ORDER : 1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 21.06.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh in Session Trial No. 05/2023 whereby, charges under Sections 294, 506, 323 & 307 read with 34 of the IPC have been framed against the applicants, this Revision has been preferred. 2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that against the applicants No. 1 to 3, the charge under Sections 307/34 framed by the trial Court is bad and contrary to law. He submits that the Court below has framed the charges, in a mechanical manner, merely on the basis of assumptions or presumptions, without appreciating the evidence available on record. He further submits that the injured person in his statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. has categorically stated that the axe injury has been inflicted by Chandrashekhar i.e. applicant No. 4, therefore, vicarious liability cannot be fastened upon the other accused who are innocent, unless there is strong material/evidence available against them. He also submits that as per the evidence available on record, prima facie, it cannot be established that applicants No. 1 to 3 have shared a common intention with main accused Chandrashekhar Verma for causing injury to the victim by using an axe. Further, even the Doctor has gave an opinion that the injury found on the victim could not be caused by the axe, which has been seized, as the injury is simple in nature. He submits that the order of the Court below suffers from material irregularity, therefore, this revision may be allowed and the impugned order may be quashed or the charges may be modified appropriately. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that from perusal of the FIR itself, it appears that while the accused persons were threatening to kill the injured, main accused- applicant No. 4 Chandrashekhar Verma inflicted injuries to the victim by using a sharp edged weapon on the vital part of his head, on account of which, he sustained two lacerated wounds. Further, the Doctor has also opined that if immediate and proper treatment would not have been provided to the victim/injured, death might have occurred. He also submits that from the possession of accused Chandrashekhar Verma, an ‘axe’ which is alleged to have been used for committing crime, has been recovered. Further, the Doctor has also opined that if immediate and proper treatment would not have been provided to the victim/injured, death might have occurred. He also submits that from the possession of accused Chandrashekhar Verma, an ‘axe’ which is alleged to have been used for committing crime, has been recovered. Thus, necessary ingredients for framing of charge against applicant No. 4 Chandrashekhar Verma are available on record. Further, learned counsel for the State fairly submits that in the entire charge-sheet, no material or evidence is available to show that applicants No. 1 to 3 have shared a common intention with applicant No. 4 Chandrashekhar Verma to cause injury to the victim by using the axe. However, sufficient material is available on record to establish the offence under Sections 294, 323 & 506-II against applicants No. 1 to 3. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the revision along with material available in the charge-sheet. 5. It is well settled that while framing of the charge with the help of Section 34 of the IPC, it is necessary that a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all and while framing of charge under the said Section there must be some prima facie material available to suggest that there was prior meeting of the minds of all the accused with the principal culprit. There is no law 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. 6. In view of the aforesaid analysis and looking to facts and circumstances of the present case and the submission put-forth by both counsel for the parties, prima facie this Court does not find any material available on record which attracts an offence under Section 307/34 of the IPC against applicants No. 1 to 3 and thus, the impugned order, so far as it relates to framing of charge under Section 307/34 of the IPC against applicants 1 to 3, is set-aside. 7. In view of the above, applicants No. 1 to 3 are discharged from the offence under Section 307 read with 34 of the IPC. However, the remaining part of the impugned order shall remain intact. 8. 7. In view of the above, applicants No. 1 to 3 are discharged from the offence under Section 307 read with 34 of the IPC. However, the remaining part of the impugned order shall remain intact. 8. The concerned Court is directed to amend the charges as mentioned above in respect of applicants No. 1 to 3 only. 9. Revision is allowed in part to the extent indicated above.