JUDGMENT : (A.D. Choudhury. J.) 1. Heard Mr. BK Das, the learned counsel for the appellants in Crl. A./37/2020. Also heard Ms. R D Mazumdar, learned amicus curiae for the appellant in Crl. A. (J)/ 75/2020. We have also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, the learned Senior counsel & Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State. 2. These two appeals are filed assailing the judgment and order dated 07.11.2019, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Nagaon in Sessions (T-1) Case No. 28 (N)/2018 under Section 302/34 IPC arising out of GR Case No. 97/2018 convicted the appellants under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also directed to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. 3. The prosecution case as unfolded from the materials available on record is to the effect that on 26.01.2018 at 9 p.m., the appellants Jagannath Patra, Meghnath Patra and Sanjoy Deori @ Sanju Dehori, by means of iron rod and sharp weapon assaulted Karneswar Ganju. As a result, Karneswar Gunju sustained grievous injury and fell unconscious and was undergoing treatment at Guwahati in critical condition. Accordingly, Samaguri PS case No. 57/2018 under Section 325/326/34 IPC was registered. While undergoing treatment, the injured expired in hospital at Guwahati and accordingly, Section 302 IPC was added. 4. Upon completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer had submitted charge sheet against the accused/appellants, namely, Jagannath Patra, Meghnath Patra and Sanjoy Deori @ Sanju Dehori under Section 302/34 IPC. 5. Based on the charge sheet submitted by the Investigation Officer, charges were framed against the accused /appellants under Section 302/34 of the IPC. The charges were read out and explained to them but the accused persons/appellants had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the matter went up to trial. 6. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution had examined as many as 12 witnesses, who were cross-examined by the defence. The statements of the accused/appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The defence also adduced the evidence of appellant Meghnath Patra as DW-1 and he was also cross-examined by the prosecution. 7. The prosecution case was based on direct evidence of as many as three witnesses viz. PW1, PW2 and PW4. The statements of the accused/appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The defence also adduced the evidence of appellant Meghnath Patra as DW-1 and he was also cross-examined by the prosecution. 7. The prosecution case was based on direct evidence of as many as three witnesses viz. PW1, PW2 and PW4. To bring home the charges, the prosecution side had further examined PW5, who reached the place of occurrence and took the victim to hospital. PW5 and PW6 are seizure witnesses of the weapon (lathi) seized from the place of occurrence. Beyond them, the prosecution side had examined the doctor (PW12), who conducted the postmortem examination on the body of the deceased as well as the investigation officer (PW11), and the Scientific Officer, Director of Forensic Science, Assam (PW10) who had submitted charge-sheet. 8. After going through the material available on evidence, the learned trial court had found the accused persons, named hereinabove, as guilty of the offences charged and sentenced each of the them in the manner as indicated hereinabove. 9. Mr. BK Das, the learned counsel for the appellants in Crl. A./37/2020 has assailed the impugned judgment and order primarily on following grounds: I. The star witness of the prosecution side i.e. PW1 is an interested witness and therefore the learned trial court ought not to have given much emphasis on the testimony of such witness inasmuch as there are major discrepancies in the testimony of the other eye witnesses. II. The appellant No. 2 (Meghnath Patra) was not named by the PW1 inflicting injury upon the deceased. PW2, who is also an independent witness, had not named the appellant No. 2 in his testimony. III. The victim died after 7 days of injury at hospital and therefore considering the weapon used (lathi), the appellants ought not to have been convicted under Section 302/34 IPC. He further contends that the postmortem report discloses that a missing scalp bone was found inside stomach and therefore, the death could not have been concluded to be homicidal in nature as the post mortem report itself creates a doubt as regards cause of death. There is every probability that the victim died for the reason of wrong treatment. IV. He further contends that the postmortem report discloses that a missing scalp bone was found inside stomach and therefore, the death could not have been concluded to be homicidal in nature as the post mortem report itself creates a doubt as regards cause of death. There is every probability that the victim died for the reason of wrong treatment. IV. The learned counsel for the appellants while taking us through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses contends that there is complete inconsistency in the versions of the eyewitnesses and therefore, their testimonies ought not to have been relied upon by the learned trial court to convict the appellants. Accordingly, learned counsel argues that prosecution has failed to establish the charge brought against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, at best the appellants could have been convicted under Section 326 IPC. 10. Ms. RD Mazumdar, learned Amicus Curiae representing the appellant in Crl. A (J)/75/2020 has by and large adopted the submissions advanced by Mr. BK Das, learned counsel. 