The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK CRLA No. 472 of 2013 An appeal from the judgment and order dated 16.09.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nayagarh in S.T. Case No.55/177 of 2013/2009. -------------------- Kulamani Barik & another ....... Appellants -Versus- State of Odisha ....... Respondent For Appellant: - Mr. Tirth Kumar Sahu For Respondent: - -------------------- Advocate Mr. Jateswar Nayak Addl. Govt. Advocate P R E S E N T: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date of Hearing and Judgment: 18.11.2024 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ By the Bench: The appellants faced trial in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nayagarh in S.T. Case No.55/177 of 2013/2009 for offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘I.P.C.’) on the accusation that in the morning of 22.02.2009, they in furtherance of their common intention, committed murder of one Abhaya Kumar Pradhan CRLA No.472 of 2013 Page 1 of 23 (hereinafter ‘the deceased’) on the village road of village Lodhachua under Ranpur police station in the district of Nayagarh. The learned trial Court found both the appellants guilty of the offence charged and sentenced each of them to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo R.I. for six months more. Prosecution Case: 2. The prosecution case, as per the F.I.R. lodged by one Baikuntha Pradhan (P.W.4) before the I.I.C., Ranpur P.S. (P.W.22), in short, is that on 22.02.2009 at about 7.00 O’clock in the morning, the deceased had been to a tea-Stall which was situated in the backside of his house in village Lodhachua and at that time, the appellants namely Kulamani Barik and Bhimasen Barik along with two other co-accused persons namely Dhana Barik and Laxmidhar Barik being armed with bhujali, sword and other weapons attacked the deceased, for which the deceased shouted “Marigali…Marigali” and at that point of time appellant no.2 namely Bhimasen Barik, who was holding a ‘gupti’, stabbed on the backside chest of the deceased, as a result of which the deceased sustained bleeding injuries and he was then shifted to the Area Hospital, Ranpur, where he was declared dead by the doctors. It is stated in the F.I.R. that P.W.5 Padma Charan CRLA No.472 of 2013 Page 2 of 23 Pradhan and P.W.11 Sanjay Kumar Pradhan along with others were present near the spot when the occurrence took place. On the written report of P.W.4, the I.I.C., Ranpur P.S. registered Ranpur P.S. Case No.37 dated 22.02.2009 under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. and directed P.W.22 namely Chaturbhuja Nayak, S.I. of Police to take up the investigation of the case. During the course of investigation, P.W.22 examined the informant (P.W.4), visited the Area Hospital, Ranpur, where he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and prepared the inquest report vide Ext.3. He also examined other witnesses, sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. He visited the spot and prepared spot map vide Ext.9 and seized the blood-stained earth, sample earth as per seizure list Ext.1. He seized the command certificate, one blood-stained ‘lungi’ and napkin, bracelet and red-coloured thread knotted with a ‘Deunria’ of the deceased, which was collected after the post-mortem examination as per the seizure list Ext.6. The appellant no.2 Bhimasen Barik was arrested by police on 23.02.2009 and on the basis of his statement recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the weapon of offence, i.e. knife (M.O.I) was recovered from the place of concealment which was under a Kendu bush, as per the seizure list Ext.2. The appellant no.2 was then forwarded to CRLA No.472 of 2013 Page 3 of 23 Court. The I.O. (P.W.22) received the post-mortem report and he made a prayer before the learned J.M.F.C., Ranpur to send the exhibits, i.e. the seized articles to the S.F.S.L., Rasulgarh for chemical examination and also received the chemical examination report vide Ext.13. He made query to the doctor (P.W.13) who conducted post-mortem examination, regarding possibility of the injury sustained by the deceased by means of said weapon (M.O.I) and received the query report. On completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted against four accused persons including the present appellants and showing the other two accused persons namely Dhana Barik and Laxmidhar Barik as absconders. Framing of Charges: 3. Upon submission of charge sheet, the case was committed to the Court of Session where the learned trial Court framed charge against the appellants as aforesaid and they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the sessions trial procedure was resorted to establish their guilt. Prosecution