JUDGMENT : Per Ananda Sen, J. Appellant has preferred this appeal against the Judgment of Conviction dated 28th November, 2015 and Order of Sentence dated 3rd December, 2015 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-V, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No.314 of 2012 arising out of Silli Police Station Case No.06 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No.224 of 2012, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. 2. The F.I.R. is at the instance of P.W.-8 Ganesh Munda. In the fardbeyan which was recorded on 15.01.2012 at 9.30 hours, he states that on 15.01.2012 Mahesh Munda his brother and cousin Veer Singh Munda were in the barn (khaliyan) and was tying paddy which was stored there. Thereafter the deceased left the barn with the ox to make them drink water. When he went outside the barn, Bansidhar Munda son of Late Bopa Munda armed with “tabla” (sharp cutting weapon like chopper) chased the deceased Veer Singh Munda from behind. The brother of Bansidhar Munda, namely, Murlidhar Munda armed with “tabla” (sharp cutting weapon like chopper) confronted him from front. Thereafter, in front of house of Harihar Munda, Bansidhar Munda caught hold of the deceased and with the sharp cutting weapon which he was carrying assaulted the deceased on his stomach as a result of which he fell injured and died. He also stated that their family members are eye-witness to the said occurrence. He also narrates in the fardbeyan, the reasons for the said occurrence. He states that as there were some dispute between the family members which took place one and half years ago as criminal case is pending before the court. To take revenge the deceased was murdered. Bansidhar Munda and his brother Murlidhar Munda had committed murder of the deceased. 3. After investigation, chargesheet being Charge Sheet No.16 of 2012 dated 7th March, 2012 was submitted against the appellants for offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Cognizance of the offence was taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi on 20th March, 2012 and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions on 2nd April, 2012. After investigation, chargesheet being Charge Sheet No.16 of 2012 dated 7th March, 2012 was submitted against the appellants for offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Cognizance of the offence was taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi on 20th March, 2012 and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions on 2nd April, 2012. Charges were framed under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, which was read over and explained to the appellants. The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. Prosecution, in order to bring home the charges, had examined altogether 9 (nine) prosecution witnesses, namely, P.W.1 Vasudeo Singh Munda; P.W.2 Lakhindra Singh Munda; P.W.3 Mahesh Munda; P.W.4 Boby Devi; P.W.5 Guruvari Devi; P.W.6 Manoj Kumar No.II; P.W.7 Dr. Pawan Kumar; P.W.8 Ganesh Munda(the informant) and P.W.9 Anjani Kumar (the I.O.). 5. In addition to examining the above witnesses, the prosecution also got the following documents exhibited: - Ext. 1 Signature of P.W.-3 Mahesh Munda on fardbeyan. Ext. 2 Postmortem report of the deceased Veer Singh Munda. Ext. 3 Signature of informant Ganesh Munda on fardbeyan. Ext. 4 Fardbeyan of informant Ganesh Munda. Ext.5 Formal F.I.R. Ext.6 & 6/1 Memo of arrest of accused Banshidar Munda and Murlidhar Munda. 6. Upon conclusion of the evidence of the prosecution, statement of the appellants was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On behalf of the defence only one witness Teju Munda has been examined as D.W.-1. 10. After hearing the arguments of the parties, upon conclusion of the trial, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced by the Judgment of Conviction dated 28th November, 2015 and Order of Sentence dated 3rd December, 2015, as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment. 11. Challenging the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellant has preferred this appeal 12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that these two appellants have been implicated in this case as there was enmity between the parties which is evident from the fardbeyan. Since there was enmity between the parties, false implication cannot be ruled out. He further submits that P.W.-8 has been declared hostile on the point of motive. In absence of motive, the judgment of conviction including allegation against the appellants is liable to be set aside. Since there was enmity between the parties, false implication cannot be ruled out. He further submits that P.W.-8 has been declared hostile on the point of motive. In absence of motive, the judgment of conviction including allegation against the appellants is liable to be set aside. He further submits that in the fardbeyan allegation is that only one appellant has assaulted the deceased but the P.W.