B. H. MARLAPALLE, J. :- Both these Appeals filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. arise from the order of conviction and sentence passed on 30th January, 2009 in Sessions Case No.171 of 2004 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Pune. In the said case in all four accused were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 323 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC. However, during the pendency of the trial, i.e. on 5th September, 2004, accused No.4 Dattatray alias Appa Nivrutti Dudhane died and the trial against him stood abated and the trial continued against accused Nos.1 to 3. All the three accused have been found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w. Section 34 of IPC and they have been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 323 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC. All of them have been sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for six months. Criminal Appeal No.169 of 2009 has been filed by the accused No.1, whereas Criminal Appeal No.251 of 2009 has been filed by accused Nos.2 and 3. All of them are presently undergoing sentence and their plea for bail was rejected by this Court. 2. As per the prosecution case, one Bajirao Bhorde, who was a Police Constable and brother of Shankar Bhorde, died on 11th February, 2004 and he was a friend of the complainant party Jakir Gafur Shaikh and deceased Rajesh Vasantsing Pardeshi. All of them are presently undergoing sentence and their plea for bail was rejected by this Court. 2. As per the prosecution case, one Bajirao Bhorde, who was a Police Constable and brother of Shankar Bhorde, died on 11th February, 2004 and he was a friend of the complainant party Jakir Gafur Shaikh and deceased Rajesh Vasantsing Pardeshi. The complainant Jakir Gafur Shaikh and the deceased Rajesh Pardeshi along with other four friends attended the funeral of one Bajirao Bhorde at Vaikunth Crematory and while they were on their way to the house of Shankar Bhorde, brother of the deceased Bajirao Bhorde, in the Police Colony (Shivaji Nagar) on two wheelers, accused No.2 Satish Dhole called the deceased Rajesh Pardeshi, who was the pillion rider along with the complainant on his motorcycle, and, therefore, the deceased Rajesh Pardeshi stopped near Vasant Hair Cutting Saloon around Goodluck Chowk at Pune, at about 4:30 p.m. Accused No.2 Satish Dhole questioned the deceased Rajesh Pardeshi as to whether the deceased had become oversmart and was trying to show his authority and in that, there was some altercation between accused No.2 and his friends i.e. accused Nos.1, 3 and 4, on one hand and the deceased on the other. During this altercation, accused Nos.1 to 3 dragged the deceased towards the steps of Vasant Hair Cutting Saloon and, thereafter, accused No.4 Dattatray Dudhane, who was not known to the complainant, took out a jambia from his leather cover and inflicted two blows on the deceased. The first blow cut the thumb of right hand of the deceased and the second blow landed on his chest and he collapsed. The accused ran away from the scene of the incident while Rajesh Pardeshi was lying in the pool of blood. It took some time for the complainant and his friends to get a rickshaw and take the injured to the nearby Deendayal Hospital, where Rajesh Pardeshi was declared dead around 5 :00 p.m. The shocking incident that had taken place was during the broad daylight in a busy locality like Ferguson College Road. News reached to the nearest Police Station, i.e. Deccan Police Station, and, thereafter, Raju Dhondiram More (PW6) visited the spot. News reached to the nearest Police Station, i.e. Deccan Police Station, and, thereafter, Raju Dhondiram More (PW6) visited the spot. Raju More (PW6) got a message at about 4:40 p.m. and reached the spot at about 4:45 p.m. He was informed that the injured was taken to Deendayal Hospital, he saw blood lying on the ota in front of Vasant Hair Cutting Saloon and he reached the Deendayal Hospital. There, he came to know from the Doctor that Rajesh Pardeshi was no more. Raju More (PW6) recorded the statement of the complainant Jakir Gafur Shaikh and with a covering letter sent the same to the Deccan Police Station where C.R. No.58 of 2004 was registered at about 5:45 p.m. 3. The dead body of Rajesh Pardeshi was sent for post mortem to the Sassoon Hospital at Puneand Dr. Prashant Damodar Suryavanshi (PW5) conducted the post mortem between 9:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on the date of the incident. The dead body was then handed over to the relati ves and the clothes of the deceased were recovered under Panchnama Exhibit 98. Ranjit Pandurangrao Abhinkar (PW7), being the incharge of the Deccan Police Station, took over the investigation and visited the spot as well as Deendayal Hospital. Under his directions and on receiving the information about the whereabouts of the accused, Nanasaheb Bhikaji Hole (PW8) took the accused in custody from Wasewadi in the suburbs of Pune and brought them to the Police Station, where they came to be arrested under the arrest panchnama at Exhibit 99. The clothes on their person were recovered. While in custody, accused No.4 Dattatray Dudhane made a disclosure statement, which was recorded at Exhibit 72, and the weapon ‘Gupti’ came to be recovered from the house of his cousin at Vasewadi on 13th February, 2004. Ranjit Abhinkar (PW7) recorded the statement of some witnesses like Vishwajit Vasantrao Ghule (PW3) and other companions of the deceased Rajesh Pardeshi at the spot of the incident. He forwarded the seized articles like the clothes of the deceased as well as the accused and the weapon for chemical analysis. On completion of investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed on 29th April, 2004 and on committal of the case, the charge came to be framed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune on 9th June, 2004. 4. On completion of investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed on 29th April, 2004 and on committal of the case, the charge came to be framed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune on 9th June, 2004. 