Sunil Dutta Mishra, J.—The aforesaid three appeals have been taken up together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned Additional Public Prosecutors for the State. 3. All accused persons/appellants, namely, Lal Baboo Singh, Shivjee Singh and Vidya Sagar Singh along with accused Shyamdeo Singh were tried by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in Sessions Trial No. 38 of 1995 arising out of Desari P.S. Case No. 25 of 1994 under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and accused/appellant Vidya Sagar Singh was also charged and tried under the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. By the judgment and order dated 19.02.1996, the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur convicted all the accused persons including the appellants, namely, Lal Baboo Singh, Shivjee Singh and Vidya Sagar Singh under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and accused/appellant Vidya Sagar Singh was also held guilty under Section 302 of the I.P.C. They have been sentenced to undergo for life imprisonment. 5. Accused Shyamdeo Singh was convicted also under Section 341 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and sentences passed against him under Sections 341 and 302/34 of the I.P.C. will run concurrently. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of their conviction and sentence, the convicted persons, namely, Shyamdeo Singh, Lal Baboo Singh, Shivjee Singh and Vidya Sagar Singh preferred separate appeal bearing Cr. Appeal (DB) No.137 of 1996, Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 108 of 1996, Cr. Appeal (DB) No.110 of 1996 and Cr. Appeal (DB) No.129 of 1996 respectively. On account of death of accused Shyamdeo Singh, his appeal being Cr.Appeal (DB) No.137 of 1996 stood abated vide order dated 05.12.2023. 7. Since the above captioned appeals arise out of common factual matrix and impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 19.02.1996, we are disposing them by this common judgment. 8. The prosecution case, in brief is that on 09.03.1994 at about 08:00 p.m. the informant Umesh Prasad Singh (PW-7) gave his fardbeyan recorded by Sh. 7. Since the above captioned appeals arise out of common factual matrix and impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 19.02.1996, we are disposing them by this common judgment. 8. The prosecution case, in brief is that on 09.03.1994 at about 08:00 p.m. the informant Umesh Prasad Singh (PW-7) gave his fardbeyan recorded by Sh. B.N. Singh (PW-9) Officer-in-Charge, Desari Police Station alleging that on that date i.e. 09.03.1994 at about 6:30 p.m. on his return after attending call of nature, when he reached near his bathan at about 06:30 p.m. then he heard the groaning sound (ghighiyana) of his father Nathuni Singh (deceased), aged about 60 years. Thereafter the informant moved ahead to see his father and saw that in the sahan in front of his bathan, accused Shyamdeo Singh had caught hold of the informant’s father Nathuni Singh and Vidya Sagar Singh assaulted his father with the hura (end portion) of lathi. Lal Baboo Singh and Shivjee Singh were hurling their farsa and bhala respectively and were giving threat to kill anyone who would come to save him. On raising hulla, tea shopkeeper Chhabila Singh (PW-3), Harishankar Singh (PW-1) and Yogeshwar Singh reached on the spot. Then all four accused persons fled away after committing assault. When the informant and witnesses came near the victim, they saw him to be dead. In his fardbeyan, the informant has disclosed that there was a land dispute between them and earlier the accused persons had committed mar-pit on 06.02.1994 for which a case was registered in the police station and since then they had threatened to assault and commit murder. Harishankar Singh (PW-1) and Satyanarain Singh (PW-4) had also signed as witnesses on the fardbeyan. The informant alleged that all the accused persons due to previous enmity caught hold his father Nathuni Singh and committed murder by hura of lathi. 9. On the basis of the said fardbeyan (Ext.5), Desari P.S. Case No.25 of 1994 under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. was registered against the accused persons/appellants. The investigation of the case was carried out by the Investigating Officer (I.O., hereafter). 10. After completion of investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons/appellants. 9. On the basis of the said fardbeyan (Ext.5), Desari P.S. Case No.25 of 1994 under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. was registered against the accused persons/appellants. The investigation of the case was carried out by the Investigating Officer (I.O., hereafter). 