JUDGMENT : ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA, J. 1. Heard Mr. P.K. Tiwari, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. R.L. Thungon, for the appellant and Mr. G. Talo, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Arunachal Pradesh. 2. This is an appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 17.12.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, West Sessions Division, Basar in Basar Sessions Case No. 788/2012 u/s 302/34 IPC, whereby the accused/appellant Likhu Chetry was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine, further two months rigorous imprisonment for committing the offence u/s 302/34 IPC. 3. An FIR being Likabali PS Case No. 21/2011 u/s 302/34 IPC was lodged by the informant Md. Kasem Ali dated 28.07.2011 before the Officer-in-Charge of Likabali police station, inter-alia stating that on 27.07.2011 at about 1850 hours, three people hired a vehicle bearing registration No. AR-01D-5864 from Naharlagun to Likabali. The persons introduced themselves as labourers and paid Rs. 2000/- as an advance with a promise to pay the balance amount Rs. 1500/- on arrival at Likabali. The driver of the vehicle Asor Ali also took the informant along with him to help him during the return journey from Likabali at night as the informant is also a driver and a good friend of Asor Ali. On reaching Likabali near the Gai Nodi river bank, the persons concerned took the driver Asor Ali with them on the pretext of making the payment. The informant after waiting for about half an hour and upon finding that the driver of the vehicle Asor Ali did not return, got down from the vehicle and found that the driver Asor Ali was already killed with a Nepali Khukri. The informant stated that the persons concerned had also attacked him, but he managed to flee away towards the jungle by taking advantage of the darkness and spend the night inside the jungle. 4. Upon charge-sheet being submitted the three persons namely Babu Das, Md. Hazrat Ali and the accused/appellant Likhu Chetry were charged of having committed the murder by intentionally causing death to Asor Ali with a dao on 27.07.2011 at the Gai Nodi river bank thereby committing an offence u/s 302/34 of the IPC in furtherance of a common intention. 5. 4. Upon charge-sheet being submitted the three persons namely Babu Das, Md. Hazrat Ali and the accused/appellant Likhu Chetry were charged of having committed the murder by intentionally causing death to Asor Ali with a dao on 27.07.2011 at the Gai Nodi river bank thereby committing an offence u/s 302/34 of the IPC in furtherance of a common intention. 5. In course of the investigation, confessional statements in respect of all the three accused persons were recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. The accused Babu Das in his confessional statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. stated inter-alia that during their stay at a hotel in Naharlagun, they decided to hire a car from Naharlagun and take it to Likabali with the intention to snatch the car and sell it to anyone from where they can get some money. Prior to it, it was stated that the three persons were entitled to some money from another person Putin Kambu in respect of certain works that were performed and as the payments were not made in the required manner, they were in need of money. The accused Babu Das in his statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. stated that he had sent the accused Md. Hazrat Ali to purchase a sharp dagger or a local dao for using it for the purpose of snatching the car and accordingly the accused Md. Hazrat Ali purchased one local dao. Thereafter one vehicle was hired from Naharlagun at about 1830 hours, where the accused Md. Hazrat Ali and Likhu Chetry had boarded the vehicle. The accused Babu Das followed them in a bus and joined them at a dhaba called Dhemaji Dhaba. After taking dinner at Dhemaji Dhaba, they reached Likabali at around 2300 hours and as there were two drivers in their car, they decided to separate both of them. Accordingly, they were taken to the Gai river bank near Likabali, where the accused Babu Das got down from the vehicle on the pretext of having headache and vomiting. The accused Hazrat Ali took away the driver Asor Ali on the pretext of making payment and the accused Hazrat Ali killed the driver near the Gai river bank with a sharp edged dao. The accused Hazrat Ali had contacted the accused Babu Das over mobile phone of the deceased to inform that he had killed the driver. The accused Hazrat Ali took away the driver Asor Ali on the pretext of making payment and the accused Hazrat Ali killed the driver near the Gai river bank with a sharp edged dao. The accused Hazrat Ali had contacted the accused Babu Das over mobile phone of the deceased to inform that he had killed the driver. Accordingly, Babu Das directed the accused Hazrat Ali to also kill the other driver, who was waiting in the car with the accused/appellant Likhu Chetry. But the other driver managed to flee away from the custody of Likhu Chetry. As the other driver was shouting while running away, the other accused/appellant Likhu Chetry also ran away from the spot. 6. PW-1 Tania Heri deposed