4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined in all eight witnesses and claimed that Mr. Jakir Gafur Shaikh (PW1) and Mr. Vishwajeet Vasantrao Ghule (PW3) were the eye witnesses. Sachin SitaramAher (PW2) and Raju Ramchandra Pawar (PW4) were the panch witnesses. Dr. Prashant Damodar Suryavanshi (PW5) was the Medical Officer and Raju Dhondiram More (PW6), Ranjit Pandurangrao Abhinkar (PW7) and Nanasaheb Bhikaji Hote (PW8) were the Police Officers, as referred to hereinabove. In their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the accused denied their involvement in the incident and claimed that deceased Raju Pardeshi was the brother of Bharat Pardeshi, who is a big gangstar, and at his instance the witnesses had deposed against them. Each of the accused also filed written statement of defence at Exhibits 148 to 150, respectively. Accused N0.1-Dattatray Sakharam Khade, though belatedly, filed an-application at Exhibit 152 so as to bring on record the medical certificate dated 22nd January, 2009 issued by Hardikar Hospital at Pune and on the basis of the said certificate, it was claimed that he had sustained injury in an accident at Bawdhan Ghat on 7th December, 2003 and, therefore, developed pain and swelling over his left shoulder. As per the certificate, the xray of left shoulder showed fracture of lateral/3rd clavicle and he was treated with fig of ‘8’ bandage, clavicle brace and shoulder bag to left UL and analgesics. By relying upon the certificate, it was claimed by accused No.1 Dattatray Khade that on the date of the incident, he was not able to lift his left hand and, therefore, he could not have thrown chairs or stones - as per the role attributed to him by the prosecution - or participated in the scuffle or altercations that had allegedly preceded the knife blows on the deceased. 5. The trial Court, on appreciation of the prosecution evidence, held that Rajesh Pardeshi died a homicidal death and accused Nos.1 to 3, with their common interest shared with the deceased accused No.4, had killed Rajesh Pardeshi, intentionally and knowingly. The trial Court accepted Mr. Jakir Gafur Shaikh (PW1) and Mr. Vishwajeet Vasantrao Ghule (PW3) as the natural eye witnesses. 5. The trial Court, on appreciation of the prosecution evidence, held that Rajesh Pardeshi died a homicidal death and accused Nos.1 to 3, with their common interest shared with the deceased accused No.4, had killed Rajesh Pardeshi, intentionally and knowingly. The trial Court accepted Mr. Jakir Gafur Shaikh (PW1) and Mr. Vishwajeet Vasantrao Ghule (PW3) as the natural eye witnesses. They withstood the test of extensive cross-examination and their presence at the spot along with the deceased Rajesh Pardeshi was beyond any doubt and, therefore, their testimony did not require any further conoboration. The plea sought to be of free fight between the two groups, as was set out in the written statement of defence filed by the accused, was rejected by the trial Court and it was further held that the deceased accused No.4 Dattatray Dudhane could not be under an apprehension of threat to his life and, therefore, that in his private defence, he gave blows of knife to the deceased Rajesh Pardeshi, could not be proved. The trial Court further held that the evidence on record clearly proved the prosecution case that accused Nos.1 to 3 had dragged Rajesh Pardeshi, had held him and then the deceased accused No.4 Dattatray Dudhane stabbed Rajesh Pardeshi with jambia. It turned down the plea of the defence that there was no case made out of sharing of common intention so as to cause murder of Rajesh Pardeshi by accused Nos.1 to 3 with the deceased accused No.4, while admitting that the meeting of the deceased Rajesh Pardeshi and accused was purely by chance and there was no reason for the accused to have knowledge that the deceased Rajesh Pardeshi and his companions would be passing through the Good Luck Chowk area (Ferguson College Road) at the relevant time. With the help of Section 34 of IPC of sharing common intention with the deceased accused No.4, the trial Court set out the following reasoning: “The evidence on record categorically goes to prove that during the incident, these three accused have dragged deceased Rajesh on the steps of Vas ant Hair Cutting Saloon, where deceased accused No.4 Dattatray Dudhane was standing and they held deceased Rajesh when deceased accused Dattatray Dudhane inflicted the fatal blow of knife on his chest. Thus, they have facilitated the act of deceased accused Dattatray Dudhane inflicting blow on the chest of Rajesh. Thus, they have facilitated the act of deceased accused Dattatray Dudhane inflicting blow on the chest of Rajesh. If they had not held Rajesh, then definitely Rajesh would have been in a position to avert the said blow, atleast on the vital part of his body, which has resulted into his death. Even if it is accepted that deceased accused Dattatray Dudhane was not brandishing jambia, it was expected that when these accused saw deceased accused Dattatray Dudhane taking out jambia from the leather cover and inflicting the blow, that too on the vital part of the body, they became aware of his intention of causing the death of Rajesh, at that moment also they could have loosen their grip on Rajesh, but they have not done so. They even did not allow these two witnesses and other companions of Rajesh to intervene or to help him to escape from the clutches. Moreover, it was not their only act of dragging and holding Rajesh, but they had also participated in that incident by pelting chairs, bricks, beating and assaulting Rajesh and his companions, shout exert with ‘mara, mara’ and even lifting cooler and throwing it in the direction of Jitendra Jadhav. This conduct of these accused of taking full participation in the entire incident culminating into their act of dragging Rajesh and holding him, thereby facilitating and enabling deceased accused Dattatray Dudhane in inflicting fatal blow on Rajesh clearly implies the sharing of common intention. The prior conduct of these accused also is one of the determining factor. It was accused No.2 Satish Dhole who gave a call to Rajesh and provoked him by saying whether he has become smarter or big person and then immediately indulging into the act of hot exchange of words and beating. It is pertinent to note that, as per the admitted facts on record, Rajesh and his companions were knowing only these three accused Nos.1 to 3 fairly well, whereas they were not knowing deceased accused Dattatray Dudhane. Hence, if at all there was any enmity