JUDGMENT : Manojit Bhuyan, J. The 7 (seven) appellants, namely, Md. Saifuddin Ahmed @ Gambhu Sheikh, Md. Abdul Malek, Md. Jambu Sheikh, Md. Matlib Ali @ Matlebuddin, all sons of Late Majibur Rahman, along with Md. Akalu Sheikh @ Ainal Hoque, Md. Gulu Sheikh @ Golap Hussain, both sons of Md. Suruj Ali and Md. Suruj Ali himself has been convicted under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine and default stipulations. No separate sentence was imposed for their conviction under Section 201. During the present appeal proceedings, Md. Suruj Ali suffered demise. 2. The victim of the incident was Manu Ali, aged about 35 years. 3. The case of the prosecution is that around 10 P.M. of 06.09.2003 when the deceased Manu Ali had come home from Shillong, the appellants above-named along with another co-accused Majibur Rahman chased him from outside into the house and assaulted him with sharp weapons and then dragged him out of the house. Manu Ali died instantly and his dead body was thrown into the nearby jute field. 4. Jayanti Das @ Jaynab Begum (PW-1) and Muklesa Begum (PW-2), who are the wife and daughter of Manu Ali respectively, rushed to Dalgaon Police Station and gave oral information to the Police, whereupon G.D. Entry No. 136 dated 06.09.2003 was recorded in the Police Diary at 11.50 P.M. Formal F.I.R. was lodged by the said PW-1 on 07.09.2003 at 9 A.M. before the Dalgaon Police Station. In both the G.D. Entry dated 06.09.2003 and F.I.R. dated 07.09.2003 the names of all the appellants including one Majibur Rahman were mentioned. Dalgaon P.S. Case No. 231/2003 was registered against the above accused persons under Sections 448/302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Alok Kumar Goswami (PW-8), who was entrusted to investigate into the case, visited the place of occurrence, prepared the inquest, recorded the statement of witnesses and sent the deceased to Mangaldai Civil Hospital for post mortem examination. As per the Seizure List (Ext.-2), one 7 feet long blood-stained iron spear with a wooden handle and a bamboo lathi about 2 ft. long were seized from the house of one Mahammad Ali, on being shown by Muklesa Begum (PW-2). Upon completion of investigation, Charge Sheet was submitted against all the accused persons for offence punishable under Sections 448/302/201/34 IPC and the case was committed to trial. long were seized from the house of one Mahammad Ali, on being shown by Muklesa Begum (PW-2). Upon completion of investigation, Charge Sheet was submitted against all the accused persons for offence punishable under Sections 448/302/201/34 IPC and the case was committed to trial. Formal charge was laid under Section 302/34 IPC and Sections 201/34 IPC. During the trial proceedings, however, one of the co-accused i.e. Majibur Rahman suffered demise. 5. To bring home the guilt of the appellants for causing the death of Manu Ali, the prosecution examined as many as 8 (eight) witnesses, including the Medical Officer and the Investigating Officer. Each of the appellants were also examined under Section 313 CrPC. The defence examined 2 (two) witnesses, namely, Md. Muktar Hussain (DW-1), who is the village Gaonburha and Muzafar Ali (DW-2), who is a resident of the village in question. One Dayaram Saikia, Officer In-charge of Dalgaon Police Station also deposed as CW-1 to substantiate that Exhibit-9 is the original G.D. Entry No. 136 dated 06.09.2003 and that in the said G.D. Entry the name of Suraj Ali had been clearly written without any overwriting or correction. The appellants were also heard on the point of sentence. The trial Court convicted the appellants on the charges framed and proved against them and while doing so took into consideration the eye-witness accounts of Jayanti Das (PW-1), Muklesa Begum (PW-2) and Mahmuda Begum (PW-4), who is the wife of the elder brother of the deceased Manu Ali. 6. Jayanti Das (PW-1) deposed that on the date of occurrence, her husband Manu Ali had come from Shillong and before he reached home all the accused persons started chasing him and as he entered the house the said accused also entered by breaking open the door and after taking Manu Ali out of the house to the backside of the house they assaulted him. On the following morning, the dead body of Manu Ali was found lying on a field. She also stated that when the accused persons took away Manu Ali, her daughter (PW-2) and the wife of her husband's brother were present. She also stated that when the accused persons chased Manu Ali, they were armed with dao, dagger, 'akfala' (pointed bamboo) etc. She also deposed that the accused persons killed her husband suspecting that her husband had killed Majibur's son. She also stated that when the accused persons chased Manu Ali, they were armed with dao, dagger, 'akfala' (pointed bamboo) etc. She also deposed that the accused persons killed her husband suspecting that her husband had killed Majibur's son. Said Majibur was a co-accused who died during the trial proceedings. PW-1 also stated that the incident had taken place at about 10.30 P.M. and at that time a hurricane lamp was lit in the house and from the light emitted there from she could recognize all the accused persons. 