-4 has stated that both of the appellants have assaulted the deceased. He also submits that though there is some allegation against Bansidhar Munda of assaulting the deceased on the stomach but so as the other appellant, namely, Murlidhar Munda, there is no allegation of assault, thus, he needs to be acquitted. As per him, Section 34 of the I.P.C. has got no application in the facts of this case which has been narrated in the F.I.R. and as deposed by the witnesses. On this ground, he prays that this judgment be set aside. 13. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State submits that there are eye-witness to the occurrence and their credibility cannot be doubted. The doctor’s evidence corroborates with the ocular evidence. So far as the injury is concerned, since, there are direct evidence against the appellants, it is not necessary to establish motive. He supports the judgment and submits that this appeal needs to be dismissed. 14. After hearing the parties, we have gone through the entire trial court record including the evidence and all the other documents. 15. The genesis of the case has already been narrated by us in paragraph 2 of this judgment. To prove the prosecution case, nine witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. 16. P.W.1 is Vasudeo Singh Munda. He stated that he is unaware about the facts. Similar is statement of P.W.-2 Lakhindra Singh Munda. P.W.3 is Mahesh Munda. He stated that the incident occurred on 15th January, 2012 in the evening when they were in the barn (khaliyan) and were organizing the paddy which was harvested. Veer Singh Munda (the deceased) was taking the ox to get them drink water. The deceased is his cousin. Banshidhar Munda with a “tabla” (sharp cutting weapon like chopper) chased him and Murlidhar Munda came from front and obstructed the deceased and prevented him from fleeing. Veer Singh Munda (the deceased) was taking the ox to get them drink water. The deceased is his cousin. Banshidhar Munda with a “tabla” (sharp cutting weapon like chopper) chased him and Murlidhar Munda came from front and obstructed the deceased and prevented him from fleeing. Banshidhar Munda with “tabla” struck the deceased with the “tabla” on his stomach, as a result of which his intestine came out and Veer Singh Munda died at the spot. He stated that at that point of time he was present at the place of occurrence. He also identified both the accused who were present in the Court. He identifies his signature on the fardbeyan which was marked Ext.1. In cross-examination, this witness stated that Ganesh Munda is the informant who is his own brother. He also admits that he was questioned by the police at the time of investigation. He stated that before the police he said that Murlidhar Munda obstructed Veer Singh Munda from front. He stated that he has signed the fardbeyan in the police station and in the police station he has also signed paper. He admits that what actually had happened was narrated in the documents but the police did not read over the same to him. He also stated before the police that the deceased was taking the ox to get them drink water. The pond is on the outskirts of the village and to reach the pond it takes 10 to 15 minutes. He admits that Banshidhar Munda had instituted a proceeding against him and the informant in the year 2010 for committing fraud. He says that distance between the barn and his house is only 25 feet. He further states that in the barn they were crushing the husk with a pair of ox which belong to Vishnu Munda. In his village only “Mundas” resides. He denies that the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case. P.W.4 is Boby Devi, who stated that she is illiterate but she had seen the occurrence. Veer Singh Munda is the son of her brother-in-law. She stated that they were in the barn and when the deceased was taking the ox to make them drink water then Murlidhar Munda and Banshidhar Munda came with “tabla”. The deceased was chased in the courtyard of Harihar Munda. Veer Singh Munda is the son of her brother-in-law. She stated that they were in the barn and when the deceased was taking the ox to make them drink water then Murlidhar Munda and Banshidhar Munda came with “tabla”. The deceased was chased in the courtyard of Harihar Munda. When Veer Singh fell down, she stated that both of them assaulted the deceased and fled. In cross-examination, she admits that she had stated about the incident to the police and the deceased was lying in the courtyard of Harihar Munda. She was put a question that she is narrating what was being told to her by her son, to which she stated that she knew about the occurrence. She stated that the soil was smeared with the blood at the place of occurrence. Police had also inquired from her. Nothing more could be extracted from the evidence of this witness. P.W.