BALU @ BALA SUBRAMANIAM & ANR. versus STATE (U.T. OF PONDICHERRY)
[2015] 11 S.C.R. 708, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Case Partly allowed (Granted)
Segment: Facts
A 
B 
c 
(2015] 11 S.C.R. 708 
BALU@BALASUBRAMANIAM &ANR. 
v. 
STATE (U.T. OF PONDICHERRY) 
(Criminal Appeal No. 502 of 2007) 
OCTOBER 16,2015 
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.) 
Penal Code, 1860: 
ss.325, 326 and 324- Conviction by trial courl, of the 
appellants-accused alongwith 3 other accused u/ss. 3021149 
and 148 - For killing one person and for causing injuries to 
the eye-witnesses- High Courl acquitted accused No.3 while 
0 
altering conviction of other accused to one under ss.302134, 
326134 and 324134 -
On appeal, held: In view of the 
consistent version of eye-witnesses, the finding of the courls 
below that the accused were the assailants, cannot be faulted 
- However, in the facts of the case, High Courl was not right 
E in invoking s.34 /PC as the facts do not give rise to an 
inference of pre-concerl -
The acts of the accused are 
random individual acts done without meeting of minds -
Therefore, the appellants-accused can be held liable only 
for their individual acts - Conviction u/s.302134 is modified 
F as u/s.325 ~Convictions u/ss.324134 and 326134 is liable to 
be set aside. 
s.34 -
Common intention - Applicability of - Held: 
Essence of liability u/s.34 is simultaneous conscious minds 
G of persons parlicipating in criminal acts to bring about a 
parlicular result- Sharing of common intention gets satisfied 
when an overl act is established qua each of the accused. 
s. 34 - Common intention - Proof of - Held: Common 
H intention is seldom
capable of direct proof- It is to be inferred 
708
BALU@ BALASUBRAMANIAM v. STATE (UT OF 
709 
PONDICHERRY) 
from proved circumstances relating to the entire conduct of A 
all the persons and not only from the individual act actually 
performed- Such inference is to be drawn from the manner 
of origin of the occurrence; how the accused arrived at tfle 
scene; the concert with which attack was made; and from the 
injuries caused by one or some of them - The act actually B 
committed would be one of the important facts, but not the . 
sole factor -A pre-concert in the sense of a distinct previous 
plan is not necessary tO be proved. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
c 
HELD: 1. Consistent version of PWs 1 and 5 (eye-
witnesses) establish presence of the appellants and that 
they attacked the deceased with sticks. These facts are 
also substantiated by the evidence of injured witness D 
PW2. Findings recorded by the courts below that the 
appellants attacked the deceased with sticks, is 
unassailable. [Para 8] [716-C] 
2.1 To invoke Section 34 IPC, it must be established· E 
that the criminal act was done by more than·one person 
in' furtherance of common intention of all. It must, 
therefore, be proved that:- (i) there was common 
intention on the part of several persons to commit a 
particular crime and.(ii) the crime was actually committed F 
by them in furtherance of that common intention. The 
essence of liability under Section 34 IPC is simultaneous 
· conscious mfnd of persons participating in the criminal 
action
to bring about a particular result. Minds regarding 
the sharing of common intention gets satisfied when an G 
overt act is established qua each of the accused . 
. Common intention implies pre-arranged plan and acting 
in concert pursuant to the pre-arranged plan. Common 
intention is an intention to commit the crime actually. 
committed and each accused person can be convicted H
710 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 11 S.C.R. 
A of that crime, only if he has participated in that common 
intention. [Para 10] [716-F-H; 717-A] 
Mahbub Shah v. Emperor AIR 1945 PC 118; 
Shanker/al Kacharabhai and Others vs. State of 
B · 
Gujarat AIR 1965 SC 1260 : 1965 SCR 287; 
Ramesh Singh alias photti v. State of A.P. (2004) 
11 sec 305 - relied on. 
2.2 Common intention is seldom capable of direct 
proof, it is almost invariably to be inferred from proved 
C circumstances relating to the entire conduct of all the 
persons and not only from the individual act actually 
performed. The inference to be drawn from the manner 
of the origin of the occurrence, the manner in which the 
0 
accused arrived at the scene and the concert with. which 
attack was made and from the injuries caused by one or 
some of them. The criminal act actually committed would 
certainly be one of the important factor to be taken into 
consideration but should not be taken to be the sole 
E factor. [Para 13] [79-C-D] 
2.3 Under Section 34 IPC, a pre-concert in the sense 
of a distinct previous plan is not necessary to be proved. 