Witnesses, Exhibits & Material Objects: 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as twenty-two witnesses. P.W.1 Rama Pradhan is the aunt of the deceased who stated that at about 6 a.m. on the date of occurrence, the CRLA No.472 of 2013 Page 4 of 23 deceased had gone to back side of their house to have tiffin and at that time, she heard his shouting for which she rushed to the spot and saw the appellant Bhimasen Barik assaulting the deceased by means of a knife. She further stated that the appellant drew out the knife out of the body of the deceased and threw it at the spot and then all the accused persons fled away. P.W.2 Ashok Kumar Nayak is a co-villager of the deceased who stated that on the date of occurrence hearing a commotion in Bajarangi Padia, he reached there and saw the deceased lying injured and the appellant Bhima running away from the spot. He is a witness to the seizure of knife lying near the deceased by the side of a bush, blood stained earth and sample earth as per seizure list Ext.1. P.W.3 Kalpataru Nayak stated that the occurrence took place in the play ground of the village school Udayanath Bidyapitha, which is also known as Bajarangi Padia. He further stated that upon reaching that ground, he signed on a document on the request of a police officer. He was declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.4 Baikuntha Pradhan is the father of the deceased and informant of this case who stated that at about 06.30 a.m. on the date of occurrence, while he was easing himself at a short distance, he saw the appellants and the co-accused persons CRLA No.472 of 2013 Page 5 of 23 appearing on the spot and assaulting the deceased brutally. He further stated that the appellant Bhima dealt knife blows on the back of the deceased while co-accused Nakhia and the appellant Kulamani caught hold of him. P.W.5 Padma Charan Pradhan stated that while coming back from a betel shop, he saw both the appellant and the co-accused persons catching hold of the deceased and the appellant Bhima stabbing at the back of the deceased. He is also a witness to the seizure of a bent knife as per seizure list Ext.2. P.W.6 Jagannath Pradhan stated to have seen the appellant Bhimasen Barik abusing the deceased and upon hearing the abuse, the deceased came to the hotel where he was present. He further stated that there was a hot exchange of abusive words between the deceased and the appellant Bhimasen and then the deceased suddenly rushed towards the appellant and caught hold of him in tight embrace and at that time, the appellant Bhimasen brought out a knife and stabbed on the left side of the deceased’s back. He is a witness to the preparation of inquest report vide Ext.3. P.W.7 Kapila Prusty stated that after death of the deceased, the police had come to the village and took his signature on a paper and further stated that he was not examined CRLA No.472 of 2013 Page 6 of 23 by the police in connection with this case. The prosecution declared him hostile. P.W.8 Arjun Tarei is the brother-in-law of the deceased who stated to have seen appellant Bhimasen stabbing the left side back of the deceased by means of a knife. He is a witness to the preparation of inquest report vide Ext.3. P.W.9 Minaketan Nayak stated that he was in his house when the occurrence took place and later, he came to know that the deceased had been taken to hospital. He denied having any further knowledge about this case for which he was declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.10 Kailash Padhi pleaded ignorance about facts of this case for which he was declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.11 Sanjaya Kumar Pradhan stated to have seen the appellant as well as the co-accused persons chasing the deceased and appellant Bhimasen holding a knife. He further stated that near Bajarangi field, the appellant no.1 and other two co-accused persons caught hold of the deceased and appellant Bhimasen stabbed him with a knife to his left side back. He stated that the deceased sustained profuse bleeding from the injury and fell down and seeing the same the appellants and accused persons left the spot and Bhimasen threw the knife inside a bush. CRLA No.472 of 2013 Page 7 of 23 He is a witness to the seizure of such knife as per seizure list Ext.2. P.W.12 Kamala Pradhan is the mother of the deceased and wife of the informant. She stated that hearing the hullah raised by her deceased-son, she rushed to the spot and saw all the four accused persons chasing the deceased and then assaulting him. She further stated that the appellant Bhimasen stabbed the deceased by means of a knife. P.W.13 Dr. Sadananda Mishra was working as a Surgery Specialist in the Area Hospital, Ranpur. He on police