or grudge, which is found reflected in the provocation given by accused No.2 Satish Dhole to Rajesh, it was between deceased Rajesh and these three accused. Hence, if at all there was any enmity or grudge, which is found reflected in the provocation given by accused No.2 Satish Dhole to Rajesh, it was between deceased Rajesh and these three accused. Hence, though overt act appears to be committed by deceased accused Dattatray Dudhane, it has to be inferred that it was committed at the instance of these accused atleast by sharing common intention with them. It is pertinent to note that, in the complaint the name of deceased accused Dattatray Dudhane is also not given and his only description is given. Therefore, things are very clear on this score that Rajesh and his companions were not knowing deceased accused Dattatray Dudhane. If even then he has given the fatal blow, then one cannot escape from concluding that there was common intention on the part of the present accused. Even the subsequent conduct of these accused of running away from the spot in the direction of Good Luck Square along with deceased accused Dattatray Dudhane is sufficient to reflect that they had acted in unison in furtherance of their common intention. The evidence of API Hole and Dy.S.P. Abhinkar goes to show that all these accused were arrested together at Wasewadi in the house of maternal aunt of deceased accused Dattatray Dudhane. Therefore, what more is required to prove that these accused also shared the same intention with which the fatal blow was given by deceased accused Dattatray Dudhane. Even if assuming that it was a chance meeting between the parties, needless to say that the common intention can be developed during the course of incident in spur of moment also. It does not require a long interval in the incident and prior meeting of mind. When deceased accused Dattatray Dudhane has taken out the jambia, then it cannot be accepted that the present accused were not anticipating the blow by such jambia. They have also not made any efforts to prevent that blow.” 6. Dr. Prashant Suryavanshi (PW5) was the Medical Officer in Forensic Department with the Sassoon General Hospital on 11th February, 2004 and he had received the dead body of Rajesh Pardeshi (aged about 32 years), which was brought by a Police Constable by name Dorkar under the Yadi at Exhibit 104. On the examination of the dead body during the course of the post mortem, he noticed the following three surface wounds: (i). On the examination of the dead body during the course of the post mortem, he noticed the following three surface wounds: (i). Oval shaped stab injury to the light side of chest, just lateral to sternum. Oblique vertical. Upper end was 8 cm. Below right sternochavicular joint and 7 cm medial to right nipple; angulating downwards entering in right throatic cavity deep. Angles and margins were clean cut, Length : 6.5 cm and width was 2.5 cm. (ii). Contused lacerated wound over the dorsum of preximal phalanx of thumb of left had 5 cm. Long, bone deep. (iii). Small holizontal abrasion over medial part of left forehead 3 em. Long. On the internal examination, the doctor noticed that there was no scalp injury. Thorax cavity had a clean cut fracture of 2nd and 3rd ribs of light side, corresponding to injury No.1 in column No.17 of the post mortem report (Exhibit 105). Right pleural cavity contained 1000 C.C. of blood with blood clots. The helum of right lung showed haemotoma, laceration and cut injury. The fracture showed reddish in filteration at cut ends. Left lung was pale. Abdominal wall pericardium was intact. No free fluid in peritoneum cavity was found. Stomach contained 500 C.C. semi digested food. No abnormal smell. The Medical Officer opined that the cause of death was “hamerrogic shock due to stab injuries”. He further clarified that the injuries sustained by the deceased were possible with a sharp and pointed object with force and if the assault was made on a person in the standing position. He further clarified that injury No.2 was a defence injury and injury No.1 was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Injury No.1 was possible due to assault by the weapon shown to him in the Court i.e. Gupti (Article No.20). In his cross-examination he stated that if the injured had tried to avoid the injury No.1, then injury No.2 was possible. He could not say whether both the injuries were possible by one and the same blow. The nature of injury would depend upon the angle from which the assault is made and the force used by the assailant. He also stated that injury No.1 was possible if the victim was in a lying position and injury, No.3 can be possible during a scuffle. The nature of injury would depend upon the angle from which the assault is made and the force used by the assailant. He also stated that injury No.1 was possible if the victim was in a lying position and injury, No.3 can be possible during a scuffle. At the same time injury Nos.2 and 3 were individually as well as cumulatively of simple in nature, but he could not give the age of injury Nos.2 and 3. He further stated that the margins of the injury were cleancut indicating that both edges of the weapons were sharp, but when article No.20 was shown to him, he admitted that one side of the said weapon was blunt and the width of the blade of the knife was more than 2.5 c.m. He volunteered to state before the trial Court that the length of the wound corresponds to the width of the weapon and the length of the wound examined by him was of a cavity deep and, therefore, it could not be measured. He denied the suggestion that due to the fracture to the rib, an injury was caused to the lung and that the injury sustained by the patient was not possible due to the assault by the weapon Article No.20. In our opinion, the medical evidence on record, as is placed through Dr. Prashant Suryavanshi (PW5) and the PM Notes at Exhibit 112 unerringly proved that Rajesh Pardeshi died a homicidal death on 11th February, 2004. It is also not much in dispute that he was assaulted around 4:30 p.m. on 11th February, 2004 opposite Vas ant Hair Cutting Saloon on Furgusan College Road and near the Good Luck Square at Pune. 7. The defence had conceded before the trial Court to the following circumstances : (i) The homicidal death of Rajesh Pardeshi caused on account of the injuries sustained