JUDGMENT 1. These two Revision Applications, under Section 379 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), question legality, correctness and propriety of the order dated 05.04.2022, by which, the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Mapusa, Goa, declined to discharge the applicants-accused nos. 2, 3 and 4, who are facing trial in Sessions Case (302) No. 1/2022, for having committed offences punishable under Sections 341 and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 2. Heard learned Counsel for the applicants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. Perused the impugned order and the Final Report. 3. The provisions of Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. empowers the Judge to discharge the accused, if upon consideration of the record of the case, and documents submitted therein, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, if he considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 4. In the case of Asim Sharif Vs. National Investigation Agency, (2019) 7 SCC 148 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the words 'no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused' clearly show that the Judge is not a mere post office to frame the charge at the behest of the prosecution, but has to exercise judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether, a case is made out for trial by the prosecution. Thus, it is held that, at the stage of Section 227, the Judge has merely to sift the evidence to find out whether or not, there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The sufficiency of the ground would take within its fold the nature of the evidence recorded by the police or the documents produced before the Court, which ex facie disclose that there are sufficient circumstances to frame a charge against the accused. 5. Therefore, the question is upon, evaluating the material brought on record by the prosecution, whether, the facts taken at their face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients, constituting the offence. To appreciate the submissions of the Counsel for the applicants and of the learned prosecutor, briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the crime in question came to be registered on 24.10.2021, at the instance of Mr. To appreciate the submissions of the Counsel for the applicants and of the learned prosecutor, briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the crime in question came to be registered on 24.10.2021, at the instance of Mr. Alwyn Alemao, on the allegations that, his brother was brutally assaulted by one Salik Bepari (accused no. 1) and his friends. Whereafter the applicants were arrested in Crime on the accusations of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 302, read with section 34 of the IPC. 6. On 26.10.2021, dead body of deceased Ashwin Alemao was referred for postmortem examination. The autopsy examination revealed, cause of death was due to damage of head and brain vide injury no. 1, as a result of blunt force impact by object/surface, which was ante-mortem, at the time of death and fatal in the ordinary course of nature. 7. In the course of investigation, although, prosecution has recorded statements of many witnesses, however, the alleged incident of assault was witnessed by two persons; (i) Mr. Jaideep Milind Shivsagar and (ii) Mr. Yuvaan Vishal Makar. The statements of these two eye witnesses clearly describe the incident of assault. Jaideep Shivsagar disclosed the incident stating that on 23. 10.2021, after having dinner, he was sitting in the balcony with Yuvaan Makar till late night. At around 1:08 am of 25.10.2021, he saw that two persons came on scooter and they both stopped near Antoneta General Store Shop. The one who was riding the bike, got down from the bike, whereafter, he pulled the other one down from the scooter and gave fist blows on the face and propped him up in front of the store. The boy who was riding the bike then started riding away and the injured started turning and trying to walk away from the shop. Whereafter, the bike rider abused him and started punching him more and dragged him across the street. Again he propped him up against the gate. Witness stated that two other bikes carrying three persons arrived on the spot. Whereafter, the perpetrator again gave a flying kick on the chest region of the injured and continued to beat him. The statement of Jaideep Shivsagar has been corroborated on material facts, by another witness, Yuvaan Vishal Makar. Except these two persons, incident was not seen by any other witness. 8. Whereafter, the perpetrator again gave a flying kick on the chest region of the injured and continued to beat him. The statement of Jaideep Shivsagar has been corroborated on material facts, by another witness, Yuvaan Vishal Makar. Except these two persons, incident was not seen by any other witness. 8. The investigation revealed, that the person, who assaulted the deceased was accused no. 1, who has been identified by these two witnesses in the test identification parade. In investigation, fact was unfolded that the three persons ,who came on the spot on motor cycles, were the applicants and co-accused. However, these two eye witnesses have not attributed overact to the applicants, although, they marked their presence on the spot. Therefore, prima facie, evidence brought on record by the prosecution does not indicate complicity of the applicants, in mounting assault and/or causing murder of the deceased. That apart, there is neither recovery of incriminating material, at the instance of the applicants, nor there is any material to suggest that there was any previous enmity between the applicants and the deceased nor there is any material to suggest that the applicants, in the furtherance of common intention, caused the murder of the deceased. In fact, statement of former girlfriend of accused no. 1 suggest, enmity between accused no. 1 and deceased. 