11. Per contra, Ms. B Bhuyan learned Senior counsel and Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam has argued that there is no material contradiction in the testimonies of the eye witnesses inasmuch as the prosecution story has been fully established from the evidence on record. According to Ms. Bhuyan, minor discrepancies in the testimonies of the eye witnesses is bound to occur and the same ought to be ignored by the court, if such discrepancies do not go into the root of the matter. 12. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for both the sides and have also carefully gone through the materials available on record. 13. Before dealing with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, let us first appreciate the depositions of the Prosecution witnesses. I. The PW-1, Bobby Patra is the star witness of the prosecution and projected as eye witness. She deposed that on 26.01.2018 at 9-9.30 p.m. when she was alone in her house, deceased Karneswar Ganju came to their house to take back the Tiffin box, in which he brought Prasad earlier on 24.01.2018 and while he was sitting in their house, her uncle Jagannath Patra, Ruhinath Patra, Meghnath Patra and Sanju Deori came to their house and the appellant Jagannath Patra asked the deceased as to why he came to their house. Then accused Sanju Deori said that deceased Karneswar should be assaulted and he kicked deceased on his chest. She further deposed that when deceased pleaded that he should not be beaten, then Jagannath Patra hit the deceased on his head by means of a brick and a bamboo stick. Thereafter, accused Sanju Deori by means of a thick wooden stick hit deceased on his front side. According to her, accused Meghnath Patra forcibly took her to a room at the back of their house and hit her with a belt and locked her up. She also deposed that while Karneswar was assaulted, his mobile phone fell down. She picked it up and from the locked room she rang up Missa police outpost and informed them about the occurrence. She further stated that she also informed family members of the deceased. Subsequently, when she raised hue and cry the neighboring people gathered outside their house and through the window she saw accused Jagannath and Meghnath dragging away deceased towards the namghar. She further deposed that she heard scream but none came to help the deceased. She further deposed that she and deceased were in love relationship and when accused Sanju came to know about it, he reported about their love affair to her uncle Jagannath Patra, for which her uncle had earlier beaten her. She also alleged that Sanju Deori proposed to love her, which she declined. Thereafter, accused Sanju Deori threatened deceased thrice not to keep any relation with her or else threatened to kill him. She further deposed that police arrived at the place of occurrence 1-1 ½ hours after her phone call. She further deposed that by opening the back door of her locked room she went to the street and saw a huge gathering of people. Subsequently, the deceased was taken by Purna Ganju (PW4) and others to Simonabasti hospital and from there to Nagaon civil hospital and to Guwahati, where on 02.02.2018, the deceased succumbed to his injuries. She proved her statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as Ext. 1. During the cross-examination, the PW-1 in her cross-examination affirmed that PW2, Trinath Tanti is her immediate neighbor. She proved her statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as Ext. 1. During the cross-examination, the PW-1 in her cross-examination affirmed that PW2, Trinath Tanti is her immediate neighbor. She also denied the suggestion that the deceased in a drunken condition came to the house of PW1 and at 12 midnight when someone knocked the door, the deceased in a drunken state ran away and hit a coconut tree on the way, resulting in injuries which culminated in his death. II. PW-2, Shri Trinath Tanti stated that he knew both the complainant and the accused persons and the deceased. He further deposed that at the time of occurrence on 26.01.2018 @ 10.30 p.m., he heard commotion outside and also heard cry for help and he saw deceased was trying to open