JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.: (Oral) - Tersely, the facts & evidence, unfolded during the course of trial, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of instant appeal and emanating from the record, as claimed by the prosecution, are that, on 03.05.1997 at about 11 PM, Raj Singh (PW3) came to his house and told his father, complainant Raghbir Singh (PW-2) that appellants Ved Singh and Samey Singh (since deceased) had inflicted injuries on his person, while he was in a process of thrashing the crops. Thereafter, the complainant, his wife Murti Devi (PW4), brother Mohinder Singh (PW5) and Raj Singh (PW3) started going towards their fields. At about 11.15 PM, as soon as, they reached near the house of Surat Singh (place of occurrence), in the meantime, appellants Ved Singh and Samey Singh were seen coming on their tractor from the opposite side. Appellant Ved Singh was armed with Farsa, whereas Samey Singh was armed with Jelly. They got down from the tractor. Meanwhile, appellants Bala and Phulo Devi armed with lathis also reached there. Ved Singh raised a ‘lalkara’ that Raghbir be taught a lesson for filing a civil suit. The case of the prosecution further proceeds that, in the meantime, appellant Ved Singh also inflicted Farsa blows on the head and left hand of the complainant, whereas appellant Samey Singh (main convict) inflicted Jelly blow, which landed on his temple and finger of left hand. Appellants Bala and Phulo Devi were stated to have inflicted lathi blows on his left knee and back respectively. According to the prosecution that when PWs Murti, Mohinder and Raj Singh tried to rescue him, then the appellants also inflicted injuries to them with their respective weapons. 2. Leveling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the prosecution claimed that the appellant-convicts have inflicted injuries to complainant Raghbir Singh and his other companions with their respective weapons in the manner, as depicted here-in-above. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of statement of the complainant, the present case was registered against the appellantconvicts, vide FIR No.195 dated 4.5.1997, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC by the police of Police Station Sadar Sonepat. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of statement of the complainant, the present case was registered against the appellantconvicts, vide FIR No.195 dated 4.5.1997, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC by the police of Police Station Sadar Sonepat. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted the challan/final police report, in terms of Section 173 Cr.P.C against the convicts. Consequently, the trial Court charge-sheeted the appellants under sections 307, 324 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC, by virtue of charge sheet dated 20.2.1998. 3. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the charges framed against the appellants, examined PW-1 Dr. S.P. Sharma, who has medico legally examined the complainant and found five injuries on his person as per MLR (Ex. P-1). He has also medico legally examined PWs Raj Singh and Murti Devi, by way of MLRs (Ex.P2 & P-3). 4. Sequelly, Raghbir Singh, while appearing as PW-2, has reiterated the initial version contained in the FIR. PW-3 Raj Singh, PW-4 Murti Devi, PW-5 Mohinder Singh and PW-13 Sanjay have also corroborated the statement of PW-2 Raghbir Singh on all vital counts. However, PW-7 Chander Singh did not support the prosecution version and has stated that no quarrel took place in his fields on 03.05.1997. 5. Likewise, PW-6 Bhup Singh constable arrested appellants Ved Singh and Samey Singh, produced by Inder Singh and took into possession Farsa (Ex.P11) and Jelly (Ex.13), vide recovery memos (Ex.P10 and P-12) respectively. PW-8 Dr. Anil Jain has proved the medical opinion (Ex.PA/1), whereas PW-9 Kishan Singh, SI had prepared and submitted the final police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. after completion of the investigation. PW-10 Inder Pal, Constable prepared scaled site plan (Ex.PB) at the instance of complainant Raghbir Singh. PW-11 Rajender Singh ASI, PW-12 Krishan Lal and PW-14 Ram Kishan SI testified the investigation. PW-15 Dr. R.N. Tehlan proved the original bed-heed tickets (Ex.PE and PF) of Raghbir Singh & Murti Devi PWs respectively. 6. Having closed the prosecution case, the statements of the appellant-convicts were recorded. PW-11 Rajender Singh ASI, PW-12 Krishan Lal and PW-14 Ram Kishan SI testified the investigation. PW-15 Dr. R.N. Tehlan proved the original bed-heed tickets (Ex.PE and PF) of Raghbir Singh & Murti Devi PWs respectively. 6. Having closed the prosecution case, the statements of the appellant-convicts were recorded. The entire incriminating material appearing in the evidence, was put to enable them to explain any circumstance appearing against them in the evidence, as contemplated under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They have stoutly denied all the evidence of the prosecution in its entirety and pleaded innocence & false implication due to civil litigation pending between the parties for the last about 10 years. Although they opted, but did not produce any evidence in defence. 