JUDGMENT : FARJAND ALI, J. 1. The appellants have preferred the present appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, assailing the judgment and order dated 13.07.1995, passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Udaipur, in Sessions Case No.4/1993 (190/1992), whereby the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as under : Name of the accused Offence for which convicted Substantive sentence Fine and default sentence Takhat Singh Section 307 IPC 6 years RI Rs.1,000/- and in default in payment of fine to undergo 6 months SI Section 324 IPC 1 year RI Rs.500/- and in default in payment of fine to undergo 3 months SI Lal Singh Section 307/34 IPC 6 years RI Rs.1,000/- and in default in payment of fine to undergo 6 months SI Section 324/34 IPC 1 year RI Rs.500/- and in default in payment of fine to undergo 3 months SI All substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 1.1 During the pendency of the appeal, it was brought to the notice of this Court that appellant Takhat Singh had expired on 25.02.2010. The death report submitted by the SHO concerned dated 06.05.2025 is taken on record, thus the appeal against him stood dismissed as abated. The present appeal thus survives only in respect of appellant Lal Singh. 2. The brief facts, as unfolded from the record, are that PW 13 Shankar Singh lodged a written report on 12.07.1992 at about 10:30 PM on oral information by Manilal (PW 1) at the General Hospital, Udaipur, alleging that his mother Smt. Vardibai had lent a sum of Rs.3,000/- to Amarsingh three years earlier. When repayment was sought, a quarrel ensued. 2.1. On the night of the occurrence, at about 9:30 PM, Amarsingh allegedly abused Smt. Vardibai outside the house. When the complainant protested, Bhursingh called him down. Bhursingh and his wife Smt. Bhuri, armed with lathis, approached from one side, while Takhatsingh, brother of Bhursingh, rushed from the opposite direction with a knife, shouting threats to kill. Shortly thereafter, Lal singh and Takhatsingh’s wife also reached at the crime scene. 2.2. At that time, the complainant’s wife Smt. Sawa Bai and brother Heersingh were also present. Takhatsingh inflicted a knife blow on Sawa Bai’s left shoulder near the chest and another on her right arm. Shortly thereafter, Lal singh and Takhatsingh’s wife also reached at the crime scene. 2.2. At that time, the complainant’s wife Smt. Sawa Bai and brother Heersingh were also present. Takhatsingh inflicted a knife blow on Sawa Bai’s left shoulder near the chest and another on her right arm. Thereafter, he stabbed Shankar Singh near his left shoulder and below the armpit, and subsequently injured Heersingh on the left side of his abdomen. 2.3. Hearing the commotion, Smt. Vardibai and her husband arrived. On their cries for help, the Head Constable and police personnel from the nearby outpost reached the spot and transported the injured to the Udaipur Hospital. 2.4. On the basis of the report, FIR No.70/1992 was registered at Police Station Gogunda under Sections 307 and 34 IPC . During investigation, a site plan (Exhibit P-3) was prepared, and the injured were medically examined (Exhibits P-11 to P-13, with X- ray reports P-14 to P-16). The police seized blood-stained clothes and later arrested the accused. Pursuant to disclosure under Section 27 of the Evidence Act (Exhibit P-19), a knife was recovered (Exhibit P-7). The FSL report (Exhibit P-10) confirmed the presence of human blood on the seized articles. 2.5. Upon completion of investigation, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Udaipur. By order dated 27.08.1992, the learned Court discharged Smt. Bhuri Bai and Smt. Chandni Bai, framing charges under Sections 307 /34 and 324/34 IPC against the remaining accused. During pendency of the trial, accused Bhursingh expired and proceedings against him were abated. The prosecution examined sixteen witnesses, while the defence examined two witnesses and exhibited 20 documents. The trial culminated in the conviction and sentence as detailed above. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant Lal Singh has challenged his conviction on the ground that the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are unsupported by the material evidence and are inconsistent with the settled principles of criminal law. It is contended that the prosecution has failed to explain the injuries sustained by accused Takhatsingh, one of which was on his head a vital part indicating that he too was assaulted during the same occurrence. The omission to explain these injuries creates grave doubt about the veracity of the prosecution version and suggests suppression of the true genesis of the incident. 3.1. Material contradictions further permeate the prosecution evidence. The omission to explain these injuries creates grave doubt about the veracity of the prosecution version and suggests suppression of the true genesis of the incident. 3.1. Material contradictions further permeate the prosecution evidence. PW 6 Heersingh, in his examination-in-chief, deposed that he and his brother were caught by Bhursingh and Lalsingh, while Sawa Bai was restrained by Bhuri Bai and Chandni Bai, and Takhatsingh inflicted knife blows on Shankar Singh. However, in cross-examination, he contradicted himself and stated that the accused were armed with stones rather than lathis, and no weapon was attributed to Lalsingh in the FIR. Similarly, PW 8 Sawa Bai did not state that anyone restrained Shankar Singh at the time of assault. PW 13 Shankar Singh, when confronted with his previous statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex. D/2), admitted that he had not stated that Lalsingh or Bhursingh had held him. 3.2. He further alleged that these inconsistencies, omissions, and improvements seriously undermine the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and fail to establish the specific participation of each accused beyond reasonable doubt. 3.3. It is further stated that the medical evidence also does not support a conviction under Section 307 IPC , as no doctor has opined that any injury was grievous or dangerous to life. Consequently, the essential ingredients of the offence punishable under are not made out. Thus, the appeal of the appellant Lal Singh may be allowed and he may be acquitted from the aforementioned charges. 