in the incident. (ii) Place of offence. (iii) Occurrence of the incident in question. (iv) The presence of all the four accused. (v) The presence of deceased Rajesh Pardeshi and the two eye witnesses i.e. Mr. Jakir Gafur Shaikh (PW1) and Mr. Vishwajeet Vasantrao Ghule (PW3) examined by prosecution. What was disputed by the defence was; (i) The manner in which the incident had occurred; (ii) The overt acts attributed to accused Nos.1 to 3; (iii) The applicability of Section 34 of the IPC against them. 8. Jakir Gafur Shaikh (PW1) and Mr. Vishwajeet Vasantrao Ghule (PW3) examined by prosecution. What was disputed by the defence was; (i) The manner in which the incident had occurred; (ii) The overt acts attributed to accused Nos.1 to 3; (iii) The applicability of Section 34 of the IPC against them. 8. During the course of arguments before us, it was submitted by Mr. Tulpule, the learned Counsel for the appellants accused, that there was no evidence placed before the trial Court to support the prosecution case that accused Nos.1 to 3 shared common intention along with the deceased accused No.4, who had, in fact, inflicted blows by jambia on the person of the deceased and more so when the prosecution could not prove that there was any meeting of minds between all the four accused either before they reached the spot of the incident or during the incident. It was further submitted that the mere circumstance of a scuffle between the deceased and accused Nos.1 to 3 would not be sufficient to hold that either any of the accused instigated deceased accused No.4 to take out the jambia and kill Rajesh Pardeshi. The circumstances, as they came out through the evidence of PW 1 and PW3, cannot be believed to accept the prosecution case that any of the accused or all of them had held the deceased and, thereafter, deceased accused No.4, at the instigation or instance of any of the accused, inflicted the blows by jambia. It was necessary for the prosecution to rule out that deceased accused No.4 on his own inflicted the blows by jambia. In this regard Mr. Tulpule referred to the evidence of PW1 land PW3, (both eye witnesses), that there was no enmity, atleast to the know ledge of these witnesses, between the deceased Rajesh Pardeshi and the deceased accused No.4 Dattatray Dudhane and he was not, in fact, known to the witnesses by name. There is no material on record to show that deceased accused No.4 was an associate of accused Nos.1 and 3 or that he was hired by anyone of them. It was also pointed out that there was no history of any enmity or any scuffle or any provocation between accused Nos.1 to 3 on one hand and the deceased Rajesh Pardeshi on the other, prior to the incident. It was also pointed out that there was no history of any enmity or any scuffle or any provocation between accused Nos.1 to 3 on one hand and the deceased Rajesh Pardeshi on the other, prior to the incident. The incident happened, even as per the prosecution case, by chance and, therefore, there was no case made out of shilling common intention by accused Nos.1 to 3 or anyone of them individually with deceased accused No.4 and the mere circumstance, even if it is accepted, that they were picked up from the same place on 12th February, 2004 by Nanasaheb Hole (PW8) could not be sufficient to hold that they had premeditated the crime and executed the plan decided earlier. It was also submitted that the evidence placed before the trial Court was not safe to attribute any overt act to any of the appellants accused either individually or collectively. It was accused No.2 who allegedly gave a call to the deceased Rajesh Pardeshi and when the deceased Rajesh stopped in front of Vas ant Hair Cutting Saloon, it was allegedly accused No.2 who assaulted the deceased Rajesh and other two accused, i.e. accused Nos.1 and 3, have not been attributed with any act supporting the case that they were also part of the scuffle between accused No.2 and the deceased Rajesh. It was more particularly pointed out that the deceased Rajesh Pardeshi was a well known wrestler (Sena Kesari Award Winner) and he was well built and accompanied by five of his friends, i.e. Jakir Gafur Shaikh (PW1), Vishwajeet Vasantrao Ghule (PW3), Ashish Abodkar, Jlitendra Jadhav and Sanjay Mane and, therefore, it was doubtful whether the accused party could be more aggressive. 9. Let us therefore consider the prosecution case and the evidence, as was placed before the trial Court, through the eye witnesses. So far as the C.A. Reports are concerned (at Exhibits 123 to 127), they indicate that the blood group of the deceased Rajesh Pardeshi was “O”, the blood group of accused Nos.2 and 3 is “O”, the blood group of accused No.1 could not be determined and the weapon Article No.20 was found to be stained with blood of group “O”. The recovery of clothes made from the accused on their arrest by Ranjit Abhinkar (PW7) and the subsequent chemical analyser’s report indicated that though they were stained with the human blood, the blood group could not be determined. 10. Jakir Gafur Shaikh (PW1) is the resident of 59, Shivaji Nagar, Pune and engaged in the business of private transport. The deceased Rajesh Pardeshi was his friend. He stated that the deceased was a wrestler and a Sena Kesari awardee. On the date of the incident, i.e. on 11th February, 2004, after attending the funeral of Bajirao Bhorde, this witness along with the deceased Rajesh Pardeshi and four others was proceeding from Vaikunth Smashan Bhumi to the house of Shankar Bhorde, the brother of the deceased Bajirao Bhorde, in the Police Colony, Shivaji Nagar, Pune. They were on three different motor bikes. PW1 was driving his motor bike with Registration No.MH-12-AL-6564 and deceased Rajesh Pardeshi was a pillion rider with him. Vishwajeet Ghule (PW3) was riding his motor cycle bearing registration No.MH-12-AV-5400 with Ashish Ambodkar as a pillion rider and the third vehicle was an M80 Moped driven by Jitendra Jadhav and Sanjay Mane was a pillion rider. When they were close to Vasant Hair Cutting Saloon, while proceeding towards the Police Colony, accused No.2 had given a call to Rajesh Pardeshi and, therefore, Rajesh Pardeshi asked this witness to stop and all the three vehicles stopped. Accused No.2 was accompanied by accused No.1, accused No.3 and one unknown person within the age group of 40 to 45 years. Rajesh Pardeshi