JUDGMENT : K. SOMASHEKAR, J. 1. The accused Nos. 2 and 4 are arranged as appellants Nos. 1 and 2 in Criminal Appeal No. 100003/2017 and accused Nos. 1 and 3 are arranged as appellants Nos. 1 and 2 in Criminal Appeal No. 100340/2016. They have preferred these appeals challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the learned II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’ for brevity) in S.C. No. 287/2013 dated 22.11.2016, whereby the accused Nos. 1 to 4 have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 341 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC, 1860. Accused Nos. 1 to 4 are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Further accused Nos. 1 to 4 are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Sections 341 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Further accused Nos. 1 to 4 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 506 R/w. Section 34 of the IPC and all the sentences against accused Nos. 1 to 4 are ordered to run concurrently. 2. Being aggrieved by the same, accused Nos. 1 to 4 are before this Court seeking setting aside of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the trial Court against each one of the accused, which is incorporated in the operative portion of the sentence held by the trial Court, alleging among the grounds therein in S.C. No. 287/2013 dated 28.11.2016. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution are as under: Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are the owners of the land bearing Survey No. 23/5 situated in the limit of Vaghavade village. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution are as under: Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are the owners of the land bearing Survey No. 23/5 situated in the limit of Vaghavade village. The aforesaid accused No. 1 and 2 agreed to sell the property in favour of the deceased Shrikant Nagendra Ambolkar. There was an agreement of sale dated 31.01.2008 entered into between accused Nos. 1 and 2 and the deceased. As on the date of agreement of sale held in between them, they said to have delivered the possession of land in favour of the deceased and received a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as earnest money towards total sale consideration of Rs. 2,50,000/-. Thereafter the deceased said to be in possession and cultivation of the said land. It is further stated that accused Nos. 1 and 2 namely Vithal S/o Dakhalu Yalebailkar and Yallappa S/o Dakhalu Yalebailkar failed to execute the sale deed in terms of the agreement of sale held in between them and the deceased, in spite of several requests made by the deceased. Subsequently the deceased initiated a civil suit before the Court of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Belagavi in O.S. No. 849/2013 for the relief of Specific Performance of Contract in respect of the suit schedule property depicted therein. Due to institution of the civil suit by the deceased against them, there was some ill-will developed in between the deceased and accused Nos. 1 and 2 and they were also angry against deceased Shrikant. In O.S. No. 849/2013 the deceased obtained a temporary injunction order against accused Nos. 1 and 2 for not to alienate the suit property stated in the agreement of sale entered between them. The deceased thought that a temporary injunction granted in the aforesaid civil suit was in his favour protecting his possession over the disputed property. 4. This is the sum and substance of the prosecution case initiated against the accused. On 16.06.2013 the deceased along with his younger brother Jyotiba Nagendra Ambolakar, who is arranged as PW-1, PW-2 Mahesh Shrikant Ambolakar, PW-3 Rahul Shrikant Ambolakar, CW-9 Smt. Renuka W/o PW-2 Mahesh Shrikant Ambolekar and two labourers i.e. CW-11 Bairu Ningappa Jamboti and PW-4 Prabhakar Babu Gavade, went to the land in Survey No. 23 situated in Vaghvade village. On 16.06.2013 the deceased along with his younger brother Jyotiba Nagendra Ambolakar, who is arranged as PW-1, PW-2 Mahesh Shrikant Ambolakar, PW-3 Rahul Shrikant Ambolakar, CW-9 Smt. Renuka W/o PW-2 Mahesh Shrikant Ambolekar and two labourers i.e. CW-11 Bairu Ningappa Jamboti and PW-4 Prabhakar Babu Gavade, went to the land in Survey No. 23 situated in Vaghvade village. Though the said landed property was alleged to have been utilized by the deceased, but the possession was found in the name of accused Nos. 1 and 2. The said landed property was earlier maintained in the name of accused Nos. 1 and 2, but the deceased Shrikant purchased the said land under the registered sale deed. The disputed land was adjacent to the aforesaid land. The deceased along with PWs. 1 to 4 and CW-9 Smt. Renuka being the daughter-in-law of the deceased were putting some fertilizers in the land purchased by the deceased Shrikant. But on 16.06.2013 at about 2.45 p.m. accused Nos. 1 to 4 came to the disputed land and they tried to plough the land. In the meanwhile, the deceased Shrikant rushed there and told to accused not to enter in the said land since a temporary injunction was granted against them in O.S. No. 849/2013 from cultivating the land also told them to go out of the said land. In this regard some altercation took place in between accused No. 1 Vithal and the deceased Nagendra and there was exchange of filthy language in between them. Accused No. 1 Vithal who is alleged to have holding sickle in his hand, told his younger brother and also his two sons, who are accused Nos. 2 to 4 to caught hold the deceased Shrikant and also said the deceased has to be killed in the spot. Thereafter, accused No. 1 - Vithal said to have assaulted the deceased Shrikant on his head twice and on the left side of his neck once with the said sickle and after the said three strokes, the deceased requested the accused not to assault him and raised his left hand to prevent another stroke of accused No. 1 with the sickle. At that time, the said sickle hit on the left wrist of deceased and also on the right hand and he sustained bleeding injuries. The deceased collapsed at the spot with the bleeding injuries. 5. At that time, the said sickle hit on the left wrist of deceased and also on the right hand and he sustained bleeding injuries. The deceased collapsed at the spot with the bleeding injuries. 5. It is further stated in a theory of the prosecution that, on seeing the injured Shrikant, who was alleged to have sustained bleeding injuries over his person, PWs. 1 to 4, CWs. 9 and 11, who were present at a distance from the scene of crime, saw the incidence and tried to enter the disputed land to rescue the deceased from the accused. In the meanwhile, the accused threatened them and also told them that, if they tried to come near the said spot, they will kill them. The said witnesses scared due to the threat given by accused. After assaulting the deceased Shrikant, all the accused left the scene of crime along with the sickle - M.O.1. Subsequently, the injured Shrikant was taken in a goods tempo i.e. 407 tempo in order to provide treatment to him and accordingly shifted him to the District Civil Hospital, Belagavi, but the Medical Officer in that hospital on examination of the deceased Shrikant, found that the injured was brought dead. Accordingly, the doctor intimated to PWs. 1 to 4 being the family members of the deceased Shrikant. Subsequent to confirmation of the death of Shrikant by the Medical Officer in the Civil Hospital, Belagavi, PW-1 Jyotiba Nagendra Ambolakar, who was none other than the brother of the deceased, had informed to CW-13 Motichandra Bharama Tigadolli, who is a retired police constable. When CW-13 came to the District Hospital, Belagavi, PW-1 narrated before him how the incident was taken place. On receipt of information about the incident, CW-13 Motichandra reduced the said information into writing as Ex.P1. PW-1 Jyotiba subscribed his signature and handed it over to PW-14 being the PSI of Belagavi Rural Police. Based upon the complaint, the case in Crime No. 169/2013 for the offences punishabled under Sections 341, 302 and 506 r/w. Section 34 of IPC has been registered by recording the FIR. 6. Subsequent to registration of the crime against the accused, PW-13 being the I.O. laid the charge sheet against the accused before the committal Court. Based upon the complaint, the case in Crime No. 169/2013 for the offences punishabled under Sections 341, 302 and 506 r/w. Section 34 of IPC has been registered by recording the FIR. 6. Subsequent to registration of the crime against the accused, PW-13 being the I.O. laid the charge sheet against the accused before the committal Court. Learned JMFC II Court, Belagavi, after receipt of the charge sheet took cognizance of the case and registered the case as C.C. No. 700/2013 and secured the presence of accused Nos. 1 to 4, who were in judicial custody. The accused were charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 302 and 506 R/w. Section 34 of the IPC. Out of the alleged offences, since an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, learned JMFC, Belagavi committed the case to the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi for trial and the learned Sessions Judge ordered to register the case in S.C. No. 287/2013. Subsequent to committing the case to the Court of Sessions, the case in S.C. No. 287/2013 has been assigned to the Court of II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi. 7. Subsequently, the charges were framed against the accused Nos. 1 to 4. The accused pleaded not guilty, but claimed to be tried. Accordingly, plea of the accused has been recorded by the trial Court. 