requisition conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and proved his report vide Ext.4. P.W.14 Kailash Bhola is a co-villager of the deceased who denied having any knowledge as to when and how the deceased died for which he was declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.15 Banambar Sahu is the co-villager of the deceased who stated that he was not present in the village during the incident and he expressed ignorance as to how the deceased died and therefore, he was declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.16 Jayaram Pradhan pleaded ignorance about the facts of the case for which he was declared hostile by the prosecution. CRLA No.472 of 2013 Page 8 of 23 P.W.17 Sangram Kishore Sahoo stated that on direction of the police, he once had been to the police station where he signed on a seizure list vide Ext.6, which was relating to the seizure of some clothes. He was subsequently declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.18 Rajat Nahak stated that he had visited the police station once on the direction of the police where he signed on a paper without knowing anything about it and he further stated that nothing has been seized by the police in his presence. He was declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.19 Prakash Jena and P.W.20 Damodar Nayak pleaded ignorance as to how the deceased died and accordingly, they were declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.21 Akshaya Kumar Nayak pleaded ignorance about the facts of this case for which he was declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.22 Chaturbhuja Naik was posted as the Sub- Inspector of Police at Ranpur police station and he is the Investigating Officer of this case. Upon completion of investigation, he submitted charge sheet against the accused persons. The prosecution proved twenty-two numbers of documents. Exts.1, 2, 6 are the seizure lists, Ext.3 is the inquest CRLA No.472 of 2013 Page 9 of 23 report, Ext.4 is the post mortem examination report, Ext.5 is the query made by the police, Ext.7 is the F.I.R., Ext.8 is the dead body challan, Ext.9 is the spot map, Ext.10 is the command certificate, Ext.11 is the statement of appellant Bhimasen Barik, Ext.12 is the letter for chemical examination, Ext.13 is the chemical examination report and Exts.14 to 22 are the section 161 Cr.P.C. statements of different prosecution witnesses. The prosecution produced five numbers of material objects. M.O.I is the knife (bent condition), M.O.II is lungi, M.O.III is napkin, M.O.IV is bracelet and M.O.V is deunria with red colour thread. Defence Plea: 5. The defence plea of the appellants is one of complete denial. However, the defence neither examined any witness nor proved any document to discredit the prosecution case.
Facts
Findings of the Trial Court: 6. The learned trial court, after assessing the oral as well as documentary evidences on record, came to hold that from the evidence of P.Ws.1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 13 and 22, it is crystal clear that no one else but the accused persons are the author of the crime of homicidal death of the deceased. Learned trial Court further held that it is apparent, consistent and corroborative evidence of all the prosecution witnesses that the penetrating CRLA No.472 of 2013 Page 10 of 23 injury which is fatal injury on the body of the deceased has been caused by the appellant Bhimasen, but all the accused persons have been roped in the crime with the aid of section 34 of the I.P.C. The learned trial Court held that all the accused persons participated in commission of the crime at one point of time and so far the evidence of informant is concerned, it is found that all the accused persons kept themselves concealed near the Bajarangi field and when the deceased was going from his house to tea stall, on the way all on a sudden all the accused persons attacked him and there at the spot achieved their mission, i.e. the murder. So, in view of such evidence, as there was pre-meeting of minds among the accused persons for commission of the crime like murder and all of them have participated in commission of crime even though the death occurred due to the injury caused by only appellant Bhimasen, still all the accused persons can be held responsible and guilty for commission of murder of the deceased. Learned trial Court also did not give any importance to the statement made by the learned defence counsel that the prosecution relied upon only related and interested witnesses and that the independent witnesses did not support the prosecution case and accordingly, held both the appellants guilty under the aforesaid charge. CRLA No.472 of 2013 Page 11 of 23 Contentions of Parties: 7.