10. After completion of investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons/appellants. Thereafter cognizance was taken against the accused persons/appellants and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and charges were framed on 16.06.1995 under Sections 302/34 against all the four accused persons, namely, Shyamdeo Singh, Vidya Sagar Singh, Lal Baboo Singh and Shivjee Singh. Accused Vidya Sagar Singh was also separately charged under Section 302 I.P.C. and accused Shyamdeo Singh was charged under Section 341 I.P.C. 11. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution adduced the following oral evidences:— PW-1 Harishankar Singh PW-2 Ajay Kumar PW-3 Chhabila Singh PW-4 Satyanarain Singh PW-5 Nageshwar Singh PW-6 Dr. Umesh Nandan Jha PW-7 Umesh Prasad Singh (informant) PW-8 Kamod Kumar Singh (formal witness who proved protest petition with vakalatnama as Exts.3 and 4 respectively) PW-9 Baidyanath Singh (I.O.) PW-10 Ganga Vishnu Sharma (formal witness who proved certain receipts Exts.8 to 8/4 issued by Health Department of District Board, Vaishali and Tahsildar) PW-11 Abdul Wadud Khan (formal witness who proved Ext.8/5 and Ext.8/6 and also proved certificate of Advocate as Ext.9) 12. The prosecution also adduced the following documentary evidence:— (i) Ext.1 Signature of Harishankar Singh on fardbeyan (ii) Ext.1/1 Signature of Satyanarain Singh on fardbeyan (iii) Ext.1/2 Signature of Harishankar Singh on Inquest Report (iv) Ext.1/3 Signature of Umesh Prasad Singh on fardbeyan (v) Ext.1/4 Signature of Umesh Prasad Singh on vakalatnama (vi) Ext.2 Postmortem Report (vii) Ext.3 Protest petition filed by informant (viii) Ext.4 vakalatnama of informant with protest petition (ix) Ext.5 Fardbeyan (x) Ext.6 Inquest Report (xi) Ext.7 Formal F.I.R. (xii) Exts.8 to 8/5 Receipts of deposit of license fee to Public Health Department, Hajipur, Vaishali in the name of Ram Chhabila Singh (PW-5) (xiii) Ext.9 Certificate of Advocate that C.W.J.C. No.11038 of 1995 has been filed on behalf of Nageshwar Singh against the order dated 10.08.1994 passed by Collector, Vaishali, Hajipur in R.Case No.54 of 1993-1994 (xiv) Ext.10 C.C. of formal F.I.R. of Desari P.S. Case No.14 of 1994 (xv) Ext.11 C.C. of charge sheet of Desari P.S. Case No.14 of 1994 13. After completion of the oral as well as documentary evidence on behalf of prosecution, the statements of accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. were recorded on 12.12.1995. The defence of the appellants is that they are quite innocent and they have falsely been implicated in this case only on the basis of previous enmity. 14. The defence has not produced any evidence either oral or documentary in support of its case. 15. At the conclusion of trial, the Trial Court convicted the appellants and sentenced them as aforesaid. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and order, these appeals. 16. It will be most appropriate to note the findings given by the learned Trial Court for convicting the accused persons/appellants and sentencing them accordingly. The learned Trial Court in paragraph 9 of the impugned judgment concluded that PWs-1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 have fully supported the fact of occurrence, manner of occurrence and place of occurrence, which was also corroborated by the evidence of doctor (PW-6) and I.O. (PW-9). The manner of occurrence shows that the accused persons had a common intention to commit murder of the deceased and with that intention, one of the accused Shyamdeo Singh caught hold the deceased and accused Vidya Sagar Singh assaulted the deceased with hura of lathi on the chest and other two accused persons Lal Baboo Singh and Shivjee Singh were hurling farsa and bhala and were giving threat so that no one should come to resist and they facilitated to commit murder of the deceased in furtherance of common intention. 17. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case as the deceased was an old man and he died natural death having old injuries but due to previous enmity, false case was lodged. He has further submitted that in the present case, no independent witness has been examined as all the witnesses on merit are pattidars with whom the accused persons have enmity for the land dispute upon which the accused Shyamdeo Singh got the order in his favour upto the High Court. He has next submitted that in a proceeding under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C., PW-1, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5 were party on one side and the accused persons were on the other