8. Subsequent to recording the charges leveled against the accused, the prosecution in all examined PWs. 1 to 14 and got marked Exs.P1 to P20 and M.Os. 1 to 10. Subsequent to completion of the evidence on the part of the prosecution, the accused were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for recording the incriminating statement appeared against them. Thereby the accused have denied the truth of the evidence of the prosecution adduced so far, whereas the contradictory statement of PW-4 has been got marked at Ex.D1. 9. Subsequent to the recording of incriminating statement as contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. the accused did not choose to lead the defence evidence as contemplated under Section 233 of Cr.P.C. 10. Subsequent to the closure of the evidence by the prosecution, the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi heard the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and the defence counsel for the accused. Subsequent to the closure of the evidence by the prosecution, the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi heard the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and the defence counsel for the accused. On analyzing the evidence led by the prosecution, but mainly appreciating the evidence of PWs. 1 to 4, who are the eyewitnesses in respect of the incident said to have taken place on 16.06.2013 and so also the evidence of PW-13, who is the I.O. who laid the charge sheet against the accused by doing thorough investigation and recording the statement of the witnesses and spot mahazer as per Ex.P5 in the presence of the panch witnesses and so also the inquest held on the dead body of deceased Shrikant as per Ex.P6, in addition to that, the seizure mahazer as per Exs.P7 and P8 respectively, and so also securing the material documents such as, post-mortem report at Ex.P9 and FSL report at Ex.P12 and appreciating the entire oral and documentary evidence which facilitated by the prosecution, held conviction against the accused Nos. 1 to 4 for the offences under Sections 302, 341, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC, which is under challenge in these appeals respectively by accused Nos. 1 to 4 by urging various grounds. 11. Learned counsel Sri. M.B. Gundawade is appearing for the appellants arranged as accused Nos. 1 to 4 in these appeals respectively. His primary contention is that, the trial Court did not appreciate the evidence facilitated by the prosecution. PWs. 1 to 4 being the eyewitnesses, PWs. 2 and 3 are said to be the sons of the deceased Shrikant and PW-1 is none other than the brother of the deceased. All these witnesses cited in the charge sheet and also examined on the part of the prosecution are interested witnesses. Though they have supported the case of the prosecution, but the trial Court believed their evidence without appreciating the evidence in a proper perspective. There are inconsistencies in their evidence and also they are contradictory and the same is required to be appreciated in these appeals and if not the accused would be the sufferers. The trial Court did not accept the defence theory and even though PWs. There are inconsistencies in their evidence and also they are contradictory and the same is required to be appreciated in these appeals and if not the accused would be the sufferers. The trial Court did not accept the defence theory and even though PWs. 1 to 4 have been subjected to thorough cross-examination, for the theory set up in the defence on the part of the defence side it is resulting to acquittal of the accused persons. 12. The second limb of the argument as advanced by the aforesaid learned counsel for the accused is that, even going through the entire prosecution theory reveals that CW-13 being a retired police constable has registered the crime against the accused, but based upon the information given by PW-2 and PW-3, who are the sons of the deceased Shrikant and PW-1 had narrated the entire incident taken place at the scene of crime in between accused No. 1 - Vithal and the deceased Shrikant, accused No. 2, 3 and 4 have not at all participated in the incident alleged to have committed by the accused No. 1. But at a cursory glance of the entire case of the prosecution, there is no corroboration in the evidence of PWs. 1 to 4 though they have been cited as eyewitnesses on the part of the prosecution. Their evidence is suspicious and cannot be believable unless there is some corroboration of evidence with other independent witnesses to prove that they are the natural witnesses on the part of the prosecution. As contended by the learned Addl. SPP for the State, the evidence of PWs. 1 to 4 at the part of the prosecution, however, it requires re-appreciation in this appeal as there is no proper appreciation made by the trial Court. The trial Court only believed the evidence of PWs. 1 to 4 regarding the role of the accused No. 1 Vithal alleged to be that he had given a blow with means of M.O.1 sickle said to have been used by him. But at the time of accused No. 1 giving a blow with means of deadly weapons M.O.1 - sickle, accused nos. 2 and 3 alleged to have caught hold the deceased Shrikant. 13. At a cursory glance of the evidence of PWs. But at the time of accused No. 1 giving a blow with means of deadly weapons M.O.1 - sickle, accused nos. 2 and 3 alleged to have caught hold the deceased Shrikant. 13. At a cursory glance of the evidence of PWs. 1 to 4 coupled with the facts at Ex.P1 complaint, there are some inconsistencies and contradiction in respect of the evidence and also direct overt act attributed to each one of the accused. But accused No. 1 Vithal alleged to have assaulted the deceased with means of M.O.1 sickle and inflicted injuries over the body of the deceased Shrikant as indicated in Ex.P9 post-mortem report issued by the doctor. Admittedly, the deceased Shrikant had sustained injuries during the course of scuffle took place in between him and accused No. 1 - Vithal. Trial Court has failed to consider the important aspect and relating to the direct acknowledgment of guilt and also a direct overt act attributed to each of the accused regarding committing murder of the deceased Shrikant. 14. Lastly, the counsel submitted that there is no sufficient evidence for conviction of the accused and the trial Court erroneously come to the conclusion by believing the evidence of PWs. 1 to 4 coupled with the evidence of PW-13 being a Investigating Officer, who investigated the case thoroughly by conducting inquest over the body and also the scene of crime and so also the seizure mahazer in the presence of the pancha witnesses. But looking at the entire case of the prosecution relating to the evidence let in by the prosecution, it reveals there is no sufficient evidence on the part of the prosecution i.e. the evidence beyond all reasonable doubt to come to the conclusion that accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and so also accused No. 1 Vithal said to have inflicted injuries over the person of the deceased Shrikant and caused him to death. Therefore, the intervention of this Court is required in these appeals by considering the grounds as urged in these appeals by re-appreciating the evidence of PWs. 1 to 4 and so also the evidence of PWs. 5, 6, 7 and 8 in respect of spot mahazer at Ex.P5, inquest mahazer at Ex.P6 and so also the seizure mahazer at Exs.P7 and P8. But PWs. 1 to 4 and so also the evidence of PWs. 5, 6, 7 and 8 in respect of spot mahazer at Ex.P5, inquest mahazer at Ex.P6 and so also the seizure mahazer at Exs.P7 and P8. But PWs. 8, 9 and 10 said to be the witnesses have been secured in order to conduct the seizure mahazer at Exs.P8. But these witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution and they have been turned hostile. But Ex.P10 relating to the non receipt of M.O.1 sickle alleged to be used by the accused Vithal for causing injuries over the body of the deceased Shrikant and blood was oozing from the neck part. But there was some drizzling of rain even on the day of the incident and even the spot panchanama at Ex.P5 said to have been conducted by PW-13. Though the Investigating Officer has collected the blood stained mud and un-blood stained mud, though the said materials have been seized by the I.O. during the course of investigation and though the clothes said to have been seized by the Investigating Officer in respect of accused No. 1 Vithal have blood stains, but there was no blood stains found on the clothes of accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4. But they have also been convicted by the trial Court for the various offences even under Sections 302 of IPC. Merely because the intention is a concept of Section 34 of IPC, therefore in this appeal it requires reappreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence by recording the evidence of PWs. 1 to 4, if not the grave man of the accused would be the sufferer. On these premises, learned counsel for the appellants in both these appeals seeking for consideration of the grounds urged and seeks intervention of this Court and consequently seeks for setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the trial Court in S.C. No. 287/2013 dated 22.11.2016. 