The common intention to bring about a particular result 
F may well develop on the spot as between a number of 
persons, with reference to the facts of the case and 
circumstances of the situation. The question whether 
there was any common intention or not depends upon 
the inference to be drawn from the proving facts and 
G circumstances of each case. The totality of
the. 
circumstances must be taken into consideration in 
arriving at the conclusion whether the accused had a 
common inte·ntion to commit an offence with which they 
could be convicted. [Para 14] [719-E-G] 
H
BALU@ BALASUBRAMANIAM v. STATE (U.T. OF 
711 
PONDICHERRY) 
2.4 The facts and-circumstances of the present A 
case do not indicate that there was common intention 
to commit murder of the deceased. The attack was not a 
premeditated one nor was there a prior concert. · No 
doubt, common intention could develop even at the spur 
of the moment; but in _the present case, the way the B 
occurrence took place as depicted by the prosecution, 
there could not have been common intention between 
the accused. The totality of the circumstances must be 
taken into consideration in order to arrive at a conclusion 
that the appellants had a common intention to commit C 
the offence under which they were convicted .. The 
appellants were not armed and admittedly they are said 
to have removed sticks from the bullock cart standing 
nearby and on the exhortation by accused No.1, the 0 
appellants have attacked the deceased. There may be 
similar intention in the minds of the assailants to attack; 
but it cannot be said·that the appellants have acted in 
furtherance of common intention to attract constructive 
liability under Section 34 IPC. The facts and E 
circumstances do not give rise to an inference of pre-
concert. (Paras 15 and 16) (719-H; 720-A, F-H; 721-A-C] 
2.5 The acts of the appellants are random individual 
acts done without meeting of minds and the appellants F 
can be held liable only for their individual acts. 
Considering the totality of the circumstances, conviction 
under
Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC is modified 
as the conviction und~r Section 325 IPC and the 
sentence is modified to the period of imprisonment G 
already undergone. [Para 17) [721-F-G] 
2.6 No specific overt act is attributed to the 
appellants in attacking the prosecution witnesses 2, 4 
and 5. As the appellants have not shared or acted in H
712 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 11 S.C.R. 
A furtherance of common intention in the attack of the 
witnesses and therefore the conviction of the appellants 
as modified by the High Court under Section 326 read 
with Section 34 IPC and under Section 324 read with 
Section 34 IPC cannot be sustained and the same is 
B liable to be set aside. The appellants are acquitted of 
those charges. [Paras 18-19) [722-A-C, E] 
c 
D 
E 
F 
Case Law Reference 
AIR 1945 PC 118 
relied on. 
Para 11 
1965 SCR 287 
relied on. 
Para 11 
(2004) 11 sec 305 
relied on. 
Para 12. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :Criminal 
Appeal No. 502 of 2007 
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.07.2005 of the 
High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 
113of1999 
P. K. ·oey, A. Naqvi, Shreyasi, Chakrabarti, Vijay Pal 
Singh, Abha R. Sharma for the Appellants. 
V. Kanagaraj, V. G. Pragasam, Prabu Ramasubramanian 
for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. This criminal appeal is filed 
against the judgment dated 15.07.2005 passed by the High 
G Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No.113 of 
1999, whereby the High Court, while maintaining the sentence, 
modified the conviction recorded by the trial court qua the 
accused namely Giri-accused No.1, Seenu @ Srinivasan-
accused No.2, Balu@ Bala Subramaniam (Appellant No.1-
H Accused No.4) and Raja @ Kotti Raja (Appellant No.2-
BALU@BALASUBRAMANIAM v. STATE(U.T. OF 
713 
PONDICHERRY) [R. BANUMATHI, J.] 
Accused No.5) as conviction under Section 302 read with A 
Section 34 IPC, Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC and 
Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC. The High Court 
acquitted Partheeban-accused No.3 of all the charges. 