the front door grill of his house, which was locked at that point of time. According to him, he opened the door and saw injury on head of the deceased. He deposed that he saw blood oozing out from the head of the deceased and also saw accused Jagannath holding the deceased’s hand and accused Sanju beating him with a bamboo pole. He further deposed that he pleaded with the accused persons not to assault the injured and even begged to spare him by touching the foot of the accused persons, but the accused persons pushed him aside and dragged the deceased by holding his feet to a distance of 100 meters and tied him to a coconut tree and again assaulted him. He further stated that one Dhan Basumatary along with some boys came there and took the injured with them to hospital in a vehicle. He further deposed that he handed over the bamboo pole to the police by which the accused Sanju Deori hit the deceased and left behind near his house. He proved the Ext. 2, the seizure list and his signature and Material Exhibit 1 i.e. the seized bamboo pole. He proved Exhibit 3 as his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate. During her cross-examination, PW-2 deposed that though he raised hue and cry, none came to help them. As he was inside the house, therefore, he did not know to when Karneswar came. He further deposed that he did not know whether police has seized any other thing. During her cross-examination, PW-2 deposed that though he raised hue and cry, none came to help them. As he was inside the house, therefore, he did not know to when Karneswar came. He further deposed that he did not know whether police has seized any other thing. PW2 denied the suggestion that the deceased Karneswar did not come running towards his house and that he did not pull the grill, which was locked. PW2 also denied the suggestion that he did not see Jagannath holding the hand of Karneswar and accused Sanju Deori beating Karneswar. He denied the suggestion of defence that he and his wife did not beg the accused persons to leave the deceased or that they did not touch the feet of the accused persons or that the accused persons did not push them and drag away Karneswar a little distance away and tied him to a coconut tree. He also denied the suggestion that Dhan and his friend did not take Karneswar to hospital. He denied the suggestion that he had previous enmity with Sanju Deori and Jagannath Patra and that he had deposed falsely. He denied the suggestion that the accused persons did not assault and injure Karneswar. III. PW-3, Satawan Ganju, the complainant in his deposition stated that he had lodged the case against the accused persons and the deceased was his son. He stated that the occurrence took place on 26.01.2018 at 11.30 p.m. when he was in his house. One Dhan Basumatary, the friend of his deceased son, came to his house on a motorcycle and informed him that some persons of Uriabasti assaulted and grievously injured his son and asked him to go to Simonabasti hospital and he immediately went there and found his son in a critical condition. He further deposed that from PW4 he came to know that his son was assaulted by all the three accused persons in the house of PW1. He proved Ext. 4 (ejahar) and his signature in the FIR as Ext. 4(1). He further deposed that on 02.02.2018, his son succumbed to the injury sustained. During his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that his son, in a drunken condition, hit a coconut tree and sustained injury on his person. This witness remained firmed during his cross-examination. He denied all the suggestions put to him by the defence. IV. PW-4. 4(1). He further deposed that on 02.02.2018, his son succumbed to the injury sustained. During his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that his son, in a drunken condition, hit a coconut tree and sustained injury on his person. This witness remained firmed during his cross-examination. He denied all the suggestions put to him by the defence. IV. PW-4. Puran Ganju in his evidence disclosed that on 26.01.2018 at night while he was returning home from Udmari on a motorcycle, half way through the road, PW1, Bobby Patra rang him by Karneswar’s mobile and informed that her uncles were assaulting Karneswar Ganju and asked him to come immediately. Accordingly, PW4 immediately sped towards the house of Bobby Patra and near Bobby Patra’s house, he saw Karneswar Ganju being tied to a coconut tree by means of a rope. PW4 also claimed witnessing Jagannath Patra kicking Karneswar Ganju on his chest. He further stated that the victim Karneswar became unconscious. He also claimed witnessing all the three accused persons and PW2 being present at the place of occurrence and on making query from PW2, he was informed that hearing commotion, when PW2 came out, he saw Karneswar Ganju screaming and crying for help near the grill of his house. He also stated that PW2 reported him that all