side on account of land dispute. They were on litigating terms. He has next submitted that in a proceeding under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C., PW-1, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5 were party on one side and the accused persons were on the other side on account of land dispute. They were on litigating terms. The accused persons had lodged Desari P.S. Case No.15 of 1994 against informant’s side which was a counter blast of Desari P.S. Case No.14 of 1994 lodged 22-23 days prior to the alleged occurrence. It is contended that the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution are interested witnesses. According to the averments made in the F.I.R., neither the informant (PW-7) nor PWs-1 and 3 had occasioned to see the alleged occurrence, therefore, their evidences cannot be relied upon. Further, the doctor (PW-6), who had conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased, found only one bruise on his chest, which apparently, must have screened after receiving the blow. He has further contended that PW-1, who in his evidence, has stated that he was present at the tea shop for about 10 minutes and besides him, there was none. Therefore, the statement of PW-1 falsifies the presence of informant (PW-7). He has also contended that there is no eye witness of occurrence rather the evidence of doctor (PW-6) goes to show that the time of injury at the time of postmortem was not less than 21 hrs. which means that the said injury was caused at about 02:00 p.m. and not as alleged by the prosecution. The I.O. (PW-9) has also not found any injury on the person of the deceased at the time when inquest report was prepared and, therefore, it goes to show that the allegations made against the accused persons are false and concocted. The medical evidence is not in accordance with the evidences of the prosecution witnesses and, therefore, there are vital inconsistencies between them. Learned counsel for the appellants has stated that the learned Trial Court has committed several errors of record in not considering the entire statements of the prosecution witnesses rather only some portions have been considered which is not the mandate of law. From the evidence of witnesses, it can be concluded that they are wholly unreliable, based on such testimonies, it may not proper for the Court to hold accused persons/ appellants guilty. 18. From the evidence of witnesses, it can be concluded that they are wholly unreliable, based on such testimonies, it may not proper for the Court to hold accused persons/ appellants guilty. 18. In the light of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellants under the given facts and circumstances of the case. 19. On the contrary, the learned Additional Public Prosecutors for the State have submitted that the prosecution has been able to prove its case. It is further submitted that there being no merit in these appeals filed by the accused persons/appellants and the impugned judgment/order is in accordance with law and this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 20. We have carefully perused the records and proceedings and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties. 21. The appellate Court is empowered to reappreciate the entire evidence on the record for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether the accused persons or any of them had committed any offence or not and if the impugned judgment and order is ultimately found to be clearly unreasonable and perverse then such judgment and order can be set aside by the appellate Court. 22. To examine the correctness of the findings, we will first assess the testimony of prosecution witnesses. PW-1 is Harishankar Singh, who is said to be the eye witness of the occurrence. In his examination-in-chief, he has stated that on the alleged date of occurrence he was taking tea at the tea shop of Chhabila Singh (PW-3) and the informant Umesh Prasad Singh (PW-7), who was present at the tea shop, raised alarm to rush as his father was being assaulted and thereafter he along with tea shop owner Chhabila Singh went there and saw Shyamdeo Singh was catching hold of the deceased Nathuni Singh and accused Vidya Sagar Singh was assaulting Nathuni Singh with hura of lathi on his chest and the accused Lal Baboo Singh with farsa and Shivjee Singh with bhala were hurling their arms in order to resist the persons from coming near Nathuni Singh and the occurrence took place in the sahan in northern portion of Bathan and thereafter the accused fled away and Nathuni Singh died on the spot on account of assault. He has deposed that there was a