9. Mr. Bhobe, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that to attract Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, it is not necessary that each one of the accused must assault the deceased. Mr. Bhobe submitted that it is enough, if it is shown that the applicant, caused a common offence, and in furtherance thereof, each one played their assigned role by doing separate act, similar or diverse. Mr. Bhobe submitted that, in this case, the chronology of events suggest that the applicants were sharing the common intention and mere distancing from the scene, cannot absolve the accused. The submission of Mr. Bhobe is that 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 common intention of the person to join in committing the crime. Mr. Bhobe submitted that soon before the alleged incident, the deceased was in the company of the applicants alongwith accused no. 1. Mr. Mr. Bhobe submitted that soon before the alleged incident, the deceased was in the company of the applicants alongwith accused no. 1. Mr. Bhobe submitted that direct proof of common intention is seldom available and therefore, such intention can only be available on circumstances, appearing from the facts of the case and the proved circumstances. Mr. Bhobe, therefore, submitted that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the applicants and therefore, the orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge, declining the discharge of the accused may not be interfered with. 10. Mr. Bhobe has rightly submitted that the direct proof of the common intention is seldom available, however, in the case at hand, the evidence of prosecution witnesses (statements) do not even suggest remotely or otherwise, that the applicants were harbouring grudge against the deceased, on any count or had previous enmity with him. The evidence does not suggest that there was a pre-arranged plan, in pursuance to which, the applicants were called on the spot and as per the plan, the accused no. 1 assaulted the deceased. 11. Factually speaking, the evidence suggests that the applicants initially tried to pacify the quarrel between the deceased and the accused no. 1. However, it appears that the accused no. 1 forcibly took away the deceased from the company of the applicants, on the scooter and thereafter, brutally assaulted him, which act was seen and witnessed by two persons. In view of this fact, which emerges from the evidence, submission of Mr. Bhobe that, merely the accused were distancing them from the actual incident, by itself, was not sufficient to discharge them, cannot be accepted. It is certain that, the applicants were in the company of the deceased and accused no. 1, before the incident of actual assault, but, that fact, itself was not enough to, suspect their complicity and would not be a ground for believing and presuming their complicity in the crime. Law, is, if the evidence, which the prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove guilt of accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross examination, if any, cannot show that accused committed the offence, only then, there will be no sufficient grounds for proceeding with the trial. 12. Law, is, if the evidence, which the prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove guilt of accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross examination, if any, cannot show that accused committed the offence, only then, there will be no sufficient grounds for proceeding with the trial. 12. In fact, the learned Sessions Judge, although, declined to discharge the accused has observed in so many words in his order that there are no sufficient grounds to proceed against the applicants. He observed, thus: ''There was a simmering resentment towards the deceased on the part of the accused no. 1, because the deceased was in a relationship with his former girlfriend.'' 'The incident of the assault itself had taken place not just once, but thrice, firstly, at the sluice gate where the accused were partying and drinking together; then on the way when the other accused were taking the deceased for medical treatment and finally, in front of the gate of the girlfriend, where accused no. 1 continued to assault the deceased.'' The aforestated observations, founded on evidence, do indicate that the assault was mounted by the accused no. 1 on the deceased because the deceased was in relationship with his former girlfriend. And, further, indicate that the deceased was assaulted, firstly, while the applicants, accused no. 1 and deceased were partying and drinking together; thereafter on the way, while applicants were taking the deceased for medical treatment and lastly, in front of the gate of girlfriend of the deceased. In fact, material on record point out that after partying and drinking together, when accused no. 1 assaulted the deceased, applicants had intervened and pacified the quarrel. This fact indicates that the applicants had no intention nor had shared the intention with the accused no. 1 to cause the death of the deceased. 13. For all these reasons, in my view, simply because the applicants were in the company of the deceased and accused no. 1, just before the alleged incident of assault, by itself, would not constitute an incriminating circumstance to suggest that they were sharing common intention with accused no. 1, as alleged by the prosecution. Thus, in my considered view, there was no sufficient ground to proceed against the applicants for the offences allegedly committed by them. As a result, Applications are allowed. 1, as alleged by the prosecution. Thus, in my considered view, there was no sufficient ground to proceed against the applicants for the offences allegedly committed by them. As a result, Applications are allowed. Hence the following order: Order Impugned order dated 05.04.2022, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, North Goa at Mapusa, made in Sessions Case (302) No. 1/2022, is quashed and set aside qua Applicants and are discharged in the aforesaid sessions case.