the three accused persons assaulted Karneswar Ganju. According to him, he immediately informed Dhan Basumatary about the occurrence and Dhan Basumatary along with PW5, Sanjib Baddu and Monoj Baddu came to the place of occurrence in a vehicle and took the injured to Simonabasti hospital, where the complainant and the family members of the injured came. During cross examination, he denied the suggestion put to him that he did not state before the police about witnessing Jagannath Patra kicking Karneswar Ganju on his chest or that all the three accused persons were not present at the place of occurrence. He also denied the suggestion that PW3 did not inform him that the deceased Karneswar Ganju by holding the grill of his house cried for help. He also denied the suggestion that PW3 did not inform him that the deceased Karneswar Ganju by holding the grill of his house cried for help. V. PW-5, Sandip Baddu, who is an independent witness stated that on 26.01.2018 at night when he was in his house situated at Simonabasti, at around 11-11.30 p.m. Khargeswar Ganju informed him that someone had attacked and assaulted Karneswar Ganju at Uriabasti, Salna and asked for their help and therefore, he and his brother Monoj went to the place of occurrence in their car and found PW4 and accused Jagannath engaged in a heated exchange of words, while the other accused persons were also present there. He also deposed of witnessing Karneswar Ganju lying on the ground near a coconut tree with injuries on his head and all over his body and blood oozing out from the head. He further deposed that police arrived at the place of occurrence and the victim was taken by his car to Simonabasti PHC, then to Nagaon civil hospital but subsequently the victim Karneswar Ganju succumbed to his injuries at Guwahati. During cross-examination, PW5 denied that he did not state before the police about the deceased over phone reporting about the occurrence to his brother. He also denied the suggestion that he did not state before the police about witnessing accused Jaganath and Puran having heated exchange of words and the other accused persons being present there at the time of his arrival. VI. PW6, Prahlad Das, who is another independent witness and witness to the seizure of the weapon of crime (lathi) stated that on 26.01.2018 at 10.30-11 p.m., he was in his quarter of the Tea Estate and as that time his relative PW2 Trinath Tanti came to his house and told him that Sanju Deori is assaulting Karneswar Ganju. By the time, he came to the place of occurrence, found that the family members of the victim Karneswar Ganju and the police took Karneswar Ganju away. He proved the seizure list as Ext. 2 and his signature therein as Ext.2 (2). During cross-examination, PW6 stated that the seizure list was read over to him and then he put his signature. VII. PW7, Sankar Roy is a hearsay witness. He proved the seizure list as Ext. 2 and his signature therein as Ext.2 (2). During cross-examination, PW6 stated that the seizure list was read over to him and then he put his signature. VII. PW7, Sankar Roy is a hearsay witness. In his deposition, stated that he heard that on 26.01.2018 at night when the PW3’s son Karneswar Ganju was talking with PW1 at PW1’s house, then the accused persons assaulted and injured the son of PW1, who succumbed to his injury later on. During cross-examination, PW7 denied the suggestion that he did not hear about the accused persons assaulting deceased when he went to the house of Gouranga Patra and was talking with his daughter. VIII. PW8, Bindeswar Ganju is elder brother of the deceased stated in his evidence that on 26.01.2018, while he was in his work place at Bagori, then at around 3 a.m. at night he came to know about the occurrence and next morning he came to his house and then went to Dispur hospital at Guwahati where his brother was undergoing treatment. PW8 also stated that his brother succumbed to his injury on 02.02.2018 and the police conducted inquest over the dead body. He proved his signature in the inquest report (Ext 5) as Ext. 5(2). During cross-examination, PW8 deposed that he did not state before the police about Bhaktiram Basumatary reporting to him over the phone about the occurrence. IX. PW9, ASI, Ghana Kanta Deori, who conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased. He deposed that on 02.02.2018, while he was posted at Dispur PS, he was called to Dispur hospital for conducting the inquest over the dead body of deceased Karneswar Ganju in connection with Dispur PS GDE No. 100/2018 dated 02.02.2018. Accordingly, the inquest was conducted over the dead body of Karneswar Ganju. He proved inquest report as Ext. 5, his signature therein as Ext 5(3). He also proved the copy of GDE No. 100/2018 dated 02.02.2018 as Ext. 6 and his signature as Ext 6(1) is his signature. During cross-examination, PW9 proved the extract copy as Ext.6. He further deposed that in