-5 is Guruvari Devi. She stated that the deceased was her son and these two appellants with the help of “tabla” had assaulted him. At that point of time, she and Boby Devi (P.W.-4) was present. She states that the deceased was taking the ox to get them drink water when the incident had occurred. She stated that when he had returned with the ox then the occurrence had taken place. She stated that Murlidhar had caught hold of the deceased and Banshidhar had assaulted with “tabla”. The injury was on the stomach and his intestine came out. In cross-examination, this witness stated that Ganesh Munda is the son of her elder brother-in-law. She stated that there was no criminal case between her son and the accused. She admits that the police had interrogated her. She stated that on the day of Makarsakranti they do not go to the field to work. She stated that she had told to the police that these appellants have assaulted the deceased. She stated that one of her sons is alive whose name is Narsingh Munda and he lives in the house. Nothing more can be extracted from the evidence of this witness. P.W.-6 is Manoj Kumar No.II. He is a police officer and the Investigating Officer who conducted part investigation. He stated that on 1st February, 2012 he took the charge of investigation of this case. He received the postmortem report and recorded statements of Vasudeo Singh Munda and Lakhindra Singh Munda. P.W.-6 is Manoj Kumar No.II. He is a police officer and the Investigating Officer who conducted part investigation. He stated that on 1st February, 2012 he took the charge of investigation of this case. He received the postmortem report and recorded statements of Vasudeo Singh Munda and Lakhindra Singh Munda. He also filed the charge sheet under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. against both the accused persons. In cross examination, this witness has stated that he had inspected he place of occurrence. P.W.-7 is the Doctor, who conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. He found the following incised wound on the body of the deceased: - i. 10 cm x 2 cm bone deep on fronto lateral arm upper part cutting the soft tissue and blood vessel and left humorous bone completely. ii. 6 cm x 1 cm x soft tissue front of left forearm middle part. iii. 4 cm x 1 cm x soft tissue front of right forearm middle part. iv. 8 cm x 2 cm x cavity deep front of right side abdomen lower part. 2 cm above the eliac crest and 6 cm right to midline. The weapon cut the abdominal wall, small intestine, large intestine, mesantry with blood and blood clots in abdominal cavity. Opinion : In the opinion of the doctor the aforesaid injuries are ante mortem caused by heavy sharp cutting weapon and cause of death is due to hemorrhagic shock as a result of aforesaid injuries. The time since death is 12 to 36 hours from conducting the postmortem examination. He exhibited the postmortem report and his signature which was countersigned by Dr. A.K. Choudhary. It was marked as Exhibit 2. P.W.-8 is Ganesh Munda, the informant. He has narrated what he has stated in his fardbeyan which is the basis of the F.I.R. He stated that the appellants were carrying “tabla”, which is like a chopper. He was in the barn (khaliyan) along with his own brothers Mahesh Munda and the deceased Veer Singh Munda who was taking the ox to the pond to get them drink water. He stated that Veer Singh Munda was chased by Banshidhar Munda to the courtyard of Harihar Munda. Murlidhar with “tabla” obstructed the deceased from front. Bansidhar Munda has assaulted the deceased and murdered him. He stated that Veer Singh Munda was chased by Banshidhar Munda to the courtyard of Harihar Munda. Murlidhar with “tabla” obstructed the deceased from front. Bansidhar Munda has assaulted the deceased and murdered him. The assault was on the stomach as a result of which the intestine popped out. He stated that he had himself seen the occurrence. He also stated that his own brother Mahesh Munda had also seen the occurrence. He stated that there was no reason to commit murder of his cousin brother. He had identified his signature on the farbeyan which was marked Ext.3. On the point of motive, he was declared hostile. In cross-examination he admitted that he had stated about the incident to the police. He admits that he has not stated to the police and there was any case pending against them. He denied that he is deliberately suppressing the motive. In cross-examination nothing important has been extracted, rather he has supported the prosecution case. P.W.-9 Anjani Kumar is the Investigating Officer who investigated the case. He exhibited the formal F.I.R. as Ext.5. He states that he recorded the statement of the witnesses and investigated the case. The arrest memos were also exhibited as Exts.6 and 6/1. He prepared the inquest report and sent the body for postmortem examination. From his evidence, we do not find any latches in the investigation. 