that he was the Manager of the hotel where the accused persons were present on the day of the occurrence and that he could recognize the accused Hazrat Ali. 7. PW-2 Rakesh Sharma in his deposition stated that the accused Babu Das was working under him and on 27.07.2011, the accused called him on his mobile phone stating that on that night he was proceeding from Itanagar to Pasighat in the night Sumo and had requested to pick him up from a place called Akajan. But the witness had refused to do so. But later on, the police enquired from him as his phone number appeared in the call list of the mobile phone of the accused Babu Das. 8. PW-3 Kasem Ali, who is the informant in his deposition stated that on 27.07.2011, the three accused persons approached the deceased Asor Ali at Naharlagun for taking them on the hired vehicle from Naharlagun to Likabali. On the request of his deceased friend, the witness also accompanied them. After reaching Likabali at about 10-11 p.m. the accused Babu Das got down at one point and after some time, the accused/appellant Likhu Chetry also got down and in the situation the witness asked them as to who would pay the balance of the amount. It was replied that the accused Babu Das would pay. Then the accused/appellant Likhu Chetry and the deceased Asor Ali got down and waited for Babu Das and the witness went ahead to drop the accused Hazrat Ali. When he came back to the place where the accused/appellant Likhu Chetry and the deceased Asor Ali were waiting, he could not see the accused Babu Das. Then the accused/appellant Likhu Chetry and the deceased Asor Ali got down and waited for Babu Das and the witness went ahead to drop the accused Hazrat Ali. When he came back to the place where the accused/appellant Likhu Chetry and the deceased Asor Ali were waiting, he could not see the accused Babu Das. After a while the accused Hazrat Ali came walking to the place where they were waiting and accused Hazrat Ali took the deceased Asor Ali along with him to a nearby place near the bank of the river with a promise to pay the balance of the amount. After about half an hour, it was only the accused Hazrat Ali who returned back and on being queried, the accused Hazrat Ali replied that the deceased Asor Ali had left before him. After some time, the witness could see a dao behind the back of the accused Hazrat Ali and on seeing that he had seen the dao the accused Hazrat Ali and the accused/appellant Likhu Chetry started chasing him. Out of fear, he shouted for help and ran through the jungle and reached Likabali police station and reported the matter. On the next day, the deadbody of the deceased Asor Ali was found with multiple cut injuries. In cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused/appellant Likhu Chetry and accused Babu Das, PW-3 stated that when he asked the accused Hazrat Ali about his friend Asor Ali, he was told that he had already left before him and also saw a dao hidden behind the back of the accused Hazrat Ali and he made a gesture to the accused/appellant Likhu Chetry to also get hold of the witness. But again it had been stated that although the accused Hazrat Ali and accused/appellant Likhu Chetry were chasing the witness, but it is possible that the accused/appellant Likhu Chetry was in fact running along with him. In cross examination by the learned counsel for the accused Hazrat Ali, the witness stated that as he was standing near the vehicle, he could clearly see due to the parking light of the vehicle that the accused Hazrat Ali after coming back was shivering and also he had a dao on his back. In cross examination by the learned counsel for the accused Hazrat Ali, the witness stated that as he was standing near the vehicle, he could clearly see due to the parking light of the vehicle that the accused Hazrat Ali after coming back was shivering and also he had a dao on his back. The witness also stated that there was no fight between the accused person and the deceased and he did not hear his friend crying for help as it was raining. 9. PW-4 Putin Kambu in his deposition stated that the accused persons were engaged by him as labourers for some PMGSY road construction work at Anini and as there was an off season for the work, he had required the three accused persons to go back to their respective home. 10. PW-5 Dr. N. Das at the relevant time was posted at CHC, Likabali and he had performed the postmortem on the deceased Asor Ali. The Doctor conducting the postmortem found eight numbers of incised wounds on the person of the deceased and out of them, seven numbers were on his head and neck region. The injury on the left cheek measured 6 cm x ½ cm x ½ cm, two injuries on the left side of the scalp measured about 5 cm x ½ cm x ½ cm, one injury was in nape of neck and measured about 8 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm, another cut injury was just below the jaw in left side, extended backwards and measured 5 cm x 1 cm x 1cm and two incised cuts which were in left side of the neck, measured about 6 cm x 2 cm x 2 cm and great vessels of head and neck were severed here. The eighth wound was a cut in right forefinger, which was more of a wound due to a defensive posture of the deceased. The opinion given was that the deceased was assaulted with a heavy sharp cutting weapon as all the wounds had regular margin and were deep and according to the Doctor the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. 