land dispute between Nathuni Singh and accused Shyamdeo Singh. The police came at the spot and the informant gave his fardbeyan and he (PW-1) and Satyanarain Singh put their signatures on the fardbeyan which were marked as Exts.1 and 1/1. He further deposed that inquest report of the deceased Nathuni Singh was prepared and he made his signature on the same and Chhabila Singh appended his L.T.I. which was marked as Ext.1/2 and the same was identified by him. 23. PW-2 is Ajay Kumar, who has stated that on the alleged date of occurrence, when he was returning from Jafrabad after attending his tuition class and reached near Bishari Sthan, he saw accused Lal Baboo Singh with farsa and accused Shivjee Singh with bhala and accused Vidya Sagar Singh with lathi running away hurling the same and accused Shyamdeo Singh was with them without any arms. He further deposed that thereafter when he reached near Bathan, he saw the deceased Nathuni Singh lying dead. He has stated that he was informed by PW-1 Harishankar Singh that the accused persons committed murder of the deceased and he was weeping. 24. PW-3 is Chhabila Singh. According to the prosecution case, he is the tea shop owner and on alarm raised by the informant, he along with PW-1 rushed to the place of occurrence. This witness in his examination-in-chief has deposed that he was at the tea shop and on his alarm raised by Umesh Singh, he came to the Bathan of Nathuni Singh and there he saw accused Shyamdeo Singh catching hold of deceased Nathuni Singh and accused Vidya Sagar Singh assaulting the deceased with hura of lathi on the chest and accused Lal Baboo Singh and Shivjee Singh were hurling farsa and bhala and giving threat that if, anyone comes to save, will be murdered and thereafter accused persons fled away committing assault and Nathuni Singh died due to that assault. He also deposed that old dispute of land is the cause of occurrence. Thereafter, the police came on the spot and prepared inquest report and he appended his L.T.I. on the same and PW-1 Harishankar Singh made his signature. 25. PW-4 is Satyanarain Singh. He also deposed that old dispute of land is the cause of occurrence. Thereafter, the police came on the spot and prepared inquest report and he appended his L.T.I. on the same and PW-1 Harishankar Singh made his signature. 25. PW-4 is Satyanarain Singh. In his examination-in-chief, he has stated that on the alleged date of occurrence, he was at his door and he saw the accused Shyamdeo Singh without any arm and Lal Baboo Singh with farsa and Shivjee Singh with bhala and accused Vidya Sagar Singh with lathi and later on he came to know that they (accused persons) were running away after committing murder of deceased Nathuni Singh and the police had come at the place of occurrence and in his presence the fardbeyan of the informant Umesh Prasad Singh was recorded and he and PW-1 Harishankar Singh made their signatures as witness. 26. PW-5 is Nageshwar Singh. This witness has stated that on the alleged date of occurrence he after returning from Hajipur by bus came to Gajipur Chowk and there Umeh Singh son of Bishundhari Singh had said about the murder of deceased Nathuni Singh and he rushed to Bathan near Bishari Sthan and saw the dead body of the deceased Nathuni Singh and villagers were also there and Umesh Singh disclosed him that on account of old dispute, accused Vidya Sagar Singh, Shyamdeo Singh, Shivjee Singh and Lal Baboo Singh committed murder of his father. He further deposed that the real dispute was with regard to a passage and before the alleged occurrence, accused Shyamdeo Singh was installing a Marai on the passage which was resisted and Shyamdeo Singh and others committed assault to him and others for which Desari P.S. Case No.14 of 1994 was lodged and accused Vidya Sagar Singh and Shyamdeo Singh were sent to jail. 27. PW-6 is Dr. Umesh Nandan Jha, who had conducted the postmortem of the deceased on 10.03.1994 at about 11 a.m. at Sadar Hospital, Hajipur when he was posted as C.A.S. and as per his evidence, he found anti-mortem injury bruise 4½’’ x ½’’ on the middle and front of the chest and there was fracture of 4th and 5th ribs anteriorly on the left side of the chest and fracture end penetrating into the lungs and thoracic cavity contained liquid blood and blood clots. According to him, substance used was hard and blunt substance such as hura of lathi and if there was repeated 3 or 4 blows of hura of lathi, such injury might be caused and according to his opinion, death has been done due to shock and haemorrhage as the result of said injury which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. He has proved the postmortem report which was marked as Ext.2. 