17. From the aforesaid facts which has been led, we find that on the point of occurrence, the P.W.-3, 4, 5 and 8 are the eye-witness. Their evidence is consistent. All of them stated that the deceased was taking the ox to make them drink water when these two appellants confronted him. Banshidhar Munda chased with a sharp cutting weapon i.e., “tabla” and Murlidhar Munda came from the front and obstructed him, so that he could not flee. They chased the deceased and Banshidhar Munda assaulted the deceased on his stomach and gave blows as a result of which he died. This statement of these eye-witness are consistent and in conformity with the fardbeyan which was recorded. The doctor also found several injuries in the stomach. The doctor also opined that the injuries have been inflicted by heavy sharp cutting weapon. Thus, the medical evidence corroborates with the ocular evidence. 18. This statement of these eye-witness are consistent and in conformity with the fardbeyan which was recorded. The doctor also found several injuries in the stomach. The doctor also opined that the injuries have been inflicted by heavy sharp cutting weapon. Thus, the medical evidence corroborates with the ocular evidence. 18. So far as the motive is concerned, we find though it has been mentioned in the evidence by P.W.-8 that there was no reason to commit murder of the deceased, yet in the fardbeyan he states that there was enmity between them and a criminal case is already pending. In our opinion this discrepancy is of no relevance. Motive looses relevance when there is direct ocular evidence of commission of crime. It is only in case of circumstantial evidence, where the motive has some relevance. In a case where there is direct evidence of assault and the evidence of the eye-witness are credible and their testimony cannot be shaked, it is not required for the prosecution to prove the motive behind the crime. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajagopal v. Muthupandi reported in (2017) 11 SCC 120 at paragraph 14 has held as under :- “14. Equally, it is well established that motive does not have to be established where there is direct evidence. Given the brutal assault made on PW 1 by criminals, the fact that witnesses have turned hostile can also cut both ways, as is well known in criminal jurisprudence.” 19. The ultimate key consideration is quality of the evidence which has been presented by the prosecution. The totality of the evidence needs to be considered. In this case, we find that P.W.-3, 4, 5 and 8, who are eye-witness to the occurrence are natural witnesses and there is nothing in their evidence which we can disbelieve or doubt, more so the medical evidence also corroborates their testimony. 20. So far as the argument of the appellant that Murlidhar Munda has not assaulted the deceased thus he be acquitted, we find that though there is no specific evidence that Murlidhar Munda has directly assaulted the deceased but we cannot lose sight of the fact of application of Section 34 of the I.P.C. in this case. The charge has been framed under Sections 302/34 of the I.P.C. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows:- “Section 34. The charge has been framed under Sections 302/34 of the I.P.C. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows:- “Section 34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.—When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.” 21. The common intention will be gathered from the evidence which is led by the prosecution. In this case, we find that there is a strong element of common intention as one person had chased the deceased and assaulted him with “tabla” (a sharp cutting weapon) from behind and Murlidhar Munda was obstructing the deceased from the front thereby confining the deceased and preventing him from fleeing. From the evidence of the parties, both of them were holding sharp cutting weapons in their hand. This clearly suggests that Murlidhar Munda had also an intention to commit murder of the deceased. His active participation is established from the evidence led by the prosecution. Thus, we are of the view that the Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code has been correctly applied and proved in this case. 22. Considering what has been held above, we find that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of these appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. Accordingly, we are inclined to dismiss this appeal. Impugned Judgment of Conviction 28th November, 2015 and Order of Sentence dated 3rd December, 2015 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-V, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No.314 of 2012 are affirmed. The appellant no.1 Murlidhar Munda is on bail, his bail bonds are cancelled. The trial court is directed to take him in custody to serve the rest of the sentence. 23. Let the Trial Court Records be transmitted to the Court concerned along with a copy of this judgment.