11. PW-6 Ibom Tao, who was the EAC-cum-JMFC in his deposition stated that he had recorded the confessional statements of the accused Hazrat Ali, accused Babu Das and the accused/appellant Likhu Chetry in connection with Likabali PS Case No. 21/2011 u/s 302/34 IPC. 11. PW-6 Ibom Tao, who was the EAC-cum-JMFC in his deposition stated that he had recorded the confessional statements of the accused Hazrat Ali, accused Babu Das and the accused/appellant Likhu Chetry in connection with Likabali PS Case No. 21/2011 u/s 302/34 IPC. The witness stated as to what was stated in the respective confessional statements by the accused Hazrat Ali, accused Babu Das and the accused/appellant Likhu Chetry. We take note that the PW-6 was not cross-examined by the defence in any respect that the confessional statements were not recorded strictly as per the requirements of law. 12. PW-7 T. Bage who was the Investigating Officer in his deposition stated the manner in which the investigation was conducted. In cross examination by the learned counsel for the accused/appellant Likhu Chetry and accused Babu Das, the Investigating Officer stated that after the informant Kasem Ali came to know that the accused Hazrat Ali had killed the deceased Ansor Ali, both Kasem Ali and the accused/appellant Likhu Chetry ran away from the place of occurrence. 13. Mr. P.K. Tiwari, learned senior counsel for the accused/appellant Likhu Chetry raises the contention that from the evidence and materials on record, it cannot be accepted that the necessary facts and circumstances exist in the present appeal to bring in the accused/appellant Likhu Chetry within the purview of section 34 of IPC, so as to convict him for an offence u/s 302 IPC, which otherwise the evidence and materials on record, clearly reveals may have been committed by another accused Hazrat Ali. The learned senior counsel refers to the confessional statements of accused Babu Das and that of accused Hazrat Ali to contend that the conduct of the accused/appellant Likhu Chetry may satisfy the requirements of a common intention to snatch the vehicle concerned with the intention to sell it off and share the money that may arise out of it, but the intention to cause death to the deceased Asor Ali was a separate meeting of minds between the other accused persons to which the accused/appellant Likhu Chetry remains unconnected. For the purpose, the learned senior counsel refers to the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Arun vs. State by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu, (2008) 15 SCC 501 , Dharam Pal and Others vs. State of Haryana, (1978) 4 SCC 440 and Krishnamurthy alias Gunodu and Others vs. State of Karnataka, 2022 SCC Online SC 230. 14. It is a proposition being laid down by the Supreme Court in Dharam Pal (supra) that it may be a situation where some persons start with a pre-arranged plan to commit a minor offence, but they may in the course of their committing the minor offence come to an understanding to commit a major offence as well and such understanding may appear from the conduct of the persons sought to be made vicariously liable for the act of the principal culprit. But again, it is a proposition laid down by the Supreme Court that there is no law to the knowledge which lays down that a person accompanying the principal culprit shares his intention in respect of every act which the latter might eventually commit and the existence or otherwise of the common intention depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 15. The aforesaid proposition laid down by the Supreme Court in Dharam Pal (Supra) was followed in Arun (supra). In Arun (supra), the factual circumstances leading to the appeal was that the deceased, who was a Pharmacist, came back to his residence and kept the daily cash on the sofa and went for his bath. At that time, the two accused persons came and stood at the entrance of the house, but when the deceased got up from his chair and moved towards them asking as to why they had entered his house, then one of the accused persons shot the deceased with a gun and the said accused person in that appeal was numbered A-4. In the circumstances, the conclusion arrived at by the Supreme Court was that the murderous assault on the deceased by the accused A-4 was his individual act and there was no evidence to suggest of any common intention to commit the murder although there may have been a common intention between the two persons, who entered the house of the deceased to commit the offence of taking away the cash that was kept on the sofa. 16. 