7. Muklesa Begum (PW-2), aged about 12 years on the date of recording of evidence, deposed that deceased Manu Ali was her father. She stated that on the date of the incident, at about 8/9.30 P.M. while her father was returning home, the accused persons chased him. At that time she along with her mother and other members of the family were sleeping. They woke up hearing knocking at the door and upon opening the door her father entered the house. The accused persons pushed the door open and the accused Matleb, Suruj and Majibur entered the house. Whereas Majibur hit her father on the left shoulder, Abdul Matleb hit him on his head with a dao. Accused Gambhu dealt a blow on her father's stomach with the 'akfala'. After assaulting her father, Majibur had taken him out by breaking the fence at the backside of the house. The accused Jambu, Gambhu, Akalu, Malek, Majibur and Suruj along with one Dulu took away the dead body. As an earthen lamp was lit inside the house, she could recognize the persons. PW-2 also stated that the accused are their neigbours and she has known them from before. She also deposed that after her father was assaulted, he had been taken outside the house and his dead body was left on a field. Also stated, that they had gone to the Police Station at night. PW-2 also stated that someone had killed Majibur's son and the accused suspected her father to be the killer. She also stood witness to the seizure of one 'akfala' and one stick from the place of occurrence which the Police had seized. 8. Mahmuda Begum (PW-4) in her deposition stated that on the night of the incident she was in her house along with PW-1 and PW-2. She also stood witness to the seizure of one 'akfala' and one stick from the place of occurrence which the Police had seized. 8. Mahmuda Begum (PW-4) in her deposition stated that on the night of the incident she was in her house along with PW-1 and PW-2. Manu Ali came in a run and entered the house pushing the door open. All the eight accused chased Manu Ali armed with dao, dagger and 'akfala' and entered her house by breaking open the door and thereafter assaulted Manu Ali. After the assault, the accused broke down the wall of her house and took Manu Ali away to the nearby field. The following day, Manu Ali's dead body was found in the jute cultivation field with cut injuries on his head, shoulder and hand. There was also an injury in his stomach caused by the 'akfala'. In cross, she stated that Manu Ali was suspected to have been involved in the murder of Majibur's son. 9. Dr. Alakananda Goswami (PW-7) conducted autopsy on the dead body of Manu Ali. He proved the Post Mortem Report (Ext.-4) which disclosed the following injuries: (1) Incised wound over the deltoid region 3" length x 3" deep x 2" wide, with bleeding. (2) Incised wound over left side of neck size 3"x2"x2" cutting muscles, blood vessels with bleeding. (3) Incised wound/over scalp over the parietal region size 3"x2"(one)x1" with bleeding. (4) Incised wound over the deltoid region 3"x2"x2". In the opinion of the Doctor, death resulted due to shock and haemorrahage as a result of the injuries sustained. He also deposed that variance in the size of the injuries meant that Manu Ali was attacked by different types of sharp cutting weapons. 10. Alok Kumar Goswami (PW-8) deposed that on 06.09.2003, he was working as the Sub Inspector of Police at Dalgaon Police Station. He stated that at about 11.50 P.M. of the same day i.e. 06.09.2003, the G.D. Entry No. 136 was made on the basis of the oral information tendered by Jayanti Das (PW-1) and Muklesa Begum (PW-2). 11. Argument advanced on behalf of the appellants is that in the absence of any overt acts, independently attributed to each of the appellants, conviction could not have been based by taking the aid of Section 34 IPC. 11. Argument advanced on behalf of the appellants is that in the absence of any overt acts, independently attributed to each of the appellants, conviction could not have been based by taking the aid of Section 34 IPC. It is argued that the eye-witness accounts of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4 are not consistent with each other and does not demonstrate individual role played by the respective appellants in the alleged commission of the offence. In this context, reliance is also placed in the case of Dharam Pal and Ors. v. State of Haryana, reported in (1978) 4 SCC 440 . 12. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have also perused the entire evidence on record. The homicidal death of Manu Ali is not in dispute. The eye-witness accounts of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4 have not been shaken and are worthy of credence and belief. The participation of all the appellants in the commission of the crime finds established. Although Muklesa Begum (PW-2) have not testified to role played by the appellants, save and except, Majibur, Abdul Matleb and Gambhu, however, she deposed to have witnessed Jambu, Akalu, Gulu, Malek and Suruj along with Majibur and Gambhu taking away the dead body of her father from the house. In so far as the eye-accounts of Jayanti Das (PW-1) and Mahmuda Begum (PW-4) are concerned, they have been consistent in stating that all the accused persons had assaulted Manu Ali. 13. Since all the appellants were charged and convicted for committing substantive offence with the aid of Section 34 IPC, consideration is had to the fact situation of the case to ascertain as to whether the appellants had done something with common intention. Apparently, Section 34 IPC deals with cases of constructive criminal liability. The essential constituent of vicarious criminal liability prescribed under that section is the existence of common intention. When the said common intention leads to the commission of a criminal offence, each of the persons sharing the common intention is constructively liable for the criminal act done by one of them. To get Section 34 IPC attracted, the conditions precedent is that the act must have been done by more than one person and they must have shared a common intention either by omission or commission in effectuating the crime. To get Section 34 IPC