Legal Reasoning
Therefore, we are of the view that the evidence, which is appearing on record against the appellant no.1 Kulamani Barik, is very shaky in nature and there is no cogent material available on record that he shared ‘common intention’ or a ‘shared conscious mind’ with appellant no.2 Bhimasen Barik to commit the murder of the deceased and as such, the conviction of appellant no.1 Kulamani Barik under section 302/34 of I.P.C. cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Whether the appellant no.2 Bhimasen Barik is liable for commission of murder of the deceased?: 10. So far as appellant no.2 Bhimasen Barik is concerned, it appears from the evidence of P.W.6 that on 22.02.2009 at about 7.00 a.m. when the occurrence took place near the hotel of one Kapila Sahu situated in village Lodhachua, he was present in that hotel and at that time he saw appellant no.2 Bhimasen Barik was abusing the deceased and upon hearing such abuse, the deceased came to the hotel and there was hot exchange of abusive words between appellant no.2 and the deceased. Then CRLA No.472 of 2013 Page 20 of 23 the deceased suddenly rushed towards appellant no.2 and caught hold of him in a tight embracing position and at that time appellant no.2 brought out a knife and stabbed the deceased from his back side chest. In the cross-examination, it has been elicited that at first the deceased tried to capture appellant no.2 and thereafter both of them fell down and then appellant no.2 stabbed at the back side of the deceased. The medical evidence adduced by the doctor P.W.13 also corroborates such assault. In view of the background of the case and the surrounding circumstances under which the assault took place, it appears that there was no premeditation or previous plans to get rid of the deceased. There was verbal altercation between the two and when the deceased rushed towards appellant no.2 and caught hold of him, the appellant no.2 being deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation dealt a blow to him on his back side. Therefore, we are of the view that, in view of the surrounding circumstances in which the occurrence has taken place and the nature of overt act committed by the appellant no.2, the case squarely attracts Exception 1 to section 300 of the I.P.C. and since the manner in which the blow has been inflicted, the impact of the blow which had gone 6” deep into the left chest at left mid back, it proves that the appellant had the intention to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death and thus, the CRLA No.472 of 2013 Page 21 of 23 offence would be punishable under the first part of section 304 of the I.P.C. Accordingly, the conviction of appellant no.2 Bhimasen Barik under section 302 of the I.P.C. is hereby altered to one under section 304, Part-I of the I.P.C. and he is sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 (ten) years. Conclusion: 11. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and order of conviction of appellant no.1 namely Kulamani Barik under section 302/34 of IPC is hereby set aside and he is acquitted of the said charge. Appellant No.1 Kulamani Barik is on bail by virtue of the order of this Court dated 08.01.2024. He is discharged from liability of his bail bond. The personal bond as well as the surety bond stand cancelled. So far as appellant no.2 namely Bhimasen Barik is concerned, his conviction under section 302/34 of the I.P.C. is hereby altered to one under section 304, Part-I of the I.P.C. and he is sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 (ten) years. Appellant No.2 namely Bhimasen Barik is stated to be in judicial custody in connection with this case for more than 15 (fifteen) years. Therefore, he be released from the jail custody CRLA No.472 of 2013 Page 22 of 23 forthwith, if his detention is not otherwise required in any other case. Before parting with the case, we would like to put on record our appreciation to Mr. Tirth Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for his preparation and presentation of the case before the court and rendering valuable help in arriving at the decision above mentioned. This Court also appreciates the valuable help and assistance rendered by Mr. Jateswar Nayak, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. ................................. S.K. Sahoo, J. .................................. Chittaranjan Dash, J. Orissa High Court, Cuttack. The 18th November, 2024. S.K. Parida, ADR-cum-APS Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SAMIR KUMAR PARIDA Designation: ADR-cum-ADDL. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY Reason: Authentic Copy Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-Nov-2024 18:48:53 CRLA No.472 of 2013 Page 23 of 23
Arguments