16. On the legal principle of invoking the provisions of Section 34 of the IPC, Mr. G. Talo, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Arunachal Pradesh refers to a pronouncement of the Allahabad High Court in State vs. Saidu Khan, 1951 (0) Cri. L.J. 131. In the matter before the Allahabad High Court, a reference was made to the larger bench upon two questions as to if a person is attacked by several persons numbering less than five and grievous hurt is caused, and it is not known who caused the grievous hurt, can all of them be convicted of causing grievous hurt, with the aid of section 34 IPC. The second question framed was that if a person is attacked by several persons numbering less than five and grievous hurt is caused, and it is known which of them caused the grievous hurt, can others be convicted of grievous hurt with the aid of Section 34 of IPC. 17. The Allahabad High Court in paragraph 136 of its judgment had rendered a view that if a person is attacked by several persons numbering less than five and grievous hurt is caused and it is not known who caused the grievous hurt, all of them can be convicted of causing grievous hurt with the aid of section 34 provided the criminal act was done in furtherance of the common intention of all. As regards the second question, the view formed was that if a person is attacked by several persons numbering less than five and grievous hurt is caused and it is known who caused the grievous hurt, in such a case the others can also be convicted of grievous hurt with the aid of section 34 of the PC, provided the criminal act was done in furtherance of the common intention of all. 18. By relying to the said proposition, it is the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that in the instant case, although the death to the deceased Asor Ali may have been caused by the accused Hazrat Ali on the instruction of the accused Babu Das, but there was a common intention formed by all the three accused persons and therefore, the facts and circumstances in which the offence was committed, even the accused/appellant Likhu Chetry can be convicted with the aid of section 34 of IPC. 19. 19. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 20. Some of the relevant evidence and materials on record can be taken note of. In the confessional statements of the accused Babu Das, it is stated that all the three accused persons had decided to hire a car from Naharlagun and take it to Likabali and thereafter snatch and sell it from where they can get some money. The confessional statement of accused Hazrat Ali reveals that upon the contractor under whom the accused persons were working having not paid the required money, the accused Babu Das made a plan to steal a car from Naharlagun and sell it so that the loans they have taken earlier can be repaid and the labourers wages be paid. Accordingly, accused Babu Das had instructed accused Hazrat Ali to hire a car from Naharlagun taxi stand, which was in a good condition and accordingly, the accused Hazrat Ali and the accused/appellant Likhu Chetry went to the Naharlagun taxi stand and hired a Wagon-R Maruti Car. When he called the accused Babu Das and told him that the car was hired, the accused Babu Das directed him to meet him at the tempo stand. Accordingly, the accused Hazrat Ali and accused/appellant Likhu Chetry proceeded towards the tempo stand with the taxi and two drivers. On seeing that the hired car had two drivers, the accused Babu Das refused to board the taxi and required the taxi to proceed to Bandardewa. Thereafter the accused Babu Das instructed the accused Hazrat Ali and accused/appellant Likhu Chetry to proceed in the hired taxi and wait for the accused Babu Das at a place called Dhemaji Dhaba. 21. The accused/appellant Likhu Chetry in his confessional statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. also stated that on 27.07.2011, the accused Babu Das and accused Hazrat Ali , but had asked him to go with them for driving a car and in return was promised that he would be paid a good amount of money. Accordingly, the accused Hazrat Ali told him that they are going to steal a car from Naharlagun and after selling the stolen car, he will be paid some money. Accordingly, the accused Hazrat Ali told him that they are going to steal a car from Naharlagun and after selling the stolen car, he will be paid some money. Accordingly, they reached the Dhemaji Dhaba at around 9.30 p.m., where accused Babu Das, who also boarded the vehicle told him that the vehicle would be sold at a place near Gensi and asked the accused/appellant Likhu Chetry to drive the vehicle up to Gensi. 22. PW-3 Kasem Ali, who was the other driver in the vehicle concerned, in his evidence stated that the three accused persons had approached his friend Asor Ali for taking them in his vehicle on hire from Naharlagun to Likabali and at one point, the accused Babu Das got down from the vehicle and thereafter the accused/appellant Likhu Chetry also got down. When it was asked about the payment of the balance amount, it was replied that the accused Babu Das would pay. Then the accused/appellant Likhu Chetry and the deceased driver Asor Ali got down from the vehicle and waited for Babu Das and the witness went ahead to drop the accused Hazrat Ali. When he came back to the place place where the accused/appellant Likhu Chetry and the deceased Asor Ali were waiting, he could not see the accused Babu Das. After a while the accused Hazrat Ali came walking to the place where they were waiting and accused Hazrat Ali took the deceased Asor Ali along with him to a nearby place near the bank