Ext. 6 there is no signature of O/C Himangshu Das and in Ext. 7 there is no mention of case No. or GDE number. X. PW10, Sankar Chandra Rabha is a Scientific Officer, Serology Division, Directorate of Forensic Science, Assam. During cross-examination, PW9 proved the extract copy as Ext.6. He further deposed that in Ext. 6 there is no signature of O/C Himangshu Das and in Ext. 7 there is no mention of case No. or GDE number. X. PW10, Sankar Chandra Rabha is a Scientific Officer, Serology Division, Directorate of Forensic Science, Assam. He deposed that on 07.02.2018, he received a parcel from the Director concerned in connection with Samaguri PS case No. 57/2018. The parcel consisted of 1 exhibit which was sealed with cloth cover and on opening the parcel, he found 2 nodes of bamboo piece containing stain of suspected blood. His examination No. is Sero/3918/A. Result of his examination gave positive test of human blood. He proved the Reports as Ext. 8, his signature therein as Ext. 8(1). During cross-examination, PW10 deposed that through file note the sample was sent to him for examination but the original file is not available in the case record. XI. PW11, Biju Kinkar Basumatary is the investigating officer of the case. He stated that on 26.01.2018 at 11.25 p.m. while he was posted at Salonah PP as I/C under Samaguri PS, he got telephonic information from PW1 that her boyfriend Karneswar Ganju was being assaulted at Salonah Uriabasti. Accordingly, he made GDE No. 371 dated 26.01.2018. He proved the extract copy of the said GDE as Ext. 9. PW11 further stated that he went to the place of occurrence, however on the road of Uriabasti, he found that Karneswar Ganju was already taken to Simonabasti hospital for treatment and he recorded the statements of some witnesses at the Simonabasti hospital but could not record the statement of the victim as he was seriously injured. He deposed that on receipt of the ejahar, he forwarded to Samaguri PS for registration after making GDE No. 383 dated 27.01.2018 and same was registered as Samaguri PS case No. 57/2018 under Section 325/326/34 IPC. PW11 further deposed that he recorded the statement of the complainant as the Police Station. Subsequently, he visited the PO, prepared the sketch map. Ext. 10 is the sketch map. He proved the sketch map as Ext. 10 and his signature as Ext. 10 (1). He recorded the statements of other witnesses and on 28.01.2018, he seized one piece of bamboo pole and sent to FSL for examination and also collected the FSL report. Subsequently, he visited the PO, prepared the sketch map. Ext. 10 is the sketch map. He proved the sketch map as Ext. 10 and his signature as Ext. 10 (1). He recorded the statements of other witnesses and on 28.01.2018, he seized one piece of bamboo pole and sent to FSL for examination and also collected the FSL report. It is also stated that during investigation, the injured, on 02.02.2018 succumbed to his injury and thereafter the I/O collected the SCD and the PM report of the deceased and on 05.02.2018, he made prayer to the learned CJM for adding Section 302 IPC, which was allowed. He also deposed that the statements of witnesses Bobby Patra and Trinath Tanti were recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C and that after completion of investigation he submitted charge-sheet under Section 302/34 IPC against the accused, Jagannath Patra, Meghnath Patra and Sanju @ Sanjay Deori. He proved the charge-sheet as Ext. 11 and his signature as Ext. 11(1). During cross-examination, PW11 deposed that he recorded the statement of PW1 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He also recorded the statements of PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5 and PW6. XII. PW12, Dr. Netramoni Kakati, Asstt. Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, GMCH conducted the post mortem examination on the body of deceased Karneswar Ganju. He found 23 nos. of stitches of length 18 cm present mid-frontal region to left fronto-parietal region which is surgical. On removing the stitches contusions present all over the scalp of size 15 cm X 8 cm to 6 cm X 3 cm except occipital and right temporal parietal region. There is one BARR hole operation present on left frontoparietal region of size 10 cm X 6 cm where the underlying bone is missing and dura matter missing and brain matter comes out. Subdural haemorrhage present on both sides of the hemisphere. Intra-cerebral haemorrhage present on both capsular regions and stitch wound (surgical) front of abdomen with 10 nos of stitches length 10 cm present on right abdomen. On removing the stitches, a piece of skull bone was found in soft tissues of length 9 cm X 4 cm, which was missing from the scalp. The PW12 further stated that the cause of death to be due to coma resulting from head injury as described and all the injuries to be ante-mortem in nature and caused by blunt force impact. The PW12 further stated