Judge of the Court of appeal – Commissioner Human Rights Commission of Malaysia] – The meaning of forgery is whoever makes any false document or part of a document with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery and as per him, a person is said to make a false document when: (i) Who dishonestly or fraudulently makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document, or makes any mark denoting the execution of a document, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of a document was made, signed, sealed or executed by, or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made signed, sealed or executed, or at a time at which he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed or executed; (ii) Who without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by calcellation or otherwise, alters a document in any material part thereof, after it has been made or executed either by himself for by any other person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or (iii) Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document, knowing that such person by reason or unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him he does not know the contents of the document or the nature of the alteration. Better Study of Handwriting A — While we study the subject forgery of handwriting must keep in mind the truth that every individual has is own style of writing. B — While we look into the handwriting of person features such inconspicuous has its valuable importance. C — Natural variations cannot be denied beside no fundamental divergence while questioned and sample writings incase the script is by the same person. D — Individuality of handwriting cannot be denied. E — Observation in respect of general qualities of handwriting are required such as style of writing, movement, the position of the pen, quality of lining, rhythem and pictorial effect of handwriting. F — Must observe the speed of writing, pauses of the pen. G — Margins are required to be observed very carefully beside spacing in words, paragraphs as well as linings. H — Speed of writing. I — Must carefully observe pressure of pen, pauses, lifts, strokes while ending as well as starting. J — Lifting of the pen beside retouchings, slope, size and retouchings. K — Signatures forged with the help of carbon copy tracing is very common and detected instantly but remember the following facts : (I) A layman can easily be misled while good traced forgery. (II) While the handwriting is traced, in most of the cases the forger is caught by the investigating officer. L — While the tracing is through carbon copy, the following method is adopted. (I) Placing of carbon on the document. (II) Signatures or photostat copy of the signature is placed over the carbon paper. (III) Some pointed device is moved along the outline of the signature. (IV) Now the document has carbon copy of signature. (V) Ink pen is moved on the carbon outline of the signature. M — Indented tracing is another way of forgery through following method: (I) Photostat copy of the signature is placed on the document. (II) Some hard point object is used to trace the signature. (III) So impression of the signature is obtained on the document. (IV) The outline of the signature is covered with the help of ink pen. N — Through transmitted image the signatures are also formed. O — Identification of forged signatures through tracing is very easy and such signatures are seldom successful rather caught. (I) It would instantly prove forgery incase the signature is replica of another signature. (IV) The outline of the signature is covered with the help of ink pen. N — Through transmitted image the signatures are also formed. O — Identification of forged signatures through tracing is very easy and such signatures are seldom successful rather caught. (I) It would instantly prove forgery incase the signature is replica of another signature. (II) Both the documents are placed in a way and manner that they are adjusted in transmitted light and after some time the writings superimpose, in case of similar dimensions would instantly indicate common source and would mean a forged document. (III) Dimensional comparison through enlarged photographs of both the signatures [real signature and suspected signature] while suspected signatures and its model is placed adjoiningly and covered by transparent plastic plate. (IV) Nooks and corners are observed, whether they are at relevant position. P — Transplated signature is another way of forgery. The Revenue Stamp pasted over the receipt carries some portion of the original sign. The forger would lift the revenue stamp from the receipt and would fix the revenue stamp of incomplete original signatures on the forged document and would complete the signatures but the forgery is detected on account of the reason that in such circumstances the revenue stamp is soiled beside edges frayed, ink on the beginning of the signature and end of the signature differ. Revenue stamp would be carrying additional adhesive beside the fibre from the previous surface would be visible. Different periods have different revenue stamps, this truth may help to reveal the fraud. Editorial Note:—While you sign any document must not forget to sign the minimum portion of your signature on the revenue stamp. The better wisdom is not to sign on the revenue stamp—You can even sign beside the revenue stamp and merely cross the revenue stamp with your pen. Further, we must keep in mind that the forger is always very clever and disguise his handwriting by various ways such as by changing size of words, letters, figures beside punctuation marks. He can even use simplify letter or words, legibility or illegibility by changing the speed of writing is another way of his cheating. Further indiscriminate use of small letters as well as capital letters beside avoiding paragraphs and correct spellings and tremor in his writing is quite visible and curves, circles, upside down cannot be denied. He can even use simplify letter or words, legibility or illegibility by changing the speed of writing is another way of his cheating. Further indiscriminate use of small letters as well as capital letters beside avoiding paragraphs and correct spellings and tremor in his writing is quite visible and curves, circles, upside down cannot be denied. When the forger writes one or two words, it is possible to hide his handwriting characteristics while initials or when signature is very small in size but the moment he writes further is bound to be caught and the forgery would not be successful reason being habits acquired by any person in his whole life would not be possible to give up because basic characteristics of writing of person always remains same even if he makes changes in apparent pictorial effect. Age of a document is a very important factor while detection of forgery Age of documents is very important factor to detect the forgery. The same can be indicated by the following observations: (A) Age of the paper. (B) The document cannot be older than the paper itself. (C) The watermarks, the composition of the fibre, sizing, weight and loading material used are useful. (D) The age can be roughly estimated from the condition of the paper. However, the document may be artificially aged by applying the technique of pressing the same before the chimney. The smoke of hearth ages the document. The document is often soiled with dust or dirt. Heating and exposing the document to sun or ultra-violet rays the document look older. (E) Age of writing can be ascertained by the age of the ink used on the paper. (F) The use of ball point pen also determines the age of document e.g. written by ball pen can never be older in India before 1950 as ball pens were never used prior to 1950 in this country. (G) The revenue stamps carry distinct marks indicating of the period of their printing. A revenue stamp can, therefore, indicate the age of the document. (H) An office changes its seals from time to time as they become defective with passage of time or become out dated. The comparison of the seals and stamps gives the idea about the age of the document bearing a seal mark, provided authentic dated corresponding seal marks are available. (H) An office changes its seals from time to time as they become defective with passage of time or become out dated. The comparison of the seals and stamps gives the idea about the age of the document bearing a seal mark, provided authentic dated corresponding seal marks are available. (I) The age of a typewritten document may be indicated by the typescript. (J) The recital or reference to events mentioned in the document may not tally with the time. Such a document is evidently a forgery. (K) The alleged writer or signatories of a document may not be in existence or present at the alleged station on the material date. Procees use in forgery to make the document look older. (A) The document is placed in a chimney. The smoke of the hearth ages the document. (B) The document is soiled with dust or dirt. (C) Heating or exposing the document to sun or ultra-violet rays ages the document. (D) Iodine fuming or treatment with other chemicals (e.g. sulphur dioxide, permangnate solution) ages the document. (E) An old paper is removed from old books. The document is prepared on the paper. The ink on the documents indicates the forgery. Variations in writing on account of age A — Truth cannot be denied that the writing habits are almost the same between the age group of 30 to 60 years B — Natural variations are seen in contemporary writings. C — While of the interval of one decade, variations in writing can be or may not be superficial. D — Experiment was done on one hundred persons who have been writing continuously for the last twenty years. The analysis was carried out on their handwriting, the result was that except in two cases of immature writers, in rest ninety eight cases natural variation remained more or less, the truth unchanged. E — The truth writers of the age group between the age of 30 to 44 years showed more change as compared to the age group of 45 to 60 years besides it has been observed variation in the Hindi script is more than in English script cannot be denied.