of the river with a promise to pay the balance of the amount. After about half an hour, it was only the accused Hazrat Ali who returned back and on being quarried, the accused Hazrat Ali replied that the deceased Asor Ali had left before him. After some time, the witness could see a dao behind the back of the accused Hazrat Ali on being seen that he had seen the dao that the accused Hazrat Ali and the accused/appellant Likhu Chetry started chasing him. However, in cross examination, the PW-3 clarified that although it appeared that the accused persons were chasing him, but it is also possible that the accused/appellant Likhu Chetry was in fact running along with him. 23. However, in cross examination, the PW-3 clarified that although it appeared that the accused persons were chasing him, but it is also possible that the accused/appellant Likhu Chetry was in fact running along with him. 23. From the aforesaid evidence and materials on record, it is discernible that there was a common intention between the accused Babu Das and accused Hazrat Ali and accused/appellant Likhu Chetry to snatch the vehicle and thereafter sell it off and apportion the money thereof between themselves. In other words, the evidence and materials on record reveals that there was a common intention between the three accused persons to commit a minor offence of snatching away the vehicle and sell it off and thereafter apportion the money. But what is discernible from the confessional statement of the accused Babu Das and accused Hazrat Ali as well as from the evidence of PW-3 Kasem Ali, who was the other driver, who had accompanied in the vehicle that upon reaching Likabali, as there were two drivers in the car, the plan was to separate both of them and therefore, they were taken to the river bank of Gai river where the accused Babu Das got down from the vehicle and the accused Hazrat Ali took the driver Asor Ali on the pretext of making the payment. Thereafter, accused Hazrat Ali had killed the driver near the river bank with a sharp weapon. Accused Hazrat Ali thereafter contacted the accused Babu Das over the mobile phone to inform that he had killed the driver. Accordingly, accused Babu Das instructed the accused Hazrat Ali to also kill the other driver who was waiting in the car with accused/appellant Likhu Chetry, but the other driver managed to flee away from the custody of the accused/appellant Likhu Chetry. 24. The confessional statement of accused Hazrat Ali discerns that he and the deceased Asor Ali walked towards the Gai river and thereafter, the accused Hazrat Ali made a call on the mobile phone of accused Babu Das regarding payment of the hire charges, but the accused Babu Das had instructed the accused Hazrat Ali to kill the driver Asor Ali and bring the car back by requiring the accused/appellant Likhu Chetry to drive it. Accordingly, the accused Hazrat Ali took out the dao, which was with him and attacked the deceased Asor Ali from behind and cut him about 7 to 8 times on his neck and shoulder. The injuries described in the postmortem report also reveals of eight injuries around the face, head and neck of the deceased. After that the accused Hazrat Ali called the accused Babu Das and informed him that the deceased Asor Ali had been killed. When Hazrat Ali reached the place where the car was parked, the other driver being the informant PW-3 Kasem Ali started enquiring about the deceased Asor Ali and it was replied by Hazrat Ali that the deceased had already left the accused Hazrat Ali. But as he could not control himself and was shivering, the other driver PW-3 Kasem Ali shouted loudly and ran away and the other accused/appellant Likhu Chetry also ran away leaving the accused Hazrat Ali alone. At that stage, accused Hazrat Ali made a telephonic call to the accused Babu Das, who instructed him to also run away and leave the place immediately. As he ran away, he threw the dao on the river and reach Lakhimpur. The evidence of PW-3 also makes it discernible that the accused Hazrat Ali took away the deceased Asor Ali for the purpose of receiving the payment and after some time, he was left behind with the accused/appellant Likhu Chetry. When accused Hazrat Ali returned alone, the witness enquired as to what happened to the deceased Asor Ali and was told that he had already left before him. But the witness saw a dao hidden behind the back of the accused Hazrat Ali who had made a gesture to the accused/appellant Likhu Chetry to catch hold of him. At that stage, the witness ran through the jungle shouting for help. But in cross examination, he again says that the accused/appellant Likhu Chetry appeared to have been running along with him and not participating in the chase along with the accused Hazrat Ali. 25. The aforesaid facts and circumstances clearly establishes that the accused/appellant Likhu Chetry remained behind with the informant PW-3 Kasem Ali while the accused Hazarat Ali had taken away the deceased Asor Ali to the nearby jungle in the pretext of receiving the payment, where the offence of causing death to the deceased was caused. 