got down from the motor cycle in front of Vas ant Hair Cutting Saloon and immediately the accused No.2 assaulted him saying "maara maara". Thereafter, all the three accused Nos.1 to 3 started assaulting Rajesh Pardeshi, who tried to escape, but all the three accused Nos.1 to 3 dragged him up to the steps of Vasant Hair Cutting Saloon. The fourth accused, who was an unknown person and who was within the age group of 40 to 45 years, took out a jambia from leather cover with him and stabbed Rajesh by the same jambia on his chest. Accused Nos.1 to 3 had caught hold of Rajesh at that time. Rajesh collapsed with blood oozing from his chest. The fourth accused, who was an unknown person and who was within the age group of 40 to 45 years, took out a jambia from leather cover with him and stabbed Rajesh by the same jambia on his chest. Accused Nos.1 to 3 had caught hold of Rajesh at that time. Rajesh collapsed with blood oozing from his chest. When PW1 and other companions tried to intervene, accused No.3 brought a razer from the Hair Cutting Saloon and accused No.2 had a sharp edged weapon with him and both accused Nos.2 and 3 rushed towards the complainant party. Accused No.1 picked up the air cooler which was outside the Saloon and threw on Jitendra Jadhav. By then Rajesh was lying in a pool of blood. All the four accused Nos.1 to 4 ran away towards the Good Luck Square. This witness (PW1) and his associates took Rajesh to the nearby Deendayal Hospital in a rickshaw and there he was declared dead by the doctor. After sometime the Police arrived at the Deendayal Hospital and his complaint was recorded. The complaint Exhibit 55 was shown to him and he stated that its contents were true and correct and he had signed the same. He revisited the spot of the incident between 6:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. on the said day with the Police Officer so as to show him the spot and Police prepared the spot panchnama. As per him, the jambia which was used for assaulting the deceased Rajesh Pardeshi was about 1 ft. long and he identified the same weapon (Article No.20) along with its leather cover, when shown to him in the Court. He reiterated that it was the same weapon by which Rajesh was assaulted and at that time Rajesh was wearing a gray colour trouser and full sleeves blackish and reddish TShirt. He identified Article No.8 (Trouser) and Article No.7 (TShirt) when shown in the Court along with Article No.11 which was the shoes of the deceased Rajesh. He further stated that the fourth unknown person, who had stabbed Rajesh, was wearing blueish gray colour Safari, accused No.3 was wearing whitish shirt and black trouser, while accused No.2 was wearing off white colour shirt and blue colour trouser and accused No.1 was wearing yellowish colour TShirt and off white colour trouser. He further stated that the fourth unknown person, who had stabbed Rajesh, was wearing blueish gray colour Safari, accused No.3 was wearing whitish shirt and black trouser, while accused No.2 was wearing off white colour shirt and blue colour trouser and accused No.1 was wearing yellowish colour TShirt and off white colour trouser. He identified these clothes, i.e. Article Nos.13 to 18, when shown to him before the Court. 11. In his cross-examination, he stated that his statement was not recorded before the Magistrate and the distance between the spot when the motor cycle was parked on the footpath opposite the Vasant Hair Cutting Saloon was about 5 to 7 ft. That, Vasant Hair Cutting Saloon had three to four steps. The road in front of the Saloon is having heavy traffic and the Saloon is located at about 50 ft. away from the Good Luck Chowk. He stated that he was never arrested by the Police in any offence, but he clarified that he did not remember whether he was, in fact, arrested by the Police in the past and he also did not remember whether any chapter case was initiated against him. He was not aware whether Rajesh Pardeshi, his friend, was the brother of Bharat Pardeshi. He was also not aware that Bharat pardeshi was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment. He also denied the suggestion that he was an active member of the Bharat Pardeshi gang and he was not knowing whether any case was registered against Rajesh on the charge of demand of ransom. He was not a co-accused in any case along with the deceased Rajesh. He admitted that while leaving Vaikunth Smashan. Bhumi, it was not preplanned that all of them would follow the route vide Ferguson College Road to go to the Police Lane. Shivaji Nagar, Pune and they had not disclosed to anyone this route while leaving the Vaikunth Smashan Bhumi. Deceased Rajesh Pardeshi was a heavy built and weighing about 110 kgs. and was 1aving a little beard. The deceased was also engaged in supplying building material like steel and cement. After taking Rajesh to the Deendayal Hospital by rickshaw, he waited in the hospital for about half an hour and Vishwajit Ghule (PW3) as well as Jitendra Jadhav were with him when Rajesh was taken by rickshaw to the Deendayal Hospital. and was 1aving a little beard. The deceased was also engaged in supplying building material like steel and cement. After taking Rajesh to the Deendayal Hospital by rickshaw, he waited in the hospital for about half an hour and Vishwajit Ghule (PW3) as well as Jitendra Jadhav were with him when Rajesh was taken by rickshaw to the Deendayal Hospital. While lifting Rajesh and carrying him to the hospital, their gloves were stained with blood but the blood stained gloves were not produced before the Police. His complaint was recorded by the Police Officer by name Raju More (PW6). He admitted that the person assaulting by knife had no previous dispute or quarrel with the deceased Rajesh and he was unknown to him but not unfamiliar. He also admitted that when all of them stopped in front of the Vasant Hair Cutting Saloon on the call given by the accused No.2 to the deceased Rajesh, it was not anticipated that any such incident would take place. The entire incident from the time the vehicle was stopped till the time accused fleeing away after causing bleeding injuries to the deceased Rajesh, lasted for about 4 to 5 minutes and during that short period he and his associates did not attempt to shout for help. As per him, the unknown person, who was holding the knife, had given two blows of knife