that the cause of death to be due to coma resulting from head injury as described and all the injuries to be ante-mortem in nature and caused by blunt force impact. He proved the post mortem report as Ext. 12 and his signature as and Ext. 12(1). During cross-examination, the PW12 stated that the impact of the head injury sustained by the deceased cannot be self-inflicted injury. XIII. The defence also examined accused, Meghnath Patra as DW1. He deposed that accused Jagannath is his elder brother, accused Sanju is a neighbor and PW1 is his own niece. Accordingly to him on the day of occurrence, he was sleeping and hearing commotion outside, he came out and saw PW1 crying and going towards the road. During his cross-examination, he stated that he did not know about the love affair between PW1 and the deceased. He further deposed that he did not know if accused Sanju proposed love to PW1. He also denied the suggestion of the prosecution side that he opposed the relation between PW1 and deceased and therefore they assaulted and grievously injured deceased, who later on succumbed to his injuries. 14. From the evidences as recorded hereinabove, it is clear that the case of the prosecution is primarily based on the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW4. These three witnesses have been examined as eye witnesses to the occurrence. Therefore, it is important and necessary to analyze the testimonies of these witnesses as to examine whether the charge brought under Section 302/34 IPC was fully established. 15. As discussed hereinabove, the prosecution has examined as many as twelve witnesses. It is not the case of the appellants that Pw-1 and PW4 had not seen the occurrence nor any such suggestions were made to these witnesses during their cross-examination. The appellants are not questioning that PW1 and PW2 were not the eye witnesses to the occurrence, though they had raised a defence that PW4 did not witness the crime. They laid down a defence case by putting a suggestion to these witnesses that the deceased in a drunken condition came to the house of PW1 and at 12 midnight, when someone knocked the door, the deceased in a drunken state ran away and hit a coconut tree on the way, resulting in injuries which culminated in his death. They laid down a defence case by putting a suggestion to these witnesses that the deceased in a drunken condition came to the house of PW1 and at 12 midnight, when someone knocked the door, the deceased in a drunken state ran away and hit a coconut tree on the way, resulting in injuries which culminated in his death. It is their case that the testimonies of these three witnesses are not credible being inconsistent with each other inasmuch as the eye witnesses had given different versions as to the role of the individual accused person inflicting the injuries upon the deceased. 16. After a meticulous examination of the testimonies of PW1, PW2 and PW4, it is seen that as per the version of PW1, accused Sanju Deori kicked deceased Karneswar on his chest, accused Jagannath hit the deceased on his head by means of a brick and by a bamboo stick. Accused, Meghnath Parta, according to PW1, forcibly took her to a room and locked her up. She also deposed that she saw accused Jagannath and Maghnath dragging away the deceased towards the Namghar. 17. According to the version of PW2, when he begged before the accused persons to spare the deceased by touching the feet of the accused persons, the accused persons pushed him aside and dragged the deceased by holding his feet and tied him to a coconut tree and again assaulted him. He saw Jagannath holding the deceased’s hand and accused Sanju beating the deceased with a bamboo pole. PW4 claimed of having witnessed the accused Jagannath Parta kicking the deceased on his chest and he witnessed all the three accused persons at the place of occurrence. He also witnessed that the deceased was tied to a coconut tree. 18. From a conjoint reading of the evidences of these three eye witnesses, it is seen that these witnesses have ascertained that the three accused persons were involved in assaulting the deceased with lathi, brick and held him and later on, they tied the victim to a coconut tree. Such testimonies remained firm. It is important to note here that the defence has not assisted evidence brought on record that the accused persons were present at the place of occurrence. The evidence of the eye witnesses, therefore, clearly goes to indicate that all these three accused persons were involved in beating the deceased. 19. Such testimonies remained firm. It is important to note here that the defence has not assisted evidence brought on record that the accused persons were present at the place of occurrence. The evidence of the eye witnesses, therefore, clearly goes to indicate that all these three accused persons were involved in beating the deceased. 