25. The aforesaid facts and circumstances clearly establishes that the accused/appellant Likhu Chetry remained behind with the informant PW-3 Kasem Ali while the accused Hazarat Ali had taken away the deceased Asor Ali to the nearby jungle in the pretext of receiving the payment, where the offence of causing death to the deceased was caused. The confessional statement of accused Hazarat Ali and accused Babu Das clearly reveal that there was a communication between the two accused persons as regards the intention of causing death to the deceased Asor Ali and in such communication/conversation, the accused/appellant Likhu Chetry had neither any role nor it appears from such evidence that the accused/appellant Likhu Chetry had any knowledge that the deceased Asor Ali would be killed. 26. In the aforesaid background, we take note of the proposition laid down by the Supreme Court in Dharam Pal (supra), wherein in paragraphs 14 and 15, it is held as extracted: “14. It may be that when some persons start with a pre-arranged plan to commit a minor offence, they may in the course of their committing the minor offence come to an understanding to commit the major offence as well. Such an understanding may appear form the conduct of the persons sought to be made vicariously liable for the act of the principal culprit or from some other incriminatory evidence but the conduct or other evidence must be such as not to leave any room for doubt in that behalf. 15. A Criminal court fastening vicarious liability must satisfy itself as to the prior meeting of the minds of the principal culprit and his companions who are sought to be constructively made liable in respect of every act committed by the former. There is no law to our knowledge which lays down that a person accompanying the principal culprit shares his intention in respect of every act which the latter might eventually commit. The existence or otherwise of the common intention depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The intention of the principal offender and his companions to deal with any person who might intervene to stop the quarrel must be apparent from the conduct of the persons accompanying the principal culprit or some other clear and cogent incriminating piece of evidence. The intention of the principal offender and his companions to deal with any person who might intervene to stop the quarrel must be apparent from the conduct of the persons accompanying the principal culprit or some other clear and cogent incriminating piece of evidence. In the absence of such material, the companion or companions cannot justifiable be held guilty for every offence committed by the principal offender. As already stated, there is no evidence to justify the conclusion that Surta and Samme Singh, appellants shared the common intention with Dharam pal to commit the murder of Sardara Singh or to make an attempt on the life of Singh Ram and that the said acts were committed by Dharam pal in furtherance of the common intention of all the appellants. The common intention denotes action in concert and necessarily postulates a pre-arranged plan or prior meeting of minds and an element of participation in action. As pointed out above, the common intention to commit an offence graver than the one originally designed may develop during the execution of the original plan, e.g. during the progress of an attack on the person who is intended to be beaten but the evidence in that behalf should be clear and cogent for suspicion, however strong, cannot take palace of the proof which is essential to bring home the offence to the accused.” 27. We also take note that paragraphs 14 and 15 of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Dharam Pal (supra) was also quoted and followed in Arun (supra) in paragraph 33 thereof as well as in Krishnamurthi (supra) in paragraph 23 thereof. 28. In paragraphs 14 and 15 of Dharam Pal (supra), the proposition laid down by the Supreme Court is that although some persons may start with a pre-arranged plan to commit a minor offence but in course of their committing the minor offence, for which there was a pre-arranged plan, there may be a further understanding to commit a major offence as well. Further, there is no law to the knowledge which lays down that a person accompanying the principal culprit shares his intention in respect of every act which the latter might eventually commit and the existence or otherwise of the common intention depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 29. Further, there is no law to the knowledge which lays down that a person accompanying the principal culprit shares his intention in respect of every act which the latter might eventually commit and the existence or otherwise of the common intention depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 29. Taking note of the aforesaid two propositions, in the instant case, the evidence and the materials on record do reveal the common intention between the three accused persons Babu Das, Hazrat Ali and the accused/appellant Likhu Chetry to commit an offence of snatching away a vehicle and selling it off and to apportion the money thereof. In course of committing the said offence, there appears to be a further understanding to take away the deceased Asor Ali being the driver of the vehicle to another place and