to Rajesh, first on his hand and second on his chest. But he did not remember whether it was right or left. He also admitted that besides the unknown person with knife, the other persons had not assaulted Rajesh. He further admitted that except the two blows of knife given by the unknown person, the said unknown person did not assault Rajesh. There was no scuffle or exchange of blows between Rajesh and the person with knife and none of the complainant party members had pulled Rajesh by holding his leg with a view to rescue him. He also stated that the accused had not dragged Rajesh towards the steps of Saloon and that he was resisting. When the blow of knife was given to Rajesh, he was in a standing position and was facing towards the road. Rajesh collapsed immediately after the assault by knife and the accused ran away. He also stated that the accused had not dragged Rajesh towards the steps of Saloon and that he was resisting. When the blow of knife was given to Rajesh, he was in a standing position and was facing towards the road. Rajesh collapsed immediately after the assault by knife and the accused ran away. The witness (PW1) and his associates were facing towards the Saloon and the person who inflicted the blows of knife to Rajesh was facing Rajesh. He denied the suggestion that at the time of the incident, Rajesh was drunk. He also denied the suggestion that after they had stopped their moter cycles, they had seen accused No.1 in the Saloon and the persons in the Saloon were resisting their entry and that they were asking the witness and his associates not to pelt bricks or stones. He also denied the suggestion that two of them had forcibly entered the Saloon and damaged the cooler and thrown it outside. He also denied the suggestion that the deceased Rajesh had knocked down the fourth accused Dattatray Dudhane and to save himself, the said accused inflicted blows of knife on Rajesh. In his cross-examination, he reiterated that all the three accused, i.e. Accused Nos.1 to 3, had caught hold of Rajesh and he was assaulted by the fourth unknown accused. 12. He also denied the suggestion that Rajesh was engaged in extortioning money from the shop owners including the owner of the Vasant Hair Cutting Saloon and because of his terror, nobody from the vicinity had come forward to tell the truth. Barring a few improvements, the testimony of this witness on the material circumstances of the incident has been on the lines of his complaint at Exhibit 55 recorded by Raju More (PW6) and the improvements brought out in his cross-examination or for that matter even the contradictions, cannot affect the testimony of this witness on the material circumstances regarding the incident and the manner in which it had taken place, he cannot be dubbed as a doubtful witness or as an interested witness. 13. Now coming to the evidence of Vishwajit Ghule (PW3), he has also been a childhood friend of Rajesh Pardeshi. He corroborated the same events till the deceased and his associates including himself reached Vasant Hair Cutting Saloon on the Ferguson College Road. 13. Now coming to the evidence of Vishwajit Ghule (PW3), he has also been a childhood friend of Rajesh Pardeshi. He corroborated the same events till the deceased and his associates including himself reached Vasant Hair Cutting Saloon on the Ferguson College Road. On the actual incident he stated that after all the six of them had stopped opposite the Vasant Hair Cutting Saloon, Rajesh got down from the moter cycle and stood opposite of the road. He repeated the extortion made by accused No.4 of the deceased and the hot exchange of words between them. He further corroborated the evidence of PW1 stating that accused No.2 was with accused Nos.1, 3 and one person between the age of 40 to 45 years with grey and black hair and dressed in Safari. There was hot altercations of the accused with Rajesh. He stated before the Court that accused No.1 at that stage utterred the words “mara, mara”. However, this evidence is not supported in the deposition of PW1 as well as his complaint which was recorded at Exhibit 55. But he reiterated that all the four accused had caught hold of Rajesh and dragged him to the steps of the said Saloon. But he further clarified that accused Nos.1 to 3 had caught hold of Rajesh and the fourth unknown person stabbed him by a weapon like Jambia. Rajesh collapsed and all the accused ran away. In his exhaustive cross examination we do not see any material circumstance brought out so as to doubt the testimony of this witness and the manner in which the incident had taken place as per PW1 has been supported by the prosecution case. 14. On appreciation of the evidence of both these witnesses, it is proved that around 4:30 p.m. on 11th February, 2004 accused No.2 gave a call to the deceased Rajesh Pardeshi while he along with his five friends were proceeding towards the Police Colony in Shivaji Nagar and, therefore, the deceased and five of his companions stopped in front of Vasant Hair Cutting Saloon. There was hot exchange of words and also an altercation and a scuffle between the accused No.2 and the deceased Rajesh. The accused Nos.1 to 3 had dragged the deceased Rajesh towards the Saloon and none of them had caused any injury to the deceased. There was hot exchange of words and also an altercation and a scuffle between the accused No.2 and the deceased Rajesh. The accused Nos.1 to 3 had dragged the deceased Rajesh towards the Saloon and none of them had caused any injury to the deceased. It was the deceased accused No.4 Dattatray Dudhane who was armed and took out the weapon from his person and gave two blows by the same to the deceased Rajesh. The first blow landed on his right hand thumb, but the second blow landed on the chest of Rajesh and it was a forceful blow. Rajesh obviously tried to save himself from the attack by the fourth accused, to some extent. The incident of assault by knife had taken place all of a sudden and the total incident did not last for more than 3 to 4 minutes. The accused had no advance knowledge that the deceased Rajesh and his companions were scheduled to pass through the Good Luck Chowk when they were at the Vasant Hair Cutting Saloon. It was by chance that the accused No.2 saw the deceased Rajesh and his companions passing from the Saloon and demanding ransom. The party of the complainant, who was