beginning. In particular, when PW 1 had reached the spot, the accused nos.2, 3 and 4 were already holding the deceased and the accused no.1 cut his throat. The other eye witness PW 3 corroborates this evidence by deposing about the presence of all the accused at the spot and their assault on the deceased. Therefore, the injuries on the palm of the deceased were caused before both these eye witnesses had reached the spot but the evidence from the point from when they had reached the spot, is absolutely trustworthy and reliable. Therefore, the role played by the accused nos.2, 3 and 4 cannot be separated from that of the accused no.1. The approach of the learned trial Judge putting reliance on these two eye witnesses only in respect of the accused no.1 and discarding their evidence in respect of the accused nos.2, 3 and 4 is certainly erroneous and perverse and therefore we are inclined to reverse this finding of acquittal. Now, coming back to the role played by these accused nos.2, 3 and 4, the PW 1 has clearly stated that these three accused were holding the deceased and the accused no.1 inflicted the fatal blow. Hence, the act of the accused nos.2, 3 and 4 clearly falls within the meaning of Section 34 of the IPC as the act done in furtherance of common intention and therefore, each of them is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by each of the accused alone. Therefore, we hold that all the accused nos.1, 2 3 and 4 shared a common intention of commission of murder of Kalinga Lohar and they acted together to commit his murder. Therefore, all of them are guilty of commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the IPC.