28. PW-7 is Umesh Prasad Singh, who is the informant of this case. He has deposed in his examination-in-chief that on the date of occurrence he came to his Bathan after attending call of nature and he heard a groaning sound of his father and he rushed towards that and he saw that in the sahan in front of his Bathan, accused Shyamdeo Singh catching hold of his father and accused Vidya Sagar Singh was assaulting with hura of lathi on the chest of his father and nearby accused Lal Baboo Singh and Shivjee Singh were hurling farsa and bhala respectively and when he proceeded to save his father, accused Lal Baboo Singh and Shivjee Singh gave threat to his life. He further deposed that at that time, he raised alarm and on his alarm, the tea shop owner Chhabila Singh (PW-3) and Harishankar Singh (PW-1) respectively rushed there and they also saw the occurrence and after committing assault the accused persons fled away towards north to their house and when he, Harishankar Singh and Chhabila Singh went to the deceased, they saw the deceased dead. He has stated that there was a dispute with regard to a passage, which comes to his house and that is a kaccha road and that is the only passage and that passage was blocked by accused Shyamdeo Singh by installing one Marai and so his father (deceased) and one Nageshwar Singh (PW-5) and other villagers had filed a case in Anchal and by the decision, the police and the C.I. removed that Marai and again after 15-20 days, accused Shyamdeo Singh and others were installing a Marai and his father made protest and thereafter they committed assault in which his father (deceased), Nageshwar Singh and other villagers were assaulted and for that Nageshwar Singh had lodged a case bearing Desari P.S. Case No.14 of 1994 in which the accused Shyamdeo Singh and Vidya Sagar Singh were sent to jail and when they were released from the jail, they had given threat to life of his father. He further deposed that the police had come to the place of occurrence where his fardbeyan was recorded on which he along with witness Harishankar Singh and Satyanarain Singh made signatures. This witness has identified his signature on the fardbeyan which was marked as Ext.3. He also deposed that during course of investigation, he had filed a protest petition against the I.O. He has proved his signature on the vakalatnama which was marked as Ext.1/4. He further said that accused Lal Baboo Singh and Shyamdeo Singh are pattidars and accused Shivjee Singh is a man of that group and in this case witnesses Asesar Singh, Hari Manjhi and Sajivan Singh have been gained over. 29. PW-8 is a formal witness and from his evidence, protest petition has been marked as Ext.3 and vakalatnama has been marked as Ext.4. 30. 29. PW-8 is a formal witness and from his evidence, protest petition has been marked as Ext.3 and vakalatnama has been marked as Ext.4. 30. PW-9 is Baidyanath Singh, who is the I.O. He has deposed that on 09.03.1994 he was posted as Officer-in-Charge of Desari P.S. and on that day at about 18:10 hours in the evening he was on patrolling duty and in that process he came to village Chakarab near Bishari Sthan and heard a cry of informant Umesh Prasad Singh and female members near Bathan and there were many persons assembled and on interrogation he came to know that Nathuni Singh was murdered and then he took the fardbeyan of the informant and started investigation and he also took the signature of witnesss Harishankar Singh and Satyanarain Singh. He has proved the fardbeyan which was marked as Ext.5. He further stated that he inspected the place of occurrence, took the statement of witnesses and had prepared the inquest report and he took the signature of the witnesses Harishankar Singh and L.T.I. of Chhabila Singh. He has also proved the carbon copy of inquest report which was marked as Ext.6. and after investigation he had submitted charge-sheet. Formal F.I.R. was marked as Ext.7. 31. PW-10 is Ganga Bishun Sharma, who is a formal witness. From his evidence, certain receipts were marked as Exts.8 to 8/4 which were issued by the Health Department of District Board, Vaishali. 32. PW-11 is also a formal witness. From his evidence, two receipts of Ext.8 series were marked as Exts.8/5 and 8/6. He has proved the certificate of Advocate which was marked as Ext.9. Further without objection certified copy of formal F.I.R. of Desari P.S. Case No.14 of 1994 was marked as Ext.10 and certified copy of charge sheet of Desari P.S. Case No.14 of 1994 was marked as Ext.11. 