of six members, as against the accused Nos.1 to 3 and the deceased himself was a well known wrestler with about 110 kgs of weight. There is nothing on record to establish that the deceased accused No.4 was an associate of accused Nos.1 to 3 or that any of them i.e. accused Nos.1 to 3 instigated or called upon him to take out a knife from his person and attack Rajesh Pardeshi. There is no evidence to support the meeting of minds between accused Nos.1 to 3 on one hand and accused No.4 on the other so as to support the common intention to kill Rajesh Pardeshi. PW3 had stated before the trial Court that his statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and when it was shown to him. he admitted that it was correctly recorded and he had signed it in front of the learned Magistrate. For some unknown reasons this recorded statement has not been exhibited. However, in this statement, some material details and overt acts attributed to accused Nos.1 to 3 are missing. The statement has been recorded on 25th March, 2004 i.e. after about six weeks of the incident. For some unknown reasons this recorded statement has not been exhibited. However, in this statement, some material details and overt acts attributed to accused Nos.1 to 3 are missing. The statement has been recorded on 25th March, 2004 i.e. after about six weeks of the incident. We have also noted that it has been signed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, so as to indicate that it was recorded before him. In the said statement, PW3 did not state that accused Nos.1 to 3 dragged the deceased towards the steps of Vasant Hair Cutting Saloon and that they had held the deceased and accused No.4 had inflicted the knife blows. Mr. Tulpule, the learned Counsel, in this regard relied upon the provisions of Section 80 of the Indian Evidence Act as well as the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Madi Ganga vs. State of Orissa, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1165 . On the interpretation of Section 80 of the Indian Evidence Act and the effect of non exhibiting such statements recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., it has been stated in paragraph 5 of the Madiganga's case as under: “5. We desire to express no opinion on the question whether the extrajudicial confession made to P.Ws.2 to 5 is barred under Section 24 of the Evidence Act. It is unnecessary for us to say anything on this question, since we are satisfied that the learned Sessions Judge was wholly wrong in excluding and the High Court was certainly right in acting upon the confessional statement made to the Magistrate. The learned Magistrate has put to the accused all the necessary questions to satisfy himself that the confession was voluntary. He has also appended the necessary certificate. We do not accept Shri Jain's submission that the learned Magistrate should have been examined as a witness. Section 80 of the Evidence Act makes the examination of the Magistrate unnecessary. It authorises the Court to presume that the document is genuine, that any statements as to the circumstances under which it was taken are true and that such confession was truly taken in accordance with law. Shri Jain submitted that if the Magistrate had been examined as a witness, the accused might have been in a position to show by cross examination that the confession recorded by the Magistrate was not voluntary. Shri Jain submitted that if the Magistrate had been examined as a witness, the accused might have been in a position to show by cross examination that the confession recorded by the Magistrate was not voluntary. The Magistrate has appended a certificate that he was satisfied that the confession was voluntary. No circumstance has been brought out in the evidence justifying the calling of the Magistrate as a witness. We do not think that the circumstances of the case justify any comment on the alleged failure of the prosecution to examine the Magistrate as a witness.” . In the instant case we are not dealing with the case of judicial confession, but at the same time the witness PW3 admitted before the trial Court that his statement was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. as per his narrations and the same was correctly recorded. The said statement has been referred to in the cross-examination and was put to him. In our opinion, it is only a procedural error that it was not exhibited. This statement of witness PW3 recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. on 25th March, 2004 also does not indicate that accused Nos.1 to 3 had shared either earlier to the incident or during the incident common intention along with accused No.4 so as to cause the death of Rajesh Pardeshi in the said incident. These omissions create a doubt as to the truth of his testimony on these aspects, as stated by him in his evidence. 15. The law on the applicability of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is well settled. In the case of Ch. Pulla Reddy & Ors. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., reported in AIR 1993 se 1899, it has been held that Section 34 is applicable even if no injury has been caused by the particular accused himself and for applying the said Section it is not necessary to show some overt act on the part of the accused. Pulla Reddy & Ors. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., reported in AIR 1993 se 1899, it has been held that Section 34 is applicable even if no injury has been caused by the particular accused himself and for applying the said Section it is not necessary to show some overt act on the part of the accused. In the case of Nandu Rastogi alias Nandji Rustogi vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2002 8 SCC 9 , the Supreme Court held that to attract Section 34 of IPC it is not necessary that each one of the accused must assault the deceased and it was sufficient if it is shown that they had shared the common intention to commit the offence and in furtherance thereof each one of them played their assigned role. The Court further held that the role played by one of the accused in preventing the witnesses from going to the rescue of the deceased indicated that they also shared the common intention of the other accused who actually caused the fatal injury. In the case of Israr vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in AIR 2005 SC 249 , the Supreme Court stated while dealing with the scheme of Section 34, which has been referred to in the trial Court's judgment, as under: “24. The Section does not say “the common intention of all”, nor does it say "an 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 animated the accused leading to doing of a criminal act in furtherance of such intention. As a result of the application of the 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 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............” 