Mr. Tirth Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the specific role that is attributed against appellant no.1 Kulamani Barik during trial by some of the witnesses that he caught hold of the deceased and thereby facilitated appellant no.2 Bhimasen Barik to assault the deceased by means of a knife on the backside of the chest of the deceased. However, in the first information report (F.I.R.) there is nothing to show that anyone was catching hold of the deceased when appellant no.2 Bhimasen Barik dealt knife blow on the backside of the chest of the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that other eye witnesses have not attributed any overt act against appellant no.1 Kulamani Barik. Though in the F.I.R., it is stated that appellant no.1 Kulamani Barik and other co-accused persons were also holding weapons, but during trial the evidence in that respect is totally silent and it is in the trial wherein it is projected that only appellant no.2 Bhimasen Barik was holding a weapon, i.e. knife. Therefore, since there are discrepancies relating to the overt act committed by appellant no.1 Kulamani Barik and moreover the witnesses who have attributed overt act against him that he was catching hold of the deceased at the time of occurrence, they have made such statement for the first time in the Court and thus, reliance should not have been placed on such evidence and since there is lack of CRLA No.472 of 2013 Page 12 of 23 cogent evidence linking to the common intention shared by appellant no.1 Kulamani Barik, it is a fit case where he should be given benefit of doubt. So far as Appellant No.2 Bhimasen Barik is concerned, Mr. Sahu, learned counsel for the appellants urged that from the evidence of P.W.6, it appears that prior to the occurrence, there was quarrel between the appellant and the deceased, and while hot exchange of abusive words was going on, suddenly the deceased rushed towards appellant no.2 Bhimasen Barik and caught hold of him tightly and then appellant no.2 dealt a blow by means of knife on the backside of the chest of the deceased and therefore, in view of the surrounding circumstances under which the offence is stated to have been committed by appellant no.2 Bhimasen Barik, it cannot be said that the ingredients of the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. are satisfied, which may at best be a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and since appellant no.2 has already remained in custody for about 15 years, if this Court at all believes the evidence of the eye witnesses relating to the overt act committed by appellant no.2, the conviction should be altered to one under section 304, Part-I of the I.P.C. and the sentence be reduced accordingly. Mr. Jateswar Nayak, learned Addl. Government Advocate on the other hand supported the impugned judgment CRLA No.472 of 2013 Page 13 of 23 and submitted that there are number of eye witnesses who have deposed against both the appellants to have committed murder. The evidence of the eye witnesses gets corroboration from the medical evidence adduced by the doctor (P.W.13) and therefore, the learned trial Court was quite justified in holding the appellants guilty under Section 302/34 of I.P.C. Whether the deceased died a homicidal death?: 8. Adverting to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respective parties, let us first discuss whether the prosecution has successfully proved that the deceased has met with a homicidal death or not. Apart from the inquest report, the doctor (P.W.13), who conducted the post-mortem examination on 22.02.2009 on police requisition in the Area Hospital, Ranpur, noticed the following injuries on the body of the deceased: “One incised linear wound extending from right chest to right shoulder. The length was 6 inches. The said injury is ante-mortem in nature. One penetrating wound of size 1’ length X ¼’ breadth and 6’ deep into the left chest at left mid back with blood protruding from the wound. The said injury was also ante-mortem in nature. The cause of the death was syncope from severe internal haemorrhage causing CRLA No.472 of 2013 Page 14 of 23 peripheral and cardiac failure. The nature of the death was homicidal and the time since death was within 12 hours from the time of P.M. examination.” [Emphasis supplied] P.W.13 further opined that the above injuries can cause death of a person in ordinary course of nature and the injury no.1 can be possible by use of a sharp cutting weapon and the injury no.2 can be possible by use of any sharp cutting and pointed weapon or object. In view of the evidence available on record, particularly, in view of the inquest report so also the doctor’s evidence coupled with the findings in the post mortem report (Ext.4), we are of the view that the prosecution has successfully established that the deceased met with a homicidal death. Whether the appellant no.1 Kulamani Barik is liable for commission of murder of the deceased?: 9. Coming to the ocular evidence of the witnesses, so far as the overt act attributed against appellant no.1 Kulamani Barik is concerned, admittedly in the F.I.R. (Ext.7), there is nothing that this appellant had caught hold of the deceased while appellant no.2 Bhimasen Barik assaulted the deceased by a sharp cutting weapon or embraced him tightly, which facilitated the appellant no.2 to deal a blow by weapon, rather it is mentioned CRLA No.472 of 2013 Page 15 of 23 that the appellant no.1 was armed with a sharp cutting weapon along with other co-accused persons at the spot, who were charge-sheeted as absconders. P.W.1 has stated that appellant no.1 along with two other co-accused persons (absconders) were holding the deceased tight in order to facilitate the assault made by appellant