33. After hearing the parties and on perusal of record, the following facts emerge:— (i) In the village where place of occurrence is situated, there was a group in which the informant and the witnesses were on one side and the accused persons were on the other side due to land dispute. (ii) The prosecution witnesses claiming to be the eye witness of the occurrence are related to each other and they are pattidars with whom accused persons have enmity for the land dispute. (ii) The prosecution witnesses claiming to be the eye witness of the occurrence are related to each other and they are pattidars with whom accused persons have enmity for the land dispute. (iii) Before the alleged date of occurrence on 06.02.1994 Nageshwar Singh (PW-5) had lodged a case bearing Desari P.S. Case No.14 of 1994 alleging that the accused persons had committed assault and its counter case was Desari P.S. Case No.15 of 1994. (iv) At the time of preparing inquest report, the I.O. had not found any injury on the body of deceased. (v) In postmortem, the doctor (PW-6) found anti-mortem one injury bruise 4½” x ½” on front of chest, fracture of 4th and 5th ribs anteriorly on the left side chest and fracture ends penetrating into lungs. The doctor also found injury caused by hard and blunt substance which may be hura (end portion) of lathi. 34. In the present case, the first question to be decided is whether the prosecution has established common intention (Section 34 of the I.P.C.) to commit an offence of murder (Section 302 of the I.P.C.). 35. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Krishnamurthy alias Gunodu and Others vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 230 : (2022) 7 SCC 521 [: 2022 (3) BLJ 234 (SC)] observed in paragraph 12 as under:— “12. The underlying basic assumption or foundation in criminal law is the principle of personal culpability. A person is criminally responsible for act or transactions in which he is personally engaged or in some other way had participated. However, there are various modes and capacities in which a person can participate in a crime. He can instigate, be a facilitator or otherwise aid execution of a crime. Section 34 IPC incorporates the principle of shared intent, that is, common design between the two perpetrators, which makes the second or other participants also an equal or joint perpetrator as the main or principal perpetrator…..” 36. The Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohan Singh vs. State of Punjab (A.I.R. 1963 SC 174) on the question of common intention observed as under:— “The essential constituent of the vicarious criminal liability prescribed by Section 34 is the existence of common intention. The Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohan Singh vs. State of Punjab (A.I.R. 1963 SC 174) on the question of common intention observed as under:— “The essential constituent of the vicarious criminal liability prescribed by Section 34 is the existence of common intention. If the common intention in question animates the accused persons and if the said common intention leads to the commission of the criminal offence charged, each of the persons sharing the common intention is constructively liable for the criminal act done by one of them. Just as the, combination of persons sharing the same common object is one of the features of an unlawful assembly, so the existence of a combination of persons sharing the same common intention is one of the features of Section 34. In some ways the two sections are similar and in some cases they may overlap. But, nevertheless, the common intention which is the basis of Section 34 is different from the common object which is the basis of the composition of an unlawful assembly. Common intention denotes action-in-concert and necessarily postulates the existence of a pre-arranged plan and that must mean a prior meeting of minds. It would be noticed that cases to which Section 34 can be applied disclose an element of participation in action on the part of all the accused persons. The acts may be different; may vary in their character, but they are all actuated by the same common intention. It is now well-settled that the common intention required by Section 34 is different from the same intention or similar intention. As has been observed by the Privy Council in Mahbub Shah vs. Emperor, 72 Ind App 148 ( AIR 1945 PC 118 ), common intention within the meaning of Section 34 implies a pre-arranged plan, and to convict the accused of an offence applying the section, it should be proved that the criminal act was done in concert pursuant to the pre- arranged plan and that the inference of common intention should never be reached unless it is a necessary inference deductible