19. Section 34 IPC makes a co-participator, who had participated in the offence equally liable on the principle of joint liability. What is required is that there should be a common intention between the co-participators. Whether or not there exist a common intention has to be determined by drawing inference from the facts proved. This requires an enquiry into the conduct of the co-participants at the time of the occurrence or after the occurrence. 20. In the case in hand, as discussed hereinabove, all these three accused persons were present at the place of occurrence. The manner, in which, the accused persons have mounted the attack and the nature and type of injuries inflicted on the victim and their actions in beating continuously the accused persons, dragging him to the Namghar and tying him to the coconut tree, have all been established through the testimonies of PW1, PW2, PW4 and PW5 and therefore, it is established beyond reasonable doubt that these three accused persons had a common intention to cause death of the deceased and therefore, will be equally guilty for committing the offence under section 302 of the IPC regardless of which of the two had actually struck the fatal blow on the head of the deceased. The intention of the accused to cause death is also established from the fact that the fatal blow was inflicted on the vital part of the body i.e., the head. The prosecution has also been able to establish that the accused had acted in a cruel manner by resisting the attempt of PW-2 to save the already injured deceased and that the accused persons had dragged the deceased by holding his feet from the house of PW-2 to a distance of 100 meters and tied the deceased to a coconut tree and again assaulted him. Such action on the part of the accused persons are imminently dangerous. Such action on the part of the accused persons are imminently dangerous. The assault in the vital part of the body of the deceased with the weapon used, in all probability, can cause death or such bodily injury as likely to cause death but the accused person committed such an act incurring the injury, which resulted in the death of the deceased. Thus the intention of the accused to cause death to the deceased is established beyond reasonable doubt from the aforesaid facts proved by the prosecution. 21. From the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, it is also established beyond reasonable doubt that the occurrence took place on 26.01.2018 at around 09:00 -09:30 PM at Simonabasti Village. It was also established beyond reasonable doubt through the testimony of PW-1 that initial assault was inflicted upon the deceased in the residence of PW-1. Through the evidence of PW-2, it is also established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons dragged the deceased from the front yard of the house of PW-2 to the namghar, tied him to a coconut tree with a rope, and continued to beat the deceased. The factum of tying the deceased in a coconut tree in the place of occurrence and his serious injury was also witnessed by PW-4. PW-4 also witnessed the presence of the three accused persons at the place of occurrence. Thus from the aforesaid, it is established beyond reasonable doubt the accused/appellants assaulted the deceased on 26.01.2018 at around 09:00-09:30 PM and the deceased was grievously injured. 22. From the evidence of PW12, the Doctor who conducted post mortem upon the dead body, it is established that the death was caused due to coma resulting from head injury and thus, it is established that the death was homicidal in nature. It is true that the PW-12 found a piece of scalp bone in soft tissues in the right abdomen, which was missing from the scalp. However, the testimony of the Doctor that the cause of death was due to coma resulting from head injury remains firm. The doctor even denied the suggestion of the defence that head injury sustained was self-inflicted injury. The nature and cause of the death recorded in the postmortem report was also not challenged by the defence during trial and such challenge is made for the first time during the course of hearing of the present appeals. 23. The doctor even denied the suggestion of the defence that head injury sustained was self-inflicted injury. The nature and cause of the death recorded in the postmortem report was also not challenged by the defence during trial and such challenge is made for the first time during the course of hearing of the present appeals. 23. From the reasons recorded hereinabove, we do not find any infirmity in the judgment and order dated 07.11.2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Nagaon in Sessions (T-1) Case No. 28 (N)/2018 under Section 302/34 IPC arising out of GR Case No. 97/2018 convicting the appellants under Section 302/34 IPC for committing the murder of deceased Karneswar Ganju. Accordingly, the appeals stand dismissed being devoid of any merit. 24. Registry to return the case records.