attracted, the conditions precedent is that the act must have been done by more than one person and they must have shared a common intention either by omission or commission in effectuating the crime. It is always not necessary that every accused must do a separate act to be responsible for the ultimate criminal act. To reiterate, what is primarily required is that the accused persons must share the common intention to commit the act. There may be a situation where a person accompanying the principal culprit may not share his intention in respect of every act which the latter might eventually commit. The existence or otherwise of the common intention depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. A prior meeting of the minds of the accused is the essence of Section 34 IPC. 14. In the instant case, a careful appreciation of the evidence establishes that the appellants along with two other co-accused in a group, armed and wielding the weapons, chased Manu Ali and entered the house. They began assaulting Manu Ali and thereafter in a group carried away the dead body of Manu Ali to be thrown on a jute cultivation field. The presence of all the appellants at the place of occurrence is not in dispute. They forcibly entered into the house of PW-4 chasing Manu Ali. Weapons in their possession were not carried in concealment. Their common intention to cause harm to Manu Ali stands established on the basis of the eye-witness accounts of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4. In such a situation where there is overwhelming evidence of common intention shared by the appellants, it is not necessary to discuss on separate overt acts of the appellants. Each of the appellants is responsible for the ultimate criminal act, having shared a common intention leading to the commission of the crime. Constructive criminal liability in terms of Section 34 IPC finds well established against the appellants. 15. In so far as the case of Dharam Pal (supra) is concerned, reliance placed upon it is unfounded. The said case do not come to the aid of the appellants. The facts of the case are entirely different to the case at hand. Constructive criminal liability in terms of Section 34 IPC finds well established against the appellants. 15. In so far as the case of Dharam Pal (supra) is concerned, reliance placed upon it is unfounded. The said case do not come to the aid of the appellants. The facts of the case are entirely different to the case at hand. In the reported case, one Dharam Pal had an altercation with one Hari Ram and with the intention of teaching Hari Ram a lesson, he along with his father Ram Singh and two other persons Surta and Samme Singh had arrived at a barber's shop where Hari Ram was getting a shave. When a relative of Hari Ram along with one Sardara Singh had come to rescue Hari Ram, Sardara Singh was hit by a shot, fired at his neck by Dharam Pal with the gun he was holding. Sardara Singh was rushed to the hospital and later succumbed to injury. The trial Judge convicted Dharam Pal under Section 302 and sentenced him to life imprisonment together with rigorous imprisonment for five, four and one year under Sections 307,326/34 and 323/34 IPC. Surta was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302/34 with rigorous imprisonment for five, four and one year under Section 307/34, 326 and 323/34 IPC. Samme Singh was sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302/34 and rigorous imprisonment for five, four and one year under Section 307/34, 326/34 and 323 IPC. The said conviction and sentence was upheld by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The Apex Court upon appreciation of evidence dismissed the appeal of Dharam Pal and allowed the appeals of Surta and Samme Singh by setting aside their convictions for offences under Section 302/34 and 307/34 IPC and the sentences imposed on them thereunder. While reaching the said conclusion the Apex Court observed that the case of Surta and Samme Singh stood on a different footing than that of Dharam Pal. It was observed that indeed Surta and Samme Singh had accompanied Dharam Pal but that was only with the avowed intention of teaching a lesson to Hari Ram. There was no material to indicate that there was a pre-arranged plan to murder or to attempt to commit murder of any person who might intercede to save Hari Ram. It was observed that indeed Surta and Samme Singh had accompanied Dharam Pal but that was only with the avowed intention of teaching a lesson to Hari Ram. There was no material to indicate that there was a pre-arranged plan to murder or to attempt to commit murder of any person who might intercede to save Hari Ram. There was also nothing on record to establish that Surta and Samme Singh said and did anything in respect of the deceased Sardara Singh. On the basis of the said evidence, the Apex Court reached the just conclusion. Evidently, Surta and Samme Singh did not share common intention with Dharam Pal in the criminal act against Sardara Singh. 16. The case at hand is entirely different from the case in Dharam Pal (supra). The meeting of mind of the appellants is overwhelmingly present in the present case. Their target was Manu Ali and they achieved the same by taking recourse to a criminal act. The case of Dharam Pal (supra), therefore, is not at all applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 17. For the findings and discussions above, we unhesitatingly hold that there is no flaw in the analysis and ultimate conclusion arrived at by the trial Court in convicting and sentencing the appellants. Accordingly, this appeal being devoid of merits, stands dismissed. Lower Court Records be sent back forthwith.