7. Having completed all the codal formalities and taking into consideration the evidence on record, the trial Judge convicted & sentenced the appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, for the commission of offence punishable under Section 307/34 IPC. They were further convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each under Section 323/34 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months, to pay a fine of Rs.400/- each under Section 324/34 IPC and in default of payment of fine, they were ordered to further undergo RI for a period of three months each. However, all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently, by means of impugned judgment of convicted dated 18.10.2001 and order of sentence dated 22.10.2001 by the trial Judge. 8. The appellant-convicts did not feel satisfied and preferred the present appeal to challenge the impugned judgment of conviction & order of sentence of the trial Court. That is how I am seized of the matter. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the instant appeal deserves to be partly accepted. 10. As is evident from the record that complainant Raghbir Singh, while appearing as PW-2, inter alia, stated that appellants Ved Singh and Samey Singh got down from the tractor. 10. As is evident from the record that complainant Raghbir Singh, while appearing as PW-2, inter alia, stated that appellants Ved Singh and Samey Singh got down from the tractor. Appellant Ved Singh gave Farsa blows on the left side of his head and left hand, whereas appellant Samey Singh (main convict) gave a Jelly blow lathiwise, which hit on his right side of temple and finger of left hand. Similarly, appellants Bala and Phulo Devi gave lathi blows on left knee and on his back respectively. PW-2 Raghbir Singh was medico legally examined by Dr.S.P.Sharma (PW-1), who, vide his opinion (Ex.P-7), opined that injury No.1 on his person could be dangerous to life, whereas the other injuries on his person were simple in nature. 11. Meaning thereby, the only grievous injury, which was dangerous to life on his (PW2) left fronto parietal (injury No.1), was attributed to and main appellant-convict Samey Singh, who was substantially convicted under Section 307 IPC, whereas rest of the injuries attributed to the remaining appellants are simple in nature. They were convicted under Sections 307, 324 and 323 IPC with the aid of Section 34 IPC only. 12. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that as per death certificate and the police report, appellant Samey Singh (main convict) had already expired on 06.09.2004 during the pendency of the appeal. Therefore, the appeal qua Samey Singh stands abated on account of his death. 13. As is clear that Section 34 IPC postulates that “When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.” A plain and meaningful reading would reveal that in order to attract this section, there should be a positive evidence of indispensable of essential ingredients that the criminal act should have been done, not by one person, but more than one person and doing of every such individual act cumulatively resulting in the commission of criminal offences and that too, should have been in furtherance of the common intention of all such persons and not otherwise. 14. 14. Not only that, there should be a cogent evidence that all the appellants had prior meeting of mind, pre-arranged plan or shared a common intention to commit the same very offence, which was committed by the main accused. Mere participation in the crime with others, ipso facto, is not a ground, much less cogent, sufficient to attribute common intention to one of others involved in the crime. The subjective element in common intention, therefore, should be proved by objective test. It is only in that eventuality that one accused can be made vicariously liable for the acts and deeds of the other co-accused and not otherwise. The existence of a common intention amongst the participants in a crime is the essential element and a condition precedent for application of this Section. Reliance in this regard can be placed to a celebrated judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case Suresh and another v. State of U.P. AIR 2001 Supreme Court 1344. 15. Such thus being the legal position on record, now the short and significant question, though very important, that arises for determination in this appeal is, as to whether the remaining appellants (except Samey Singh convict (since deceased)) can vicariously be held liable for the commission of offence punishable under section 307 with the aid of section 34 IPC only. 16. Having regard to the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, to me, the answer must obviously be in the negative in this context. 