commit the offence of causing death to him. The evidence and materials on record reveals that in the understanding to cause death to the deceased Asor Ali, the accused/appellant Likhu Chetry did not have a role nor he played any part thereof. Although there are materials to show that there was a pre-arranged plan to commit the offence of snatching away a vehicle and selling it off, but for committing the offence of causing death to the deceased Asor Ali, no material is available to make it discernible that there was also a pre-arranged plan or an intention, which also included the accused/appellant Likhu Chetry to cause death to the deceased Asor Ali. 30. On the other hand, certain other evidence and materials on record indicate that the accused/appellant Likhu Chetry was unaware that death may also be caused to the deceased Asor Ali and when the said fact was revealed by the accused Hazrat Ali before the informant PW-3 Kasem Ali and the accused/appellant Likhu Chetry, the reaction of both of them was to run away from the place. 31. True, it can be stated that the accused/appellant Likhu Chetry was a part of the intention to cause the offence of snatching away the vehicle and selling it off, but the intention of causing death to the deceased Asor Ali cannot be inferred to be a part of the initial intention. 31. True, it can be stated that the accused/appellant Likhu Chetry was a part of the intention to cause the offence of snatching away the vehicle and selling it off, but the intention of causing death to the deceased Asor Ali cannot be inferred to be a part of the initial intention. Further, the evidence and materials on record reveals that the act of causing death to the deceased Asor Ali took place only after the telephonic call between the accused Babu Das and the accused Hazrat Ali. The accused/appellant Likhu Chetry was neither present nor appeared to have any role in such act. 32. In Mithu Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2001) 4 SCC 193 in paragraph 6, it had been held as extracted: “An inference as to common intention shall not be readily drawn; the culpable liability can arise only if such inference can be drawn with a certain degree of assurance.” 33. We also take note of the view of the Supreme Court in paragraph 32 of Arun (supra), wherein two persons had entered the premises of the deceased where certain cash amount were kept and one of the accused took out a gun and shot at the deceased causing his death. Even in such circumstance, a view was taken by the Supreme Court that the murderous assault on the deceased by the accused was his individual act and there was no evidence to suggest of any common intention to cause the murder. 34. With reference to the reliance of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Saidu Khan (supra), we take note of that it is only a principle of law that had been laid down by a larger bench upon a question being referred as to whether if amongst the persons who had participated in the act of committing the offence, if it is known as to who amongst them had caused the offence what would be implicated thereof. The larger bench of the Allahabad High Court had answered the said question by providing that in case the person who caused the offence is identifiable, the others can also be convicted with the aid of section 34 of the IPC provided the act was done in furtherance of a common intention of all. The larger bench of the Allahabad High Court had answered the said question by providing that in case the person who caused the offence is identifiable, the others can also be convicted with the aid of section 34 of the IPC provided the act was done in furtherance of a common intention of all. In other words, in such event also, even if we follow the view of the Allahabad High Court, the common intention of all to commit the offence would have to be established. 35. In the instant case, as already indicated above, no material is available on record to arrive at any conclusion that even for the act of causing death to the deceased Asor Ali, the accused/appellant Likhu Chetry had a common intention to achieve the same. 36. In view of the above, as the accused/appellant Likhu Chetry who had been convicted by the judgment and order dated 17.12.2018 in Basar Sessions Case No. 788/2012 under sections 302/34 IPC only on the premises of having him covered by section 34 IPC and in view of the conclusions arrived hereinabove that in the facts and circumstances of the matter as well as taking the relevant law into consideration, section 34 of IPC cannot be taken aid of to convict the accused/appellant Likhu Chetry, we set aside the conviction of the accused/appellant Likhu Chetry in Basar Sessions Case No. 788/2012 under sections 302/34 of the IPC and release the accused/appellant Likhu Chetry from custody forthwith. 37. We further provide that the observation made in this appeal shall not be relied upon nor be made the basis to arrive at any conclusion in any other appeal that the other two accused persons may have also filed and the observations are confined only in respect of the accused/appellant Likhu Chetry. 38. The appeal is allowed as indicated above. Send back the LCR immediately.