2. Briefly stated case of the prosecution is that one B 
Natarajan had a quarrel with Seenu @ Srinivasan-accused 
No.2 in respect of a chit transaction and Kannan-PW2 
supported Natarajan and fight ensued between Seenu-
accused No.2 and Kannan-PW2 about a week prior to the 
date of incident i.e. 18.05.1997. In the forenoon, on the day of C 
the .incident i.e. on 18.05.1997, Kannan-PW2, Ramesh 
(deceased) and one Kamalakannan went. to the accused in 
order to settle the dispute amicably.· However, during 
settlement talks, fight ensued between PW-2 and Seenu and 
Balu attempted to beat PW-2 and Ramesh intervened and beat D 
Balu. Thereafter both parties left the place stating that they 
could resume settlement talks in the evening. On the evening 
at about 6. 30 P. M., Kannan-PW2, Saravanan-PW3, Suresh-
PW5 and Arumugam-PW6 accompanied by Nagarajan went 
to Sakthi Nagar at Uruliyanpet and were having the settlement E 
talks with the accused. On the mid way, the accused persons 
. were informed that their friend one Anand is being badly cut· 
by the complainant party and the accused questioned them 
as to how they could attack their man even when settlement F 
talks were going
on. So saying, the accused ran towards the 
place and on seeing PW-1 and Ramesh coming. in the 
opposite direction, Giri-accused No.1 allegedly shouted that 
Ramesh supports Kannan and that he must be killed and 
accused No.1 and 2 cut Ramesh with knives or:i his head and G 
chased him. Partheeban and appellants beat Ramesh on the 
face with sticks, Giri-accused No.1 again cut Ramesh with 
knife and Ramesh fell down. When PW-2 intervened to save 
Ramesh, PW-2 was attacked and he sustained injury on his 
left hand and PW-2 ran away from the place. Accused No.1 
H
714 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 11 S.C.R. 
A 
and 3 chased PW-3 and accused No.2 assaulted and inflicted 
cut.injuries on the head of PW-3. They also inflicted cut injury 
on Muruganathan-PW4, who was taking bath near a watert?P· 
The witnesses ran away from the place and came back only 
after some time and they were informed that injured Ramesh 
B was removed from the scene of occurrence by a police 
constable. 
3. 
Based on the complaint lodged by PW-1, a case was 
registered against the accused in Crime No.152/1997 under 
C Sections 147, 148, 307 read with Section 149 IPC. R~mesh 
and other injured witnesses were examined by PW-11-Dr. 
Baskaran in General Hospital, Pondicherry. On 21.05.1997, 
Ramesh succumbed to injuries and the case was altered to 
Section 302 IPC. After due investigation, chargesheet was filed 
D against all the five accused. 
4. To substantiate the charges, onbehalf of the 
prosecution, fifteen witnesses were examined. The trial court 
held that the prosecution has established guilt of the accused 
E beyond reasonable doubt and convicted all the five accused 
under Section 148 IPC and Section 302 read with Section 
149 IPC and various other offences and sentenced them to 
undergo imprisonment for life and also imposed sentences 
for other offences. Aggrieved by the verdict of conviction, 
F accused preferred appeal before the High Court. Vide 
impugned judgment dated 15.07.2005, High Court modified 
the conviction as aforesaid in para (1) and
partly allowed the 
criminal appeal. Aggrieved, the appellants have preferred this 
appeal. 
G 
. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that 
the testimony of PW-2 who is an injured witness is not 
believable as firstly all the injured witnesses were examined 
soon after the incident in Government Hospital and they 
H deposed that they were assaulted by unknown persons.
BALU@BALASUBRAMANIAM v. STATE (U.T. OF 
715 
PONDICHERRY) [R. BANUMATHI, J.] 
· However, PW-2, who was examined after three ·days, has A 
stated that he was assaulted by accused No.1-Giri and not· 
attributed any overt act to the appellants-accused No.4 and 5. 
It was further submitted that even as per the prosecution case, 
the occurrence was due to a sudden fight and that when peace 
talks were going on between the complainant and the accused -S 
party and on being informed that one Anand belonging to 
accused party was cut by the complainant party, fight ensued 
between two groups.and as the act was not committed in 
furtherance of the common intention, the High Court erred in 
convicting the appellants under Section 302 read with Section C 
341PC. 