16. 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............” 16. In the instant case, with respect to the learned trial Judge, there was no evidence to suggest that any of the accused had prevented the deceased from fleeing away. The whole incident was most unexpected and was over within a couple of minutes 'and before they could take any steps to intervene, the knife blows were inflicted on the deceased by the deceased accused No.4. The eye witnesses had no chance to do anything to save the deceased Rajesh Patdeshi from such attack. PW1 or PW3 have not deposed before the trial Court that any of the accused had prevented either the deceased or the witnesses from intervening or rescuing so as to avoid the knife assault. This knife assault was spontaneous and unexpected and it is evident that it was at the spur of the moment. The conclusions drawn by the trial Court while holding that the accused No.1 to 3 shared the common intention with accused No.4 to cause the murder of Rajesh Pardeshi are not supported from the evidence and these observations are nothing short of surmises. Even the words allegedly used by accused No.1 “mara, mara” cannot, per say, lead to the conclusion that he called upon any of the accused to kill Rajesh Pardeshi and such words also have to be read in the totality of the circumstances under which the incident had taken place. The deceased and his companions had not informed anybody while leaving from the Smashan Bhumi that they would follow the Ferguson College Road rather than Jangli Maharaj Road to reach the house of the bereaved family and, therefore, the possibility of the assault on the deceased being preplanned has to be ruled out. Even on the face of the evidence, as placed before the trial Court, it would be doubtful, in our opinion, as to whether even the accused No.4, had he been alive when the trial proceeded. Even on the face of the evidence, as placed before the trial Court, it would be doubtful, in our opinion, as to whether even the accused No.4, had he been alive when the trial proceeded. could be held guilty of an offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder, as defined under Section 299 of IPC, having regard to the fact that the incident had taken place in a sudden fight and both the parties happened to meet each other by chance. 17. Be that as it may, the evidence of PW1 and PW3 does not support the plea of the appellants accused that they are innocent. As noted earlier, some of the material circumstances namely the place of the material circumstances namely the place of the offence, the occurrence of the incident, the presence of the appellants accused along with the deceased accused No.4 and the presence of the complainant party along with the deceased Rajesh Pardeshi, as the occurrence, has not been disputed by the defence. The altercations leading to a scuffle between the appellants accused and the deceased Rajesh Pardeshi have been proved by the evidence of the eye witnesses and though the appellants were not armed, they participated in the scuffle which ended by the deceased accused No.4 inflicting the second blow on the chest of the deceased Rajesh Pardeshi. Injury No.1 proved to be deadly as the wrestler collapsed on the spot and died before he was taken to the hospital. Even though the homicidal death of Rajesh Pardeshi is not proved to have occurred in furtherance of a common intention shared by the appellants with the deceased accused No.4, the fact remains that the participation of the appellants accused in the incident is undisputed. Though the inflicting of the fatal blow by the deceased accused cannot be held to have been in furtherance of the common intention of all the appellants and the deceased accused, common intention to cause grievous hurt by a dangerous weapon on the part of all of them, can be inferred from the evidence on record. Section 38 of IPC states that where several persons are engaged or concerned in the commission of a criminal act, they may be guilty of different offences by means of that act. Section 326 of IPC deals with the offence of voluntarily causing death by a ngerous weapon. Section 38 of IPC states that where several persons are engaged or concerned in the commission of a criminal act, they may be guilty of different offences by means of that act. Section 326 of IPC deals with the offence of voluntarily causing death by a ngerous weapon. Having regard to the scheme of Section 34 read with Section 326 or IPC. in our view, the charge of an offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 of IPC has been established against the appellants from the evidence on record. 18. In the premise, these Appeals succeed partly. The order of conviction and sentence passed on 30th January, 2009 in Sessions ease No.171 of 2004 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Pune for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC is hereby quashed and set aside. Instead, the appellants accused are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 19. Accused Nos.1 and 3 are sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years and each of them shall pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer further R.I. for three months. Accused No.2 is sentenced to suffer R.I. for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer further R.I. for six months. 20. The amount of fine deposited, if any, shall be undoubtedly adjusted and only balance amount will have to be deposited. From the fine amount, so paid, an amount of Rs.90,000/- shall be paid to the widow of the deceased. 21. From the fine amount so deposited, an amount of Rs.90,000/- shall be paid to the widow of the deceased. 22. In view of the above order, Criminal Application No.543 of 2011 does not survive and the same is dismissed as infructuous. Appeals partly allowed.