no.2 Bhimasen Barik. However, in the cross-examination, P.W.1 has admitted that he has not stated before the I.O. that when the appellant Bhimasen Barik was assaulting the deceased, the other two accused-persons, in order to facilitate the assault, caught- hold the deceased tightly. Therefore, the allegation that has been attributed against appellant no.1 was not made before the I.O. but made for the first time in the Court while giving evidence. P.W.4 has stated that appellant no.1 Kulamani along with two absconded co-accused persons restrained the deceased by catching hold of him and then appellant no.2 Bhimasen dealt a knife blow on the back side chest of the deceased. However, it has been confronted to P.W.4 and proved through the I.O. (P.W.22) that P.W.4 has not stated that appellant no.1 Kulamani along with two other co-accused persons caught hold of the deceased and surrounded him. P.W.5 has stated that he saw appellant no.1 and appellant no.2 along with two absconded accused persons CRLA No.472 of 2013 Page 16 of 23 catching hold of the deceased, out of which appellant no.2 Bhimasen stabbed at the backside chest of the deceased by means of a knife. However, it has been confronted to P.W.5 and proved through the I.O. (P.W.22) that he has not stated before him that appellant no.1 and the two absconded accused persons caught hold of the deceased. The next eye witness, as per the prosecution case, is P.W.6 and his evidence is totally silent regarding any overt act made by appellant no.1 Kulamani Barik. P.W.8 has also not stated regarding any overt act to have been committed by appellant no.1 Kulamani Barik when appellant no.2 Bhimasen stabbed the deceased on his back side chest. P.W.11 has stated that near the Bajarangi field, he found the appellant no.1 Kulamani Barik along with two other co- accused persons catching hold of the deceased and appellant no.2 Bhimasen stabbing him with a knife from his backside chest. However, it has been confronted to him and proved through the I.O. (P.W.22) that he has not stated in his previous statement that the accused persons chased the deceased and appellant no.1 along with two other absconding co-accused persons caught hold of the deceased. CRLA No.472 of 2013 Page 17 of 23 P.W.12 has stated that all the four accused persons chased the deceased and caught hold of him and out of them appellant no.2 Bhimasen stabbed the deceased by means of a knife. However, it has been confronted to him and proved through the I.O. (P.W.22) that he has not stated that all the four accused persons were chasing the deceased and assaulted after catching hold of him and that out of them, appellant no.2 Bhimasen stabbed his son with a knife. From the eye-witnesses’ account, it appears that some of the witnesses, like P.W.6 and P.W.8, have not attributed any overt act against appellant no.1 Kulamani Barik. So far as other eye witnesses are concerned, like P.Ws.4, 5, 11 and 12, though they have stated that appellant no.1 Kulamani caught hold of the deceased along with two absconded accused persons when appellant no.2 Bhimasen stabbed the deceased from his back, but they have stated so for the first time in the Court and that they have not made any such statement in their previous statements recorded by the I.O. under section 161, Cr.P.C. and therefore, it is very difficult to place reliance on such evidence. So far as the eye witness P.W.1 is concerned, he has admitted to have not stated before the police regarding the overt act attributed against appellant no.1 and two other absconded accused persons. Admittedly, the F.I.R. (Ext.7) is completely CRLA No.472 of 2013 Page 18 of 23 silent that any of the accused persons caught hold of the deceased or arrested the movement of the deceased when appellant no.2 Bhimasen dealt the blow by a sharp cutting weapon from the back side chest of the deceased. To fasten liability under section 34 of I.P.C., proof of ‘shared conscious minds’ of accused persons is a sine qua non. In other words, the act which ultimately led to the crime might have been committed by a single member of a group, but if every member of such group was conscious of the intent, design and consequence of such act, then each of such member shall be held liable for the principal offence, notwithstanding the fact that the principal offence was not a direct corollary of their act. To elaborate further, we may refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jasdeep Singh @ Jassu -Vrs- State of Punjab reported in (2022) 2 Supreme Court Cases 545, wherein it was observed as follows: “23. The intendment of Section 34 IPC is to remove the difficulties in distinguishing the acts of individual members of a party, acting in furtherance of a common intention. There has to be a simultaneous conscious mind of the persons participating in the criminal action of bringing about a particular result. A common intention qua its existence is a question of fact and also requires an act ‘in furtherance of the said intention’. One need CRLA No.472 of 2013 Page 19 of 23 not search for a concrete evidence, as it is for the Court to come to a conclusion on a cumulative assessment. It is only a rule of evidence and thus does not create any substantive offence.” [Emphasis added]