15. The counsel for the appellants in support of his contention has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1115/2010 dated 19.02.2019 in the case of Balvir Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. 15. The counsel for the appellants in support of his contention has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1115/2010 dated 19.02.2019 in the case of Balvir Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. In this judgment it is held that, to invoke Section 34 of IPC, it must be established that criminal act was done by more than one person in furtherance of common intention of all. It must, therefore, be proved that: (i) there was common intention on the part of several persons to commit a particular crime, and (ii)the crime was actually committed by them in furtherance of that common intention. The essence of liability under Section 34 of IPC is simultaneous conscious mind of persons participating in the criminal action to bring about a particular result. Minds regarding sharing of common intention gets satisfied when an overt act is established qua each of the accused. Common intention implies pre-arranged plan and acting in concert pursuant to the pre-arranged plan. Criminal act mentioned in Section 34 of IPC is the result of the concerted action of more than one person and if the said result was reached in furtherance of common intention, each person is liable for the offence as if he has committed the offence by himself. 16. In the instant case, accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 alleged have been participated with accused No. 1 - Vithal, who alleged to have assaulted the deceased Shrikant with M.O.1 - sickle by choosing the vital parts of neck and head of deceased Shrikant and as a result of the assault made by him, the deceased had sustained with injuries Nos. 1 to 13, which are reflected in the post-mortem report at Ex.P9 issued by the doctor. Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 alleged to have participated with accused No. 1 by caught holding the deceased Shrikant, at that time accused No. 1 Vithal assaulted the deceased, but there is no specific role played by the co-accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4. 17. In the case of criminal liability, it is the primary responsibility of the person who actually commits the offence and only that person who has committed the crime can be held guilty. By introducing Section 34 in the Penal Code, the legislature laid down the principal of joint liability in doing the criminal act. 2, 3 and 4. 17. In the case of criminal liability, it is the primary responsibility of the person who actually commits the offence and only that person who has committed the crime can be held guilty. By introducing Section 34 in the Penal Code, the legislature laid down the principal of joint liability in doing the criminal act. The essence of that liability is to be found in existence of common intention connecting the accused leading to doing of criminal act in furtherance of such intention. Thus, if the act is the result of a common intention then every person who did the criminal act with that common intention would be responsible for the offence committed irrespective of the share which he had in its perpetration. Section 34 of IPC embodies the principle of joint liability in doing the criminal act based on a common intention. Common intention essentially being a state of mind it is very difficult to procure direct evidence to prove such intention. Therefore, in most cases it has to be inferred from the act like, the conduct of the accused or other relevant circumstances of the case. 18. In the instant case, though accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are alleged to have been present at the scene of crime and alleged to have caught hold the deceased Shrikant, but accused No. 1 - Vithal has assaulted the deceased with means of M.O.1 - sickle and also caused injuries inflicted over the person, due to which the deceased Shrikant lost his breadth while he was being shifted from the scene of crime to the District Civil Hospital, Belagavi and the doctor on examination of the body declared the injured as brought dead. But the totality of the circumstances must be taken into consideration in arriving at the conclusion, whether the accused had a common intention to commit the offence of which they can be convicted. In the instant case, the trial Court has held conviction against accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 that they have also played role in committal of murder of the deceased Shrikant, but the blow has dealt by accused No. 1 Vithal with means of M.O.1 - sickle is said to have been seized by PW-13 being the I.O. and the same has been seized under seizure mahazer in the presence of panch witnesses. 2, 3 and 4 that they have also played role in committal of murder of the deceased Shrikant, but the blow has dealt by accused No. 1 Vithal with means of M.O.1 - sickle is said to have been seized by PW-13 being the I.O. and the same has been seized under seizure mahazer in the presence of panch witnesses. However, this seizure mahazer in respect of M.O.1 sickle is at the voluntary statement of accused No. 1 as per Ex.P18. 19. In case of Balvir Singh (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has extensively addressed the issue of Section 34 of IPC relating to common intention. Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 though were present along with accused No. 1 Vithal at the scene of crime, but they did not have any pivotal role to commit the murder of the deceased even by giving blow or kick over the person of the deceased Shrikant while he was fell on the ground by sustaining injuries Nos. 1 to 13 at the hands of accused No. 1 - Vithal with means of M.O.1 - sickle. But it is also brought in the evidence of the prosecution that, as per the evidence of PWs. 1 to 4, who are cited as eyewitnesses accused No. 1 -Vithal dealt blow on the vital part of deceased Shrikant with means of M.O.1 sickle, but co-accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 alleged to have caught hold the deceased Shrikant or otherwise to say held informally. If accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 said to have shared a common intention in order to eliminate the deceased Shrikant, certainly they would have dealt blow on the person of the deceased Shrikant. The prosecution even though relied on the evidence let in by examination of PWs. 1 to 14, but they did not bring the evidence which is worthwhile for consideration that there was some meeting of minds of accused Nos. 1 and accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4. But accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 alleged to have knowledge and there was no intention to eliminate the deceased Shrikant by giving neither blow nor kick over his person. The evidence adduced by the prosecution even in respect of the role of accused Nos. 1 and accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4. But accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 alleged to have knowledge and there was no intention to eliminate the deceased Shrikant by giving neither blow nor kick over his person. The evidence adduced by the prosecution even in respect of the role of accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 is not convincing to hold that they also sustained the common intention with accused No. 1 Vithal in order to commit the murder of Shrikant and consequently, the prosecution did not prove the guilt of accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 beyond all reasonable doubt. There are inconsistencies and contradictions arising in the evidence of PWs. 1 to 4 and so also the evidence of PW-13 being the I.O. who lodged the charge sheet against the accused. When there is doubt arising in the theory of prosecution that credence of doubt itself is held in favour of the accused and the same has not been appreciated by the trial Court in a proper and prospective manner insofar as accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in respect of Section 34 of IPC, 1860 when main offence is under Section 302 of IPC. Therefore, it requires intervention under these appeals by re-appreciating the evidence of PWs. 1 to 4 and on these premises seeking for setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence held against accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and also accused No. 1 - Vithal. 