17. As discussed here-in-above, the epitome of the evidence brought on record by the prosecution is that the parties have previous enmity and civil litigation for the last about ten years prior to the present occurrence. The prosecution claimed that Raj Singh (PW3) had informed his father Raghbir Singh (PW2) about the injuries caused to him by appellants Samey Singh (main convict) and Ved Singh. After receipt of the information, it was the complainant, his wife Murti Devi, son Raj Singh and brother Mohinder Singh, who formed a group and started going towards their fields. As soon as, they reached near the house of Surat Singh (place of occurrence), in the meantime, appellants Samey Singh (since deceased) and Ved Singh were seen coming on their tractor from the opposite side. They alighted from the tractor. Thereafter, the remaining appellant-convicts Bala and Phulo Devi came from their house. As soon as, they reached near the house of Surat Singh (place of occurrence), in the meantime, appellants Samey Singh (since deceased) and Ved Singh were seen coming on their tractor from the opposite side. They alighted from the tractor. Thereafter, the remaining appellant-convicts Bala and Phulo Devi came from their house. In this manner, no evidence, much less cogent, is forthcoming on record, even to suggest remotely that the other appellant-convicts had shared the common intention with main convict Samey Singh or they had prior meeting of mind to plan to attempt to murder the complainant. Meaning thereby, all the indicated essential ingredients to attract the provisions of Section 34 IPC are totally lacking in the instant case. Therefore, the remaining appellants cannot legally be held vicariously liable and convicted under section 307 only with the aid of section 34 IPC. Therefore, they deserve to be acquitted from the charges framed against them under section 307/34 IPC and they are liable to be convicted for their individual participation in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 18. Now adverting to the individual participation of the remaining appellant-convicts in this respect, complainant Raghbir Singh (PW2 ) has categorically stated that appellant Ved Singh gave a Farsa blow on his head and left hand. Similarly, appellants Bala and Phulo Devi gave lathis blows on his left knee and back respectively. He maintained that all the remaining appellant-convicts caused injuries to him, his wife Murti Devi, son Raj Singh and brother Mohinder Singh. It is not a matter of dispute that PW1 S.P.Sharma has categorically stated that all the remaining injuries on the persons of injured PWs (except injury No.1, which was attributed to appellant-convict Samey Singh (since deceased)), were simple in nature. Thus, the ocular version of PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW5, with regard to the participation of other appellant-convicts duly finds corroboration from the medical evidence as well. Instead of reproducing the entire statements of these PWs and in order to avoid repetition, suffice it to say that PW2 to PW5 have cogently supported the prosecution version on all vital counts. They were cross-examined at length, but no material, muchless cogent, could be elicited in their cross-examination to dislodge the pointed prosecution version of their individual participation, which is otherwise proved by reliable, trustworthy, oral as well as medical & documentary evidence, as discussed here-in-above. 19. They were cross-examined at length, but no material, muchless cogent, could be elicited in their cross-examination to dislodge the pointed prosecution version of their individual participation, which is otherwise proved by reliable, trustworthy, oral as well as medical & documentary evidence, as discussed here-in-above. 19. Therefore, if the entire evidence of prosecution is perused and put together, then, to me, the conclusion is inescapable that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the other appellantconvicts under section 307 with the aid of section 34 IPC, they deserve to be and are hereby convicted for their individual acts u/ss 324 & 323/34 IPC in the manner indicated here-in-above. 20. Having regard to the rival contentions of learned counsel for parties, to my mind, it would be in the interest and justice would be subserved if the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the remaining appellant-convicts by the trial Court is reduced, inter-alia, on the following grounds:- ii) Sequelly, appellant-convicts Bala and Phulo Devi have already undergone the portion of their substantive sentence of 3 months and 21 days, out of total sentence of six months awarded to them u/ss 324 & 323/34 IPC. iii) They are ladies. iv) The appellant-convicts are first offenders and are not previous convicts. v) The occurrence in this case is of 4.5.1997 and they have already faced the pangs of protracted trial & appeal for the last about 15½ years. 21. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the appeal filed by the main appellant-convict Samey Singh stands already abated on account of his death, whereas, the appeal of remaining appellant-convicts, namely, Ved Singh, Bala & Phulo Devi is partly allowed. Consequently, they are acquitted of the charge under section 307/34 IPC. Their conviction and sentence of fine u/ss 324 & 323/34 IPC are hereby maintained. However, the sentence of imprisonment of six months for the commission of offence punishable u/s 324/34 IPC and sentence of imprisonment of three months u/s 323/34 IPC is reduced to 3 months and 21 days, already undergone by them. Accordingly, the impugned order of sentence is modified to the extent and in the manner depicted here-in-before. 22. Needless to say that necessary consequences & compliance will naturally follow accordingly. ---------0.B.S.0------------