from the circumstances of the case.” 37. It is well settled that the plan may also develop on the spot during the course of the commission of the offence; but the crucial circumstance is that the said plan must precede the act constituting the offence. It is well settled that the plan may also develop on the spot during the course of the commission of the offence; but the crucial circumstance is that the said plan must precede the act constituting the offence. If that be so, before a court can convict a person under Section 302, read with Section 34, of I.P.C., it should come to a definite conclusion that the said person had prior concert with one or more other persons, named or unnamed, for committing the said offence. 38. The intention is a matter of inference to be drawn from the proved circumstances of the case. The Court must necessarily have regard to the nature of the weapon used, part of the body injured, extent of injury, degree of force used in causing the injury, the manner of attack, the circumstances preceding and attendant on the attack. 39. Motive is not sine qua non for causing murder. Motive cannot be assumed. Motive which induces a man to do any particular act is known to him and him alone. It is the action that is apparent and the act of an accused can be proved by direct evidences or circumstantial evidence. The present case rests on direct evidence. 40. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ramashish Rai vs. Jagdish Singh (2005) 10 SCC 498 , previous enmity is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it provides motive to the crime and on the other hand, there is possibility of false implication. 41. In case of State of U.P. vs. Ballabh Das and others (1985) 3 SCC 703 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court on interested witnesses observed as under:— “The dominant question to be considered in the instant case is whether the witnesses, despite being interested, have spoken the truth and are creditworthy. Once it is found by the court, on an analysis of the evidence of an interested witness that there is no reason to disbelieve him then the mere fact that the witness is interested cannot persuade the court to reject the prosecution case on that ground alone.” 42. It is well settled that the evidence of interested witnesses has to be examined with great care and caution to obviate possibility of false implication or over-implication. In cases involving group enmities, it is not unusual to rope in persons other than who were actually involved. It is well settled that the evidence of interested witnesses has to be examined with great care and caution to obviate possibility of false implication or over-implication. In cases involving group enmities, it is not unusual to rope in persons other than who were actually involved. In such a case, court should guard against the danger of convicting innocent persons and scrutinize evidence carefully and if doubt arises, benefit should be given to the accused. 43. In the present case, from perusal of the prosecution evidence, it is clear that the eye witnesses belong to the victim and they can be stamped as interested witness. 44. When we apply the aforesaid principles relating to applicability of Section 34 of the I.P.C. to the facts of the present case, we feel that appellant Lal Baboo Singh [in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.108 of 1996] and Shivjee Singh [in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.110 of 1996] are entitled to the benefit of doubt. It cannot be with certainty held that they had common intention, viz, the injuries inflicted by Vidya Sagar Singh [in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.129 of 1996] by hura of lathi on deceased Nathuni Singh. They did not participate in assaulting or causing any physical injury to the deceased Nathuni Singh even though they had weapon in their hand. The assault by Vidya Sagar Singh and resultant outcome were unexpected. We are also not prepared to hold that these two accused should have known the final outcome, or it was known to them, or it was a reasonably possible outcome of the manifestation of mutual consent for carrying out a common purpose. Considering the facts particularly the nature and type of injury inflicted on deceased, the use of weapon in assault, conduct of the accused, object and purpose behind the occurrence, we find and conclude that the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond shadow of doubt with respect to common intention of appellants to murder the deceased Nathuni Singh. Considering the facts particularly the nature and type of injury inflicted