20. The learned counsel for the appellants also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 434, 499 and 500-501 of 2002 dated 13.04.2010 in the case of M.C. Ali and Others vs. State of Kerala. In this judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court has addressed the issue relating to interested witnesses. Their evidence could be viewed cautiously but wherever two views are being reasonably possible, that the high court ought not to have interfered with the verdict of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. But on the appreciation of evidence whether the relationship of the witnesses with the accused affect the credibility of the witnesses, it is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person leaving a way for real accused to escape. 21. In the instant case, due to the agreement of sale executed in between accused Nos. 21. In the instant case, due to the agreement of sale executed in between accused Nos. 1 and 2 and the deceased Shrikant on 31.08.2008, the deceased had initiated the civil case in O.S. No. 849/2013 for the relief of specific performance of contract and therefore accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were angry against deceased Shrikant since he has initiated the civil suit against them and also obtained order of injunction in respect of the landed property. Therefore, there is an enmity in between the deceased Shrikant and accused Nos. 1 and 2. Therefore, their evidence ought to be scrutinized carefully with the evidence of PWs. 1 to 4. 22. PW-1 who is none other than the brother of the deceased Shrikant and PWs. 2 and 3 - sons of deceased Shrikant and PW-4 is a labour engaged by the deceased on the day of incident. The evidence of PWs. 1 to 4 on the face of the prosecution had to be scrutinized carefully. But the trial Court given credential to the evidence of PWs. 1 to 4 coupled with the evidence of PW-13 that there was assault made by accused No. 1 - Vithal as projected by the prosecution. Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 being the facilitators to accused No. 1 Vithal by caught holding the deceased Shrikant, resulting in accused No. 1 -Vithal giving blow with means of M.O. 1 sickle by choosing the vital part of his head and also assaulting on the vital part of his neck. But there was no reason why that PW-1 Jyotiba Ambolakar, who is the instrument of complaint at Ex.P1 and who is none other than the brother of the deceased, PWs. 2 and 3 being the sons of the deceased Shrikant and even PW-4 being the labour engaged by the deceased in the landed property for putting fertilizers in a sugar cane field, did not even made interference or otherwise to say made an attempt to rescue the deceased Shrikant from the clutches of the accused person. However, the trial Court also noticed that PWs. 1 to 4 being the eyewitnesses and they have been present at a distance between 40 to 50 feet from the field were they were present to the place of scene of crime. But there was thorough scanning of evidence of PWs. However, the trial Court also noticed that PWs. 1 to 4 being the eyewitnesses and they have been present at a distance between 40 to 50 feet from the field were they were present to the place of scene of crime. But there was thorough scanning of evidence of PWs. 1 to 4 to give credentiality for consideration of their evidence to arrive at conclusion and to held conviction. Therefore, under this appeal it requires re-scanning of the evidence of PWs. 1 to 4 and consider the inconsistencies and contradictions coupled with the evidence of PW-13. 23. Reliance is placed on a decision dated 23.10.2018, in Criminal Appeal No. 2301/2009, in Bhagirath vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. In this judgment Hon’ble Supreme Court has addressed the issues of 4th exception to section 300 of IPC dealt with death committed in sudden fight without premeditation. Sudden fight implied absence of pre-meditation. In the case on hand, there was a verbal altercation took between the deceased Shrikant Ambolakar and accused No. 1-Vithal and accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were also present in the scene of crime. But accused No. 1 inflicted injuries with means of MO.1-sickle by choosing the vital parts of head portion and also the vital part of neck of the deceased Shrikant. As a result of that blow made by him, the deceased had sustained injuries No. 1 to 13, as indicated in Ex.P.9 postmortem report issued by the doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body and so also the opinion report at Ex.P.10 in respect of examination of MO.1-sickle. But the manner of occurrence and injury inflicted on the person of the deceased Shrikant, it attracts exception 4 to section 300 of IPC. But in the facts and circumstances of the case, conviction of the appellant said to be arranged as accused in the aforesaid judgment was modified to section 304 Part I of IPC and sentence was reduced to the period already undergone. 24. In the instant case, accused No. 1 Vithal has been convicted for the heinous offence punishable under section 302 of IPC, 1860 and so also the offence punishable under section 341 and 506 of IPC, but accused Nos. 24. In the instant case, accused No. 1 Vithal has been convicted for the heinous offence punishable under section 302 of IPC, 1860 and so also the offence punishable under section 341 and 506 of IPC, but accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 said to have been present at the scene of crime along with accused No. 1 Vithal and facilitated him by holding the deceased firmly, as a result of which Vithal, who is arranged as accused No. 1 gave blow with MO.1-sickle and caused injuries over the person of the deceased. PW-1 to PW-4 in the instant case are said to have been the eye witnesses and they have stated in their evidence that the deceased Shrikant had come forward to the scene of crime saying that he had obtained temporary injunction order in O.S. No. 849/2013, which was instituted by him against the defendants i.e. accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the instant case. That on the date of the incident i.e. on 16.6.2013, at around 2.45 p.m. accused Nos. 1 to 4 had been to the scene of crime i.e. the landed property. While they were ploughing the land, the deceased Shrikant and his sons PW-2 and PW-3, his brother PW-1 and his wife Smt. Renuka who is cited as CW-9 were all present in their field nearby the scene of crime and PW-4 being a labourer was also secured by deceased Shrikant for putting fertilizer in his sugarcane field. But the injuries on the person of the deceased Shrikant as per Ex.P.9-autopsy report were inflicted by accused No. 1 Vithal alone who gave fatal blow with means of sickle. Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were alleged to have been caught hold the deceased and made him to take away the life of the deceased. But 4th exception to section 300 of IPC deals with death committed in a sudden fight without pre-meditation. The sudden fight implies absence of pre-meditation. Even as per the evidence of PW-1 to PW-4, there was some verbal exchange between the deceased Shrikant and accused No. 1 Vithal. In the verbal exchange between them in a filthy language led them to recourse of taking life of the deceased Vithal. But accused Nos. 2 to 4 were said to have caught hold the deceased. But there was no pre-meditation. In the verbal exchange between them in a filthy language led them to recourse of taking life of the deceased Vithal. But accused Nos. 2 to 4 were said to have caught hold the deceased. But there was no pre-meditation. Injuries have been caused by accused No. 1 Vithal on the person of the deceased by giving a blow by means of MO.1-sickle on the head and also on the neck part which indicates that accused No. 1 Vithal had an intention to eliminate the deceased but there was no intention of accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 though they had knowledge of the reason why they had caught hold the deceased Shrikant. Therefore exception 4 to section 300 of IPC would attract in the facts and circumstances of the case. The conviction of accused requires intervention under this appeal by considering the evidence of PW-1 to PW-4, as they are interested witnesses. PW-1 is none other than the brother of the deceased and PW-2 and PW-3 are the sons of deceased Sriikant. Therefore, the decision relied by the counsel is squarely applicable to the given facts and circumstances of the case, as the trial Court held conviction based upon the evidence of PW-1 to PW-4 and given more credentiality to their evidence. Therefore it requires interference under this appeal, keeping in view exception 4 to section 300 of IPC, 1860. Under all these premises the learned counsel for the appellants in these appeals is seeking for considering the grounds as urged and setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the trial Court. 