6. Taking us through the evidence onbehalf of the 
respondent, learned Senior Counsel Mr. V. Kanagaraj 
submitted that on exhortation by Giri-accused No.1, the D 
appellants and other accu~ed attacked deceased-Ramesh 
and injuries were caused in furtherance of common intention 
of all the accused would be liable under Section 302 read with 
Section 34 IPC for the act of committing murder'of Ramesh 
and the appellants have been rightly convicted by the courts E 
below. 
7. We have carefully considered the rival contention and 
perused the impugned judgment and material on record. 
F 
8. Prosecution has examined fifteen witnesses out of 
which PWs 2 to .4 are injured witnesses. PW-3 Saravanan, 
PW-4 Muruganathan (nephew of
accused No.3) did not support 
the prosecution case and prosecution thus relied upon the 
evidence of PW1-Murgan and PW5-Suresh and injured G 
witness PW2-Kannan. In his evidence, PW-1 stated that 
accused No.1 and 2 attacked Ramesh on his head with knives· 
and accused No. 3 to 5 attacked Ramesh on his face by stick 
and Ramesh fell down on the road. Suresh-PW5 had also 
stated that the appellants attacked Ramesh by stick. PW2-
H
716 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 11 S.C.R. 
A 
Kannan. injured witness stated that accused No.1-Giri and 
accused No.2- Seenu attacked Ramesh by knives on his head. 
So far as the overt act of the appellants, PW2-Kannan stated 
that Accused No. 4 and 5 took the wooden stick from a bullock 
cart standing nearby. PW-2 did not say anything about the 
B overt act of the appellants. Though the appellants denied their 
presence at the place of incident and pleaded that a false case 
has been foisted against them, consistent version of PWs 1 
and 5 establish presence of the appellants and that they 
attacked Ramesh with sticks. Presence of the appellants and 
C that they were armed with sticks is also substantiated by the 
evidence of injured witness KannancPW2. Findings recorded 
by the courts below that the appellants attacked Ramesh with 
sticks is unassailable. 
D 
9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether 
the High Court was right in finding that the appellants acted in 
furtherance of common intention in committing murder of 
Ramesh and whether the High Court was right in attributing 
constructive liability to the appellants while convicting them 
E under Section 302 read with Section 34 I PC is the point falling 
for consideration. 
10. To invoke Section 34 IPC, it must be established that 
the criminal act was done by more than one person in 
F furtherance of common intention of all. It must, therefore, be 
proved that:- (i) there was common intention on the
part of 
several person.s to commit a particular crime and (ii) the crime 
was actually committed by them in furtherance of that common 
intention. The essence of liability under Section 34 .IPC is 
G simultaneous conscious mind of persons participating in the 
criminal action to bring about a particular result. Minds 
regarding the sharir19 of common intention gets satisfied when 
an overt act is established qua each of the accused. Common 
H intention implies pre-arranged plan and acting in concert
BALU@BALASUBRAMANIAM v. STATE (U.T. OF 
717 
PONDICHERRY) [R. BANUMATHI, J.] 
pursu_ant to the pre-arranged plan. Common intention is an A 
intention to commit the crime actually committed and each 
accused person c_an be convicted of that crime, only if he has 
participated in that common intention. 
11. The classic case on the subject is the judgment of B 
the Privy Council in Mahbub Shah v. Emperor, AIR 1945 PC 
118, wherein it was held as under:-
" ... Section 34 lays down a principle of joint liability in the 
doing of a criminal act. The section does not say "the C 
common intentions of all" nor does it say "an intention 
common to all". Under the section, the essence of that 
liability is to be found in the existence of a common 
intention animating the accused leading to the doing-of 
a criminal act in furtherance of such intention. To invoke 0 
the aid of Section 34 successfully; it must be shown that 
the criminal act complained against was done by one of 
the accused persons in the furtherance of the common 
intention of all; if this is shown. then liability for the crime 
may be imposed on any one of the persons in the same E 
manner as if the act were done by him alone. This being 
the principle, it is clear to their· Lordships that common 
·intention within the meaning of the section implies a pre-
arranged plan, and to convict the accus~d of an offence 
. applying the section it should be proved that the criminal 
F 
act was done in concert pursuant to the
pre-arranged 
plan. As has been often observed, it is difficult if not 
impossible to procure direct evidence to prove the 
intention of an individual; in most cases it has to be 
inferred from his act or conduct or other relevant G 
circumstances of the case."(Underlining added) 
Reiterating the above principles laid down by the Privy 
Council in Mahbub Shah's case, in Shanker/al Kacharabhai 
and Others vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1965 SC 1260, this Court H
718 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 11 S.C.R. 
