JUDGMENT Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - Two persons, namely, Ravindra Sahu and Rajendra Sahu were named as accused by Rukmini Devi in her fard-beyan which was recorded on 26.03.1995 at 14:00 hrs, on the basis of which Raidih P.S Case No.19/95 was registered against them under section 302/34 I.P.C. 2. After the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against both of them and a common charge under section 302/34 I.P.C was framed against them, however, the accused, namely, Ravindra Sahu has absconded and trial in his respect was split-up vide order dated 22.07.1999. 3. During the trial the prosecution has examined 8 witnesses. One Sudhir Kumar Singh has been examined as a court witness and the defence has examined Laxmi Narayan Prasad Gupta as a witness who has proved the signature of Manu Gope on the affidavit which was marked as Exhibit-A. 4. Dr. Hemant Kumar-P.W 1, who has conducted the post-mortem examination, has found the following injuries on Padarath Sahu: (1) Incised wound 5" x 2" x 3" over left parietal region of the head with cutting of underlying bone, brain matter also cut. Blood clot present. (2) Incised wound 4" x 1" x 2" over right occipital region of the head with cutting of underlying bone, brain matter also cut. Blood clot present. (3) Incised wound 5" x 2" x scalp deep over right temporal region of the head. (4) Incised wound 2" x 1/2" x scalp deep over right side of forehead and right eye brow. (5) Incised wound 4" x 2" x 2" over right cheek oblique in direction with cutting of right maxilla bone. (6) Incised wound 5" x 1"x 2" over right scapular region of back with cutting of scapula bone. (7) Incised wound 5" x 2"x 1" over left upper part of back. (8) Incised wound 3" x 1/2" x 1" over left thigh. 5. According to the doctor, all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and caused by a sharp cutting weapon like a tangi. In the opinion of the doctor the injury nos.3, 4, 7 and 8 were simple in nature and other injuries were grievous. The doctor has rendered an opinion that the injury nos.1 and 2 were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course. 6. The case set-up by the prosecution against the appellant is that he caught hold of Padarath Sahu while Ravindra Sahu inflicted tangi blows on him. The doctor has rendered an opinion that the injury nos.1 and 2 were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course. 6. The case set-up by the prosecution against the appellant is that he caught hold of Padarath Sahu while Ravindra Sahu inflicted tangi blows on him. In her fard-beyan, the informant has stated that in the morning of 26.03.1995, at about 9:30 a.m., her husband, brother-in-law and daughter were at home. When her husband was getting ready, her cousin in-law, namely, Ravindra Sahu holding a tangi came there and asked her husband whether he would permit him to construct a house there or not. At that time, Rajendra Sahu was standing near the house of Byas Muni @ Koundi Masomat situated at a distance from her house. When her husband declined to part with the land saying that it does not belong to him Ravindra Sahu caught hold of her husband and started dragging him towards the house of Byas Muni @ Koundi Masomat. There Rajendra Sahu caught hold of her husband and Ravindra Sahu started assaulting him with tangi. When her brother-in-law, namely, Gokul Sahu tried to save him Ravindra Sahu threatened them saying that he would kill him also. The informant has claimed that they raised hullah, however, no one from the village came there to save her husband. Her husband who had suffered injuries on his head, face and back died on the spot within 15 minutes. According to the informant, the reason why the accused persons have assaulted her husband was a land dispute and about six months prior to the incident they came to her house and threatened them. 7. The informant has been examined as P.W 3 in the court. In her examination-in-chief she has again narrated a similar story about the incident which has happened in the morning of 26.03.1995 near her house. She has deposed that Ravindra Sahu has assaulted her husband while his brother, namely, Rajendra Sahu caught hold of him. P.W 4 who is the daughter of the informant has also deposed in the court on the similar lines. She has also made a specific allegation of assault on her father by Ravindra Sahu. Another prosecution witness, namely, Simon Oraon-P.W 5 has also claimed that he has seen the occurrence, however, on account of his old age he did not go near the place of occurrence. She has also made a specific allegation of assault on her father by Ravindra Sahu. Another prosecution witness, namely, Simon Oraon-P.W 5 has also claimed that he has seen the occurrence, however, on account of his old age he did not go near the place of occurrence. P.W 6 has seen the accused Ravindra Sahu fleeing away from the place of occurrence carrying a tangi in his hand. The brother-in-law of the informant, namely, Gokul Sahu who has been examined as P.W 8 has deposed that when Padarath Sahu was assaulted by Ravindra Sahu he first tried to flee away but he was caught by Rajendra Sahu the present appellant. 8. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code postulates vicarious liability of all for the act of one if the criminal act has been done in furtherance of the common intention of all. In " Ashok Kumar v. State of Punjab, (1977) 1 SCC 746 ", it has been held that 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. 9. From the evidence led by the prosecution on the role played by the appellant in the incident, we find that the related witnesses have alleged that the appellant caught hold of Padarath Sahu and his brother, namely, Ravindra Sahu assaulted him with tangi. But, there is some contradiction in the testimony of the related witnesses. P.W 3 and P.W 4 have alleged that the appellant caught hold of Padarath Sahu while Ravindra Sahu assaulted him whereas P.W 8 has stated that after Ravindra Sahu assaulted Padarath Sahu and when he tried to flee away the appellant caught hold of him and thereafter Ravindra Sahu again assaulted him. However, these witnesses have also stated that when Ravindra Sahu had gone to the house of the informant the appellant was not with him. However, these witnesses have also stated that when Ravindra Sahu had gone to the house of the informant the appellant was not with him. He was carrying any weapon is not the prosecution''s case and according to the prosecution witnesses in the beginning he was just an onlooker standing near the house of Byas Muni @ Koundi Masomat when Ravindra Sahu came to the house of the informant and brought her husband out and dragged him to the house of Byas Muni @ Koundi Masomat. From the testimony of P.W 5 and P.W 6, we find that they have not spoken about presence of the appellant at the place of occurrence and, in fact, both of them have not attributed any specific role played by the appellant in the incident. 10. From the aforesaid evidence led by the prosecution during the trial, it cannot be inferred that the appellant shared a common intention to murder Padarath Sahu. All that the prosecution has been able to lead evidence through P.W 3 and P.W 4 against the appellant is that he caught hold of Padarath Sahu while Ravindra Sahu assaulted him, but then, in their testimony, P.W 5 and P.W 6 have not spoken about presence of the appellant at the place of occurrence. The prosecution has failed to establish that death of Padarath Sahu was caused in furtherance of common intention of both the accused persons. 11. In the above state of affairs, a reasonable doubt on complicity of the appellant in the crime would arise. In this factual scenario, in our opinion, the appellant is entitled for the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction under section 302/34 I.P.C dated 02.06.2001 and the order of sentence of R.I for life dated 04.06.2001 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Gumla in S.T. Case No.237 of 1995 are set-aside. 12. The appellant, who is on bail, stands discharged of liability of the bail-bonds furnished by him. 13. In the result, Criminal Appeal (D.B) No.324 of 2001 is allowed. 14. Let a copy of the judgment be transmitted to the court concerned through ''Fax''. 15. Let lower-court records be sent to the court concerned forthwith.