25. Whereas, in the case of Ramashish Yadav and Others vs. State of Bihar in Criminal Appeal No. 719-722 of 1996, in a decision rendered on 9.9.1999 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has addressed the scope of section 34 of IPC, 1860. The distinct features of section 34 is the element of participation in action. The common intention implies acting in concert, existence of a prearranged plan which is to be proved either from conduct or from circumstances or from any incriminating facts. But it requires a prearranged plan and it presupposes prior concert. Therefore, there must be prior meeting of minds. The distinct features of section 34 is the element of participation in action. The common intention implies acting in concert, existence of a prearranged plan which is to be proved either from conduct or from circumstances or from any incriminating facts. But it requires a prearranged plan and it presupposes prior concert. Therefore, there must be prior meeting of minds. The prior concert or meeting of mind may be determined from the conduct of the offenders unfolding itself during the course of action and the declaration made by them just before mounting the attack. It can also be developed at the spur of the moment but there must be pre-arrangement or premeditated concert. This being the requirement of law for applicability of section 34 of IPC, from the mere fact that accused came and caught hold of the deceased Shrikant, it can’t be said that accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 shared the common intention with the co-accused Vithal in eliminating the deceased Shrikant. But section 302 read with section 34 of IPC, it would be dealt in a comprehensive manner relating to the role of each one of the accused. If not, the commission of the offence by the accused would be severe if receiving a sentence without adding the provision of section 34 of IPC with the main offence of section 302 of IPC. 26. Section 302 read with section 34 of IPC, as in the instant case the conviction for this heinous offence has been held against accused Nos. 1 to 4 for undergoing imprisonment for life and so also the sentence held for the offence under section 341 and 506 of IPC. Therefore reliance of this decision is squarely applicable to the given facts and circumstances of the case in respect of the role of each one of accused Nos. 1 to 4 in order to eliminate the deceased Shrikant. But the trial Court did not appreciate the evidence of PW-1 to PW-4 in a proper perspective manner. There is no appreciation of the facts as at Ex.P.1-complaint, and also the role of each one of the accused Nos. 1 to 4 that there was no worthwhile evidence on the part of prosecution in respect of accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4, but they were the facilitators to accused No. 1 Vithal. There is no appreciation of the facts as at Ex.P.1-complaint, and also the role of each one of the accused Nos. 1 to 4 that there was no worthwhile evidence on the part of prosecution in respect of accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4, but they were the facilitators to accused No. 1 Vithal. Though they were also present in the scene of crime and caught hold Shrikant, but there is no specific role of these accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 as to on which part of the body of Shrikant they caught hold at the time of committing the assault by accused No. 1 Vithal by means of MO.1-sickle. 27. The learned Addl. SPP for the State has countered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants in both these appeals. He primarily taken us through the evidence off PW-1 Jyotiba, who is an instrument for filing the complaint Ex.P.1 before the Rural P.S. Belagavi, and registering the same in Crime No. 169/2013 for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of IPC. The FIR was marked as Ex.P.20. In the FIR said to have been recorded by PW-14 being a Station House Officer, not included section 341 and 506 of IPC and it cannot be a ground to say that there was no role made by co-accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in order to eliminate the deceased Shrikant. But accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the facilitators to accused No. 1 Vithal who gave a blow with means of MO.1 sickle by choosing the vital parts of neck and head, as a result of which the deceased Shrikant fell down on the ground. Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are alleged to be facilitators to accused No. 1 and that there was an intention. Similarly, if blow has been given with MO.1 sickle, resultantly would cause some injury and further resultantly would take away his life due to the injuries inflicted on the person of the deceased Shrikant which reflected in Ex.P.9 postmortem report issued by the doctor stating that the injuries inflicted on the vital part itself is enough for his elimination. The co-accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the facilitators to accused No. 1. The co-accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the facilitators to accused No. 1. Due to the alleged blow with sickle, deceased had sustained bleeding injuries and he was shifted from the scene of crime in a 407 vehicle to the Government Hospital, Belagavi, but the doctor who had examined him i.e. on seeing the body of the deceased declared him as brought dead. Subsequently PW-1 Jyotiba had immediately given information to CW-13, who is his relative, who is a police constable and narrated the incident which had taken place at the scene of crime and thereafter the said complaint which is at Ex.P.1 was registered in Crime No. 169/2013 and due to the filing of the complaint, FIR has been recorded as per Ex.P.20 and subsequently the case has been taken by the Investigating Officer for the purpose of investigation namely PW-13 who has thoroughly investigated the case and laid the charge sheet against the accused. 28. The learned Addl. SPP is referring to the evidence of PW-1 to PW-4 and so also referring the evidence of PW-7 who is a witness secured by the Investigating Officer in order to conduct spot mahazar and also the inquest mahazar as well as seizure mahazar as per Exs.P.5, 6 and 7 and so also under the inquest mahazar seized MO.2 to 6. PW-7 has supported the case of the prosecution in respect of Exs.P.6 and P.7. PW-11 and 13 have also supported the case of prosecution and supported the evidence of PW-7 about the seizure of MO.2 to 6, which had been seized under Ex.P.7. PW-8 and PW-10 have been secured by the Investigating Officer to conduct the seizure mahazar Ex.P.8 and under this mahazar MO.1-sickle and MO.10 clothes have been seized. But according to the voluntary statement of accused No. 1 Vithal, as per Ex.P.18, that MO.1 to 10 have been seized at the instance of accused No. 1 Vithal. 29. That accused No. 1 Vithal had given his voluntary statement and in that statement he has stated that he would show the place where he had concealed MO.1 sickle and would produce the same. 29. That accused No. 1 Vithal had given his voluntary statement and in that statement he has stated that he would show the place where he had concealed MO.1 sickle and would produce the same. According to section 27 of the Evidence Act, how much of the information has been secured in relating to discovery and recovery of material objects in the instant case at the instance of accused No. 1 Vithal that MO.1 to10 have been seized by PW-13 being the Investigating Officer by drawing the mahazar Ex.P.8 in the presence of PW-8 and PW-10 may be proved. Therefore the evidence of PW-13 being the Investigating Officer has been corroborated with the evidence of PWs. 7, 8 and 10 coupled with the evidence of PW-1 to PW-4. Accused No. 1 who led the Investigating Officer to the house of his sister, has produced the MO.1 sickle which was concealed by him in the cattle shed. Subsequent to producing the sickle, the Investigating Officer has seized it which is marked as MO.1 by drawing a mahazar as per Ex.P.8. A prudent man can understand the contents of Ex.P.8 mahazar and it was signed by PW-13 Investigating Officer and this mahazar has been conducted in the presence of PW-8 and 10. Therefore the trial Court has appreciated the evidence in toto. Even though there is evidence of PW-1 to 4 coupled with the evidence of PW-13 that accused No. 1 Vithal had assaulted the deceased Shrikant, PW-1 to 4 have been thoroughly cross examined, and the defence theory has been set up, but nothing worthwhile has been elicited to disbelieve the evidence of PW-1 to 4. The trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and rightly arrived to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused that they have committed the murder of the deceased Shrikant. In fact accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the facilitators to accused No. 1 Vithal by holding the deceased firmly and because of that reason that accused No. 1 Vithal gave a blow with means of