11. Let me consider whether the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 – injured witnesses as well as the evidence of Doctor – P.W.6 who issued the wound certificate, is sufficient to bring home the charge against the accused persons. Doctor (P.W.6) at the time of examination has deposed that he has noted seven (07) injuries on the person of P.W.1 and four (04) injuries on the person of P.W.2, among them, only injury No.1 of P.W.1 is grievous in nature, other injuries are simple in nature. When a charge has been framed under section 324 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution is duty bound to prove that in furtherance of the common intention of the accused persons, have committed the offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt to P.W.1 and P.W.2 by using dangerous means or weapon. In this case, the prosecution failed to seize the iron rod which was alleged to be used for causing such injury. It further appears that the prosecution has also failed to establish that there was common intention among the accused persons as defined under section 34 of the Indian penal Code. The common intention and motive is integral part of crime, without such common intention/common mind to have mens rea against P.W.1 and P.W.2, it is not possible to prove guilt under section 324 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Trial court has also recorded that there are discrepancies in the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. Learned Trial Court has