4. Learned Dy.G.A. has opposed the submissions advanced by counsel for the appellants and supported the judgment passed by the learned trial Court. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Dy.G.A. for the State and perused the record as made available to the Court. 5.1. During pendency of the present appeal, appellant Takhat Singh expired, and the appeal, insofar as it relates to him, stands abated. It is also noted that during trial, Smt. Bhuri Devi and Smt. Chandni Bai were discharged, and that order has attained finality. 5.2. The record further reveals that Takhat Singh expired during pendency of the trial. The allegations levelled against Smt. Bhuri Devi and Smt. Chandni Bai , were limited to catching hold of the complainant’s brother, and no specific overt act was attributed to them. 5.2. The record further reveals that Takhat Singh expired during pendency of the trial. The allegations levelled against Smt. Bhuri Devi and Smt. Chandni Bai , were limited to catching hold of the complainant’s brother, and no specific overt act was attributed to them. In these circumstances, the case of the present appellant Lalsingh stands on identical footing and is not distinguishable in any material respect. 5.3. Before examining the liability of the appellant Lal Singh, it becomes imperative to analyse the applicability of Section 34 IPC to the facts of the present case. It is now a well-settled proposition of criminal jurisprudence that embodies the principle of joint liability for acts done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention. To attract its application, the prosecution must prove (i) the existence of a common intention to commit a particular crime, and (ii) participation of the accused in the commission of that act in furtherance of such intention. The essence of liability under lies not merely in the doing of any act jointly but in the meeting of minds, a prior concert, whether premeditated or developed at the spur of the moment, to commit the specific offence. It is equally well settled that mere presence of an accused at the scene, or association with the principal offender without any evidence of active participation or prior consensus, cannot by itself justify the invocation of . 5.4. In the instant case, the material on record does not disclose any cogent evidence to suggest that Lal Singh shared any common intention with the principal accused, Takhat Singh, to commit the assault in question. The prosecution witnesses have rendered highly inconsistent and contradictory versions regarding the alleged role of Lal Singh. PW-6 Heersingh stated in his examination-in-chief that he and his brother were caught hold of by Bhursingh and Lal Singh, but later in his cross-examination, he admitted that he did not give such a statement to the police and further stated that the accused persons were holding stones and not lathis. The FIR also does not attribute any weapon to Lal Singh. PW-8 Sawa Bai did not state at all that anyone restrained Shankar Singh when the assault took place. PW-13 Shankar Singh, the informant, when confronted with his police statement (Ex. The FIR also does not attribute any weapon to Lal Singh. PW-8 Sawa Bai did not state at all that anyone restrained Shankar Singh when the assault took place. PW-13 Shankar Singh, the informant, when confronted with his police statement (Ex. D/2), admitted that he had not stated before the investigating officer that Lal Singh or Bhursingh had caught hold of him. Thus, the evidence of these three principal witnesses, when read together, fails to establish any consistent or reliable account of active participation or shared intent on the part of Lal Singh. The entire occurrence was spontaneous, arising out of a sudden quarrel regarding repayment of a trivial loan of Rs.3,000/-, and there is no indication that Lal Singh knew of, much less shared, the intention of Takhat Singh to inflict knife blows or cause grievous injury. 5.5. The law on the point is equally clear that Section 34 IPC cannot be invoked on the basis of surmise or conjecture. There must be convincing proof that the accused performed some act, however minimal, in furtherance of the common intention. The record herein is absolutely silent as to any such act by Lal Singh. His alleged presence at the scene, unaccompanied by any overt conduct or participation in the assault, does not bring him within the sweep of . The contradictions between the versions of PW-6, PW-8, and PW-13, coupled with the admitted omission of material facts from the FIR and statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., create a serious doubt about the veracity of the prosecution’s claim that Lal Singh assisted or facilitated the assault. The medical evidence also confines the act of inflicting injuries solely to Takhat Singh, and no incriminating recovery or circumstance links Lal Singh to the actual commission of the offence. In the absence of any credible proof of common intention or concerted action, the conviction of Lal Singh with the aid of cannot be sustained in law. The benefit of doubt must, therefore, necessarily enure to him. 5.6. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is persuaded to hold that the conviction of appellant Lal Singh is unsustainable. The evidence on record does not establish his culpability beyond reasonable doubt. The incident was spontaneous and devoid of premeditation, and no independent act of aggression has been attributed to him. 6. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by appellant Lal Singh is allowed. The evidence on record does not establish his culpability beyond reasonable doubt. The incident was spontaneous and devoid of premeditation, and no independent act of aggression has been attributed to him. 6. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by appellant Lal Singh is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.07.1995 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Udaipur, are set aside insofar as they relate to him. The appellant Lal Singh is acquitted of all the charges. His bail bonds stand cancelled and discharged. 6.1. Let a copy of this judgment along with the record of the case be sent back to the learned Trial Court forthwith.