MO.1 sickle and caused the Injuries No. 1 to 13 on the vital parts of his body which is reflected in Ex.P.9 autopsy report and even in the report Ex.P.10. PW-13 being the Investigating Officer who laid the charge sheet against accused was also subjected to cross examination by the defence, but nothing worthwhile has been elicited to disbelieve the evidence of the prosecution. However, the trial Court has appreciated the evidence of PW-1 to PW-7, PW-9 and 11 to 14 and their evidence on the part of prosecution is consistent and corroborative. Their evidence is acceptable in nature. Therefore the trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 30. The defence counsel has taken a private defence, as this incident has been taken place due to the sudden fight emerged between the deceased Shrikant and Accused No. 1 Vithal and section 96 of IPC gives right of private defence, but under what circumstances it is available is the primary concern and to what extent it can be used as defined under section 100 of IPC. But accused No. 1 Vithal has allegedly dealt with a blow on the person of the deceased Shrikant with means of MO.1 sickle. The incident was taken place on 16.6.2013 at around 2.45 p.m. in the broad day light and it was taken place in the scene of crime i.e. the land in dispute between accused Nos. 1 and 2 and the deceased Shrikant, but accused Nos. 1 to 4 had been to the scene of crime with a bullock cart and while they were engaging the work in that field, on seeing these persons the deceased Shrikant who had been to that place came by saying that he had initiated a civil case in O.S. No. 849/2013 for specific performance and in that suit he had obtained a temporary injunction order against accused Nos. 1 and 2 for not to alienate the said property. Because of this civil suit in respect of the property, which was depicted in the executed agreement of sale in between the deceased Shrikant and accused Nos. 1 and 2 on 31.1.2008 that the deceased Shrikant had given two lakh rupees as earnest money towards sale consideration of two lakh fifty thousand rupees, accused Nos. 1 and 2 have failed to execute the sale deed in terms of agreement of sale. 1 and 2 on 31.1.2008 that the deceased Shrikant had given two lakh rupees as earnest money towards sale consideration of two lakh fifty thousand rupees, accused Nos. 1 and 2 have failed to execute the sale deed in terms of agreement of sale. Therefore because of this action on the part of the deceased Shrikant, initiation of civil case in O.S. No. 849/2013 for specific performance, against accused Nos. 1 and 2, it should not be ended in a criminal case by assaulting the deceased Shrikant with MO.1 sickle. In the process of facilitation by accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4, that accused No. 1 Vithal gave a fatal blow on the vital part of head and also neck, as a result of that, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and he was shifted from the scene of crime to the District Civil Hospital, Belaggavi and on examination the medical officer declared the injured as brought dead. But accused No. 1 alone gave blow on the person of the deceased and inflicted the injuries. 31. On a cursory glance of evidence of PW-1 to PW-4 coupled with the evidence of PW-13 being an Investigating Officer who held the investigation thoroughly by drawing spot mahazar, so also the seizure mahazar and laid the charge sheet against the accused, MO.1 and MO.10 were seized by PW-13 on the basis of the voluntary statement made by accused No. 1 Vithal and at the instance of accused No. 1 from the cattle shed from the house of his sister. The blood stains were found on the clothes of accused No. 1 and so also to MO.1 sickle said to have been used by accused No. 1 Vithal and a report was given as per Ex.P.10. But looking into the facts and circumstances of the case of prosecution, though the self defence has been taken by the counsel for the appellants in respect of accused No. 1 Vithal, though the deceased being a stout and healthily maintaining the body, if the scuffle was taken only between the deceased and accused No. 1 Vithal, who was said to be holding a deadly weapon MO.1 sickle, it is difficult to believe the version of self defence as taken by the counsel for the appellants. But accused No. 1 Vithal who assaulted the deceased with means of MO.1 sickle, even tried to defend or protect him at the forceful stroke, but no injuries were sustained by Vithal, but all the injuries found on the deceased, but the said facts are unnatural. 32. These are the contentions taken by the learned Addl. SPP for State and emphatically contending that the trial Court had considered the evidence of PW-1 to PW-4 coupled with the evidence of PW-13 and rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt and rightly held conviction against accused Nos. 1 to 4. 33. Even the concept of section 34 of IPC, nature of liability of a person acting in furtherance of common intention of all, has also been rightly applied. The learned Addl. SPP for the State placed reliance on a decision reported in Lala Ram vs. State of Rajasthan, (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 634. In this judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court has extensively addressed issues of section 34 of IPC. But section 34 has been enacted on the principle of joint liability in the doing of a criminal act. The section is only a rule of evidence and does not create a substantive offence. The distinctive feature of the section is the element of participation in action. The liability of one person for an offence committed by another in the course of criminal act perpetrated by several persons arises under Section 34 if such criminal act is done in furtherance of a common intention of the persons who join in committing the crime. As it originally stood section 34 itself is in terms that when a criminal act is done by several persons, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if the act was done by him alone. But this section does not say specifically 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 animating the accused leading to the doing of a criminal act in furtherance of such intention. But this section does not say specifically 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 animating the accused leading to the doing of a criminal act in furtherance of such intention. As a result of the application of principles enunciated in section 34, when an accused is convicted under section 302 read with section 34 of IPC, in law it means that the accused is liable for the act which caused death of the deceased in the same manner as if it was done by him alone. 34. In the instant case though accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 held the deceased firmly or otherwise to say caught hold the deceased Shrikant was enough to accused No. 1 to give a fatal blow with means of MO.1 sickle and inflicted the injuries No. 1 to 13 as reflected in the postmortem report Ex.P.9 and that MO.1 sickle has been subjected to examination by the medical officer who issued Ex.P.10 opinion report. The corresponding vital object with which the accused No. 1 inflicted the injuries on the person of deceased, has been established by the prosecution by relying upon the evidence of PW-1 to PW-4 and they are the eye witnesses on the part of the prosecution. Therefore, this reliance is squarely applicable to the given facts and circumstances of the case. 35. In a decision reported in Sewa Ram and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2007) 15 SCC 75 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has addressed the scope of section 34 of IPC. This section has been enacted on the principles of joint liability in the doing of a criminal act. The section is only a rule of evidence and does not create a substantive offence. The distinctive feature of the section is the element of participation in action. The liability of one person for an offence committed by another in the course of criminal act perpetrated by several persons arises under Section 34, if such criminal act is done in furtherance of a common intention of the persons who join in committing the crime. Section 34 is an aiding provision be it pre-arranged or on the spur of the moment; but it must necessarily be before the commission of the crime. Section 34 is an aiding provision be it pre-arranged or on the spur of the moment; but it must necessarily be before the commission of the crime. The true concept of the section is that if two or more persons intentionally do an act jointly, the position in law is just the same as if each of them has done it individually by himself. This citation is also squarely applicable to the present case on hand. 36. In a decision reported in Akhlaq vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2009) 17 SCC 221 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has extensively addressed the scope and object of section 34 of IPC. To apply Section 34 IPC, two factors must be established: (i) common intention