The judgment established the importance of evidence in proving specific actions and intentions, as well as the interpretation of common intention in relation to criminal offenses.

VISHNU SAHAI, J.

( 1 ) SINCE both these appeals arise out of the same set of facts, and a common impugned judgment, I am disposing them off together.

( 2 ) VIDE Judgment and order dated 30-7-1990, passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Mr. A. I. Cheema, in Sessions Case No. 282 of 1989, the appellants were convicted and sentenced in the manner stated hereinafter : (I)UNDER section 148, Indian Penal Code to undergo 3 years RI and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to undergo 6 months RI; (II) Under section 307 read with 34, Indian Penal Code to 5 years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default to suffer RI for 2 years; (III) Under section 147, Indian penal Code (IV) Under section 352 read with No separate 149, Indian Penal Code sentence was awarded to them on said counts. (V) Under section 326 read with 149, Indian Penal Code Hence, this appeal.

( 3 ) BRIEFLY stated the prosecution case runs as under : The informant-victim Raju Choudhary, PW 1, has a shop near the Mhasoba square in Pune town, Pune. On 21-4-1989, at about 9. 30 a. m. the appellants co- accused Bittya, Shrikant and Rajendra Mankar, were near the shop. Some girls were passing and Bittya teased one of them. On that Raju, reprimanded him for his act. A scuffle took place and thereafter, both the sides went away.

( 4 ) ON 22-4-1989, Raju came to his shop. At about 11. 30 a. m. along with his friends, Dashrath garware, PW 6 and Romi Almodiya, he went to have tea at Ganesh Bhavan Hotel, which was nearby. At that time, co-accused Bittya, accompanied by the appellants Rajendra Mankar, Shrikant and Dinesh dhumal came there. Bittya and Rajendra Mankar were armed with knives. Seeing Bittya and others Raju, ran and entered the Suyog Fish Stall. Bittya and others followed him. Thereafter, at the said place, Bittya and Rajendra Mankar assaulted him with knives. The blow inflicted by the latter, struck him on his chest. When he tried to run away, some of the accused persons inflicted injuries on both sides of his buttocks with sharp instruments. It is also alleged that excepting bittya and Rajendra Mankar, all others, (including appellants) inflicted blows with fists and kicks on him. As a result of the assault, he fell down and thereafter Bittya and others ran away. Thereafter, the victim Raju got up and started walking towards Dattawadi police Chowky, which was situated at a distance of about 100 sq. ft. One janardhan Vasankar, since dead, met him on the way and took him to the police chowky. Seeing his condition, police immediately sent for a auto- rickshaw, and sent him to Sasoon Hospital. In the meanwhile, some members of the public apprehended the appellants and took them to Dattawadi police chowky.

( 5 ) IN the meantime, PSI Vijay Deshpande was informed by Head constable Bendre of Dattawadi police chowky, about anincident taking placed in mhasoba square. On the said information, he came to police chowky where he learnt that the victim raju had been despatched to the Sasoon Hospital, pune. Consequently, he proceeded to the said hospital and there on the dictation of Raju, recorded an AIR Exhibit 31.

( 6 ) INJURIES of Raju were examined the same day at 12. 25 p. m. by Dr. Vishnu Ughade, PW 5, at the sasoon Hospital. He found that he had sustained the following two injuries :1. Incised wound on anterior axillary line on right shoulder joint measuring 2 x x bleeding. 2. Incised wound over supra umblical area. 2 x x bleeding. In the opinion of Dr. Ughade these injuries were attributable to a sharp object and were grievous in nature. On Dr. Ughade being shown the knife, article No. 3, he said that they were possible by the said knife. During his cross- examination, Dr. Ughade stated that injury No. 2 could have been dangerous, had it not been attended in time.

( 7 ) THE investigation was conducted in the usual manner by PSI Vijay Deshpande. During the course of it, a knife was discovered on the pointing out of the co-accused Rajendra Mankar. After completing the inv