A 
held that the criminal act mentioned in Section 34 IPC is the 
result of the concerted action of more than one person and if 
the said result was reached in furtherance of the common 
intention, each person is liable for the result as if he had done 
it himself. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
12. In Ramesh Singh aliasphottiv. State of A.P., (2004) 
11 SCC 305, this Court held as under:-
"12 .... As a general principle in a case of criminal liability 
it is the primary responsibility of the person who actually 
commits the offence and only that person who has 
committed the crime can be held guilty. By introducing 
Section 34 in the Penal Code the legislature laid down 
the principle of joint liability in doing a criminal act. The 
essence of that.liability is to be found in the existence of 
a common intention connecting the accused leading to 
the doing of a criminal act in furtherance of such intention. 
Thus, if the act is the result of a common intention then 
every person who did the criminal act with that common 
intention would be responsible for the offence committed 
irrespective of the share which he had in its perpetration. 
Section 34 IPC embodies the principle of joint liability in 
doing the criminal act based on a common intention. 
Common intention .essentially being a state of mind it is 
verv difficult to procure direct evidence to prove such 
intention. Therefore, in most cases it has to be inferred 
from the act like. the
conduct of the accused or other 
relevant circumstances of the case. The inference can 
be gathered from the manner in which the accused 
G 
arrived at the scene and mounted the attack. the 
determination and concert with which the attack was 
made. and from the nature of injury caused by one or 
some of them. The contributory acts of the persons who 
H 
are not responsible for the injury can further be inferred 
from the subsequent conduct after the attack. In this
BALU@BALASUBRAMANIAM v. S'fATE (U.T. OF 
719 
PONDICHERRY) [R. BANUMATHI, J.] 
regard even an illegal omission on the part of such A 
accused can indicate the sharing of common intention .. 
In other words, the totality of circumstances must be taken 
into consideration in arriving. at the conclusion whether 
the accused had the common intention to commit an 
offence of which they could be convicted. (See Noor B 
Mohammad Mohd. Y(Jsuf. Momin v. State of 
Maharashtra, (1970) 1SCC696)" (Underlining added) 
13. Common intention is .seldom capable of direct proof,. 
it is almost invariably to be inferred from proved circumstances c 
relating to the entire conduct of all the persons and not only 
from the individual act actually performed. The inference to be 
drawn from the manner of the origin of the occurrence, the 
manner in which the accused arrived at the scene and the 
concert with which attack was made and from the injuries D 
caused by one or·some of them. The criminal act actually 
committed would certainly be one of the important factor to be 
taken into consideration but should not be taken to be the sole 
factor. 
14. Under Section 34 IPC, a pre-concert in the sense of 
E 
a distinct previous plan is n.ot necessary to be proved. The 
common intention to bring about a particular result may well 
develop on the spot as between a number of persons, with. 
reference to the facts of the case and circumstances of the F 
situation. The question whether there was any common
intention or not depends upon the inference to be drawn from 
the proving facts and circumstances of each case. The totality 
of the circumstances must be taken into consideration in 
arriving at the. conclusion whether the accused had a common G 
intention to commit an offence with which they could be 
convicted. · 
15. In the light of the above principles, considering the 
present case, in our view, the facts and circumstances do not · H
720 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 11 S.C.R. 
A 
indicate that there was common intention to commit murder of 
Ramesh. On 18.05.1997 in the forenoon, there were 
settlement talks which did not materialise and therefore they 
left the place stating that they could resume settlement talks in 
the evening. On the evening at about 6.30 P.M., PW2-Kannan, 
B 
PW3-Saravanan, PW5-Suresh, Arumugam and Nagarajan 
went to Sakthi Nagar and resumed settlement talks. At that 
time, one person belonging to the accused party came and 
informed that at the corner of lane, Anand-friend of the accused 
party was cut by the person who came for the settlement talks. 