and (ii) participation of the accused in the commission of an offence. If common intention is proved but if no overt act is attributed to the individual accused, Section 34 will be attracted as it involves vicarious liability. It is not possible to have direct evidence of common intention in every matter. It has to be inferred in appropriate cases from the facts and circumstances of each case. This citation is also squarely applicable to the given facts and circumstances of the case, as the accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 being the facilitators to accused No. 1 Vithal and due to the said act accused No. 1 gave a fatal blow with means of MO.1 sickle by choosing the vital parts and committed murder of the deceased Shrikant. Therefore, in these appeals it does not call for any interference and there is no warranting circumstances arise wherein the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence of PW-1 to PW-4 coupled with the evidence of PW-13 being an Investigating Officer and even the contents at Ex.P.1 complaint and so also the contents at Ex.P.20 FIR said to have been recorded by PW-14. The trial Court has appreciated the aforesaid vital evidence on the part of the prosecution. Therefore under these appeals it does not call for any interference as sought for by urging various grounds. There is no perversity or any absurdity in the judgment rendered by the trial Court, and also not found to be erroneous as contended by the learned counsel for the appellants in both these appeals. On these premises the learned Addl. Therefore under these appeals it does not call for any interference as sought for by urging various grounds. There is no perversity or any absurdity in the judgment rendered by the trial Court, and also not found to be erroneous as contended by the learned counsel for the appellants in both these appeals. On these premises the learned Addl. SPP for the State seeking for dismissal of the appeals by confirming the judgment of conviction dated 22.11.2016 and sentence rendered by the trial Court in S.C. No. 287/2013 by holding conviction under section 302, 341, 506 read with section 34 of IPC, which is incorporated in the operative portion of the order. 37. It is in this background of the contention as taken by the learned counsel for the appellants and so also the counter made by the learned Addl. SPP for the State, it is relevant to refer some evidence of PW-1 to PW-4 even regarding to the injuries inflicted on the person of the deceased Shrikant. But PW-9 being a medical officer who had conducted autopsy over the dead body has noticed the injuries inflicted on the body of the deceased as under: (1) chop wound of 12 x 4 cms, a cross whole on left side of neck, extending from left ear backwards, tracing the injury it transects the musculature of neck carotid and jugular vessels up to cervical vertebral. (2) injury 1 extends as a bone deep incised wound across left cheek up to outer angle of left eye. (3) lower part of left ear partially chopped. (4) multiple chop wounds across whole of left side of scalp, raising multiple flaps of scalp skin, exposing the left front temporal parietal area of skull. (5) vertical chop wound across midline of chin, bone deep, 10 x 2 cms, exposing the mandible, extending into oral cavity. (6) bone deep puncture would of 2 x 1 cms across sternal notch. (7) bone deed incised wound between the web space of middle and ring finger of right hand, exposing the left tenderness and metacarpal bones. (8) bone deep chop wound of 10 x 8 cms over the inner and outer aspects of lower part left forearm exposing muscles and bones of lower part of left forearm. (9) chop wound of 5 x 3 cms, over back of left hand exposing the muscles and tendons. (8) bone deep chop wound of 10 x 8 cms over the inner and outer aspects of lower part left forearm exposing muscles and bones of lower part of left forearm. (9) chop wound of 5 x 3 cms, over back of left hand exposing the muscles and tendons. (10) multiple incised wounds on the fingers over palmar aspect of left hand, injuries 7, 8, 9 and 10 suggestive of defensive injuries. (11) muscle deep incised wound of 3 x 1 cms across outer aspect of right shoulder. (12) fracture dislocation of left big toe surrounded by diffuse grazed abrasion of whole toe. (13) injuries are ante mortem in nature, have clean margins and caused by sharp cutting moderately heavy weapon. 38. PW-9 being a doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body and issued the postmortem report as per Ex.P.9 has opined that death is due to hemorrhagic shock as a result of injury to blood vessels of neck (carotids and jugular) sustained by a sharp cutting moderately heavy weapon. It is also mentioned in Ex.P.9 that large vessels of neck on left side was ruptured. 39. This PW-9 has been subjected to cross examination, but injuries inflicted on the person of the deceased were not disputed. Ex.P.10 is the opinion report issued by PW-9 for having been subjected to examination of MO.1 sickle. But the deceased Shrikant died due to homicidal death and death was caused due to the rupture of large vessels of neck by assaulting with sharp weapon having medium weight. But in the instant case MO.1 sickle was said to have been used by accused No. 1 Vithal and he chosen the vital part of neck and also vital part of head which indicates that there was an intention to eliminate him, but the injuries on the body of the deceased have been in correspondence of MO.1 sickle. He has opined that such injuries can be possible by sharp edged weapon. Accordingly he had issued opinion report Ex.P.10. Though PW-9 was cross examined at length, nothing worthwhile has been elicited to disbelieve the theory of prosecution. 40. He has opined that such injuries can be possible by sharp edged weapon. Accordingly he had issued opinion report Ex.P.10. Though PW-9 was cross examined at length, nothing worthwhile has been elicited to disbelieve the theory of prosecution. 40. It is relevant to refer the evidence of PW-1 who is the author of the complaint Ex.P.1 and so also in his presence drawn the mahazar at Ex.P.5 for having seized the MOs.1 to 9 and also has identified Ex.P.4 photographs which were subjected in respect of the scene of crime. But PW-5 and PW-6 have been secured to act as pancha witnesses and in their presence PW-13 being an Investigating Officer who has drawn the spot mahazar as per Ex.P.5 and seized MOs.1 to 9 and also subjected the photos at Ex.P.4. PW-5 and PW-6 have been subjected to cross-examination on the part of the prosecution and also subjected to cross-examination by the counsel for the accused, but nothing worthwhile has been elicited to disbelieve the drawing of Ex.P.5 spot mahazar. PW-2 and PW-3 are said to be the sons of the deceased Shrikant, PW-1 is none other than the brother of the deceased on whose instruction the complaint Ex.P.1 has been lodged, PW-14 being the SHO of Rural P.S., Belagavi, received the complaint Ex.P.1, recorded the FIR as per Ex.P.20 and then PW-13 being the Investigating Officer taken the further investigation and thoroughly investigated the case and laid the charge sheet against the accused. PW-12 being the scientific officer has stated in his evidence that he has made chemical testing of the articles MO.1 to MO.10 seized and sent for chemical examination and issued report as per Ex.P.12. He opined that item Nos. 1 to 6 and 8 to 10 were stained with ‘B’ blood group and 1 to 6 are clothes of deceased as well as blood stained mud seized at the scene of crime. Item No. 8 one pair rubber chappal are seized from the scene of crime, these are all the evidence forthcoming on the part of prosecution to prove the guilt of accused. The accused were arrested by PW-13 even after lapse of 3 days from the date of incident, but in all these circumstances on the part of prosecution it is stated that the blood stain found on item Nos. 1 to 6 and 8 must be the blood of the deceased Shrikant. The accused were arrested by PW-13 even after lapse of 3 days from the date of incident, but in all these circumstances on the part of prosecution it is stated that the blood stain found on item Nos. 1 to 6 and 8 must be the blood of the deceased Shrikant. The said blood belongs to ‘B’ group. This indicates that the blood group of deceased was ‘B’ group. 41. PW-14 being the SHO, who received the complaint Ex.P.1 and based upon the complaint registered the case in Crime No. 169/2013 for the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC. But Ex.P.1 indicates the endorsement that it was received at 5.45 p.m. on 16.6.2013, whereas the incident took place on that day at around 2.45 p.m. The FIR at Ex.P.20 is said to have been recorded by PW-14. The criminal law was set into motion by registering the crime and thereafter PW-13 being the Investigating Officer has proceeded with the case as contemplated under section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. and then laid the charge sheet against the accused by invoking section 302, 341 and 506 of IPC, 1860. However the role of accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in this case is that they are the facilitators to accused No. 1 Vithal, who has chosen the vital parts of the deceased Shrikant i.e. head portion and neck portion and gave a fatal blow with means of deadly weapon MO.1 sickle, as a result of the merciless assault by accused No. 1, the deceased sustained grievous injuries which are indicated in Ex.P.9 postmortem report. But it is relevant to refer section 304 Part II of IPC, 1860, which reads as under: 304. But it is relevant to refer section 304 Part II of IPC, 1860, which reads as under: 304. Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder - Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. 42. Whereas section 304 Part II which is stated supra, necessary requirements are to make out an offence punishable under section 304 Part II of IPC the prosecution has proved death of the person in question. The said death was caused by that accused and with knowledge that he is likely to cause death, but in the instant case accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 being the facilitators to accused No. 1 Vithal, as a result of which he had assaulted with means of MO.1 sickle by choosing the vital part of neck and also vital part of head. That accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 have caught hold the deceased Shrikant and they held him firmly because of that reason accused No. 1 Vithal had assaulted with means of deadly weapon MO.1 sickle and caused injuries over the person of the deceased which is reflected in Ex.P.9 autopsy report issued by PW-9 doctor. 43. The prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PW-1 to PW-4 coupled with the evidence of PW-13. Though the defence of the counsel has been taken as true that there were contradictions in the prosecution witnesses, but it is only a minor contradictions. Even there is no worthwhile neither inconsistent and contradictions elicited in the evidence though the witnesses have been cross examined thoroughly. Though the defence of the counsel has been taken as true that there were contradictions in the prosecution witnesses, but it is only a minor contradictions. Even there is no worthwhile neither inconsistent and contradictions elicited in the evidence though the witnesses have been cross examined thoroughly. But accused No. 1 Vithal who had assaulted with means of MO.1 sickle, which is a deadly weapon and as a result of that the deceased Shrikant had sustained injuries and died during the course of shifting from the scene of crime to the District Civil Hospital, Belagavi on 16.6.2013. On examination of the body by a medical officer, that medical officer declared him as brought dead. But the accused Vithal who had inflicted injuries on the deceased, were of such a nature, that they were likely to cause death, but accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were also present in the scene of crime and caught hold the deceased Shrikant firmly and because of that reason only the accused No. 1 Vithal gave fatal blow on the vital part of the deceased, as a result of that he died while he was shifting in a 407 tempo to the District Hospital, Belagavi. There can be no doubt that the accused intended to cause and did cause the injuries even though accused No. 1 Vithal had caused injuries but with the assistance of accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4. Therefore the accused No. 1 Vithal is liable for conviction for three counts of offence i.e. under section 302, 341 and 506 of IPC. But, similarly accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are liable for conviction under section 341, 506 of IPC, and instead of 302, they are liable for the offence punishable under section 304 Part II of IPC. With this, accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are liable to be punished for the offence punishable under section 304 Part II of IPC, which is stated supra, as the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt by relying upon the evidence of PW-1 to PW-4 and also the evidence of PW-13 being the Investigating Officer. 44. These witnesses are vital in nature and so also they are the natural witnesses even though they have been stated that they are related to each other and interested witnesses. 44. These witnesses are vital in nature and so also they are the natural witnesses even though they have been stated that they are related to each other and interested witnesses. Accordingly the trial Court had appreciated the evidence adduced by the prosecution as facilitated for securing the conviction under section 302 of IPC in respect of accused No. 1 Vithal. But accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are not liable for punishment under section 302 of IPC but they are liable for punishment under section 304 Part II of IPC. Therefore it requires interference under these appeals in respect of accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4, respectively as they are required to be convicted for the offence punishable under section 304 part II of IPC instead of 302 of IPC as held by the trial Court. Accordingly we are of the opinion that it requires interference for the reasons stated supra. But the offence under section 302 of IPC including the offence under section 341 and 506 of IPC in respect of the appellant Vithal, who is arranged as accused No. 1 is required to be confirmed. In so far as the offence of accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4, they are liable for the offence punishable under section 304 Part II of IPC but the offence under section 341 and 506 is liable to be confirmed, which is ordered by the trial Court. 45. In terms of the aforesaid reasons, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER: (i) The appeal in Crl. Appeal No. 100340/2016 and the appeal in Crl. Appeal No. 100003/2017 are allowed in part. (ii) The appeal in respect of appellant No. 1 Shri Vithal in Crl. Appeal No. 100340/2016, who is arranged as accused No. 1 is hereby dismissed. Consequently, the conviction held against him by judgment dated 22.11.2016, in S.C. No. 287/2013, by the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, for the offence punishable under sections 302, 341 and 506 of IPC is hereby confirmed. (iii) The appeal in respect of appellant No. 2 in Crl. Appeal No. 100340/2016, who is arranged as accused No. 3, and the appeal in respect of appellants No. 1 and 2 in Crl. Appeal No. 100003/2017, who are arranged as accused Nos. 2 and 4, are hereby allowed in part. (iii) The appeal in respect of appellant No. 2 in Crl. Appeal No. 100340/2016, who is arranged as accused No. 3, and the appeal in respect of appellants No. 1 and 2 in Crl. Appeal No. 100003/2017, who are arranged as accused Nos. 2 and 4, are hereby allowed in part. Consequently, the sentence ordered against them by the trial Court in S.C. No. 287/2013 for the offence punishable under sections 341 and 506 of IPC is hereby confirmed. (iv) Further, these accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are hereby convicted for the offence punishable under section 304 Part II of IPC instead of section 302 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 (ten) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand rupees) each. (v) Though the learned counsel for the appellants is seeking some leniency for holding conviction against accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 for the offence punishable under section 304 Part II, but in view of the role played by them, they do not deserve for any leniency as they have sought for. (vi) Though accused Nos. 1 to 4 have been enlarged on bail with subject to conditions stipulated therein in these appeals, their bail bonds stand cancelled. The trial Court, in S.C. No. 287/2013, is directed to secure the presence of accused Nos. 1 to 4 for serving the sentence for the offence as indicated above. (vii) If accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 have already deposited the fine amount of Rs. 25,000/- each for the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC, but in these appeals they being convicted for the offence punishable under section 304 Part II of IPC instead of section 302 and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, for the said offence, the excess amount of fine deposited by them shall be refunded to them with due identification, in accordance with law. (viii) Whatever the fine amount imposed and deposited by accused Nos. 5,000/- each, for the said offence, the excess amount of fine deposited by them shall be refunded to them with due identification, in accordance with law. (viii) Whatever the fine amount imposed and deposited by accused Nos. 1 to 4 in S.C. No. 287/2013 shall be paid to the widow of deceased Shrikant as compensation as provided under section 357 of Cr.P.C. (ix) A copy of this judgment and the trial Court records shall be sent to the concerned trial Court, with a direction to do the further needful in the matter, immediately, in accordance with law. 46. Ordered accordingly.