on deceased, the use of weapon in assault, conduct of the accused, object and purpose behind the occurrence, we find and conclude that the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond shadow of doubt with respect to common intention of appellants to murder the deceased Nathuni Singh. We, therefore, would not hold them guilty for the offence under Section 302 on application under Section 34 of the I.P.C. Hence, the conviction of the appellants Lal Baboo Singh [Cr.Appeal (DB) No.108 of 1996] and Shivjee Singh [Cr.Appeal (DB) No.110 of 1996] and Vidya Sagar Singh [Cr.Appeal (DB) No.129 of 1996] under Section 302 with aid of Section 34 of the I.P.C. vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.02.1996 accordingly passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in Sessions Trial No.38 of 1995 is set aside. 45. Now the second question to be decided is whether conviction of appellant Vidya Sagar Singh [Cr.Appeal (DB) No.129 of 1996] for an offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. is sustainable. 46. The specific act attributed to Vidya Sagar Singh is that he had inflicted hura of lathi on the chest of deceased Nathuni Singh causing his death which is corroborated by deposition of eye witnesses (PWs.-1, 3 and 7) and deposition of Dr. Umesh Nandan Jha (PW-6), who conducted postmortem of the deceased that the left side 4th and 5th ribs of deceased were fractured. It was appellant Vidya Sagar Singh alone, who had assaulted the deceased with the hura of lathi on the chest of the deceased. 47. The law is well settled that if single injury is inflicted, if that particular injury was intended, and objectively that injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the requirements of clause thirdly to Section 300 of the I.P.C., are fulfilled and the offence would be murder. If the act of the accused person falls within the first two clauses of cases of culpable homicide as described in Section 299 of the I.P.C. it is punishable under the first part of Section 304. If, however, it falls within the third clause, it is punishable under the second part of Section 304. If the act of the accused person falls within the first two clauses of cases of culpable homicide as described in Section 299 of the I.P.C. it is punishable under the first part of Section 304. If, however, it falls within the third clause, it is punishable under the second part of Section 304. Thus, first part of this section would apply when there is ‘guilty intention’ whereas the second part would apply when there is no such intention, but there is ‘guilty knowledge’. Where only a single injury is inflicted by the accused and the circumstances justify that he only intended a simple injury would lead to the interference of ‘guilty knowledge’ then the offence would be one under Section 304 Part II of the I.P.C. 48. Looking at the overall evidence on record, we find it difficult to come to the conclusion that the appellant Vidya Sagar Singh given hura blow of a lathi on the deceased Nathuni Singh, he intended to cause such bodily injury as was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The weapon of offence is lathi and one injury inflicted by its hura on chest could only be attributed with the knowledge that it was likely to cause an injury which was likely to cause death. 49. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to take view that the case does not fall within clause thirdly of Section 300 of the I.P.C. and the offence would be one under Section 304 Part II of the I.P.C. 50. Accordingly, the conviction of appellant Vidya Sagar Singh [Cr.Appeal (DB) No.129 of 1996] under Section 302 I.P.C. is altered to one under Section 304 Part II of the I.P.C. 51. Considering the facts that the appellant, who was aged about 40 years in 1996 is now aged about 67 years, was in jail custody for more than four years in this case, inordinate time period in disposal of this appeal, it is in the interest of justice that the appellant Vidya Sagar Singh [Cr.Appeal (DB) No.129 of 1996] be sentenced to the period of custody he has already undergone. 52. As all the appellants are on bail, their liabilities under bail bonds are cancelled. 53. 52. As all the appellants are on bail, their liabilities under bail bonds are cancelled. 53. In the result, Criminal Appeal (DB) No.108 of 1996 and Criminal Appeal (DB) No.110 of 1996 are allowed and Criminal Appeal (DB) No.129 of 1996 is partly allowed. 54. The records of these appeals be returned to the Trial Court forthwith. 55. Interlocutory Application, if any, in all these appeals, also stands disposed of, accordingly. Arvind Srivastava, J.—I agree.