C On hearing the same, Giri-Accused No.1 and Seenu-Jl.ccused 
No.2 questioned-the complainant party as to how they could 
attack their man even when settlement talks were going on 
and so saying accused No.1 and 2 took their knives which 
0 
they were hiding behind their back and accused No. 3 to 5 
took sticks from a cart standing nearby attacked PWs 2, 3 
and 5. Atthattime Ramesh and his uncle PW-1 Murgan were 
coming in the opposite direction and on seeing them accused 
No.1-Giri pointing out to Ramesh, exhorted others saying that 
E 
Ramesh belonged to Kannan party and that he be cut and by 
so saying accused No.1-Giri cut Ramesh on his head with knife 
and Seenu-Accused No.2 also attacked Ramesh with knife. 
The appellants and Partheeban-Accused No.3 have also 
attacked Ramesh with sticks on his face. 
F 
16. Facts and
circumstances of the case show that the 
attack was not a premeditated one nor was the.re a prior 
concert. Initially settlement talks were on and fight started only 
when the accused party was informed by their person that 
G Anand was cut by complainant party and thus the incident arose 
suddenly. No doubt, common intention could develop even at 
the spur of the moment; but in the present case, the way the 
occurrence took place as depicted by the prosecution, there . 
could not have been common intention between the accused. 
H The totality of the circumstances must be taken into
BALU@ BALASUBRAMANIAM v. STATE (UT OF 
721 
PONDICHERRY) [R BANUMATHI, J.] 
consideration in order to arrive at a conclusion that the A 
appellants had a common intention to commit the offence under 
· which they were convicted. The appellants were not armed 
and admittedly they are said to have removed sticks from the 
bullock cart standing nearby and on the exhortation by accused 
No.1-Giri, the appellants have attacked Ramesh. There.may B · 
be similar intention in the minds of the assailants to attack; but 
it cannot be said that the appellants have acted in furtherance 
of common. intention to attract constructive liability under 
Section 34 IPC. The facts and circumstances, in ou·r vi~w. do 
not give rise to an inference of pre-concert. 
-
C 
17. For conviction of an offence read with Section 34 
IPC, it is necessary that there should be a finding as to the 
common intention of the participants. Though the High Court 
has modified the conviction from Section 302 read ·with D 
Section 149 !PC.as Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, 
the High Court has not recorded any finding as to.how the 
appellants shared the common intention to establish their 
constructive liability to sustain the conviction under Section 302 
read with Section 34 IPC. The appellants are said to have E 
attacked Ramesh with sticks on his face. Ramesh sustained 
nasal bone fracture probably due to the attack on the face. 
But this cannot be said to be an act in furtherance of common 
intention to
commit the murder of Ramesh along with accused 
F 
No.1 and 2. They are random individual acts done without 
meeting of minds and in our view, the appellants can be held 
liable only for their individual acts. Considering the totality of 
the circumstances, conviction of the appellants under Section 
302 read with Section 34 IPC cannot be sustained and the G 
same is modified as the conviction under Section 325 IPC 
and the sentence is modified to the period of imprisonment 
already undergone. 
18'. For attacking the witnesses PW2-Kannan, PW4-
H 
Muruganathan and PW5-Suresh, the appellants were convicted
722 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 11 S.C.R. 
A by the trial court under Section 326 read with Section 149 IPC 
and under Section 324 read with Section 149 IPC which was 
modified by the High Court. No specific overt act is attributed 
to the appellants in attacking the prosecution witnesses 2, 4 
and 5. As the appellants have not shared or acted in furtherance 
B of common intention in the attack of the witnesses and therefore 
the conviction of the appellants as modified by the High Court 
under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC and under Section 
324 read with Section 34 IPC cannot be sustained and the 
·same is liable to be set aside. 
c 
19. Conviction of the appellants Balu (A-4) and Raja(A-
5) under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC is modified as 
conviction under Section 325 IPC and they are sentenced to 
undergo imprisonment to the period already undergone. Their 
D conviction under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC and 
under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC is set aside and 
the appellants are acquitted of those charges. The appeal is 
partly allowed to the extent indicated above. The appellants 
are on bail. Their bail bonds shall stand-discharged. 
E 
Kalpana K. Tripathy 
Appeal Partly allowed.