The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of evidence to establish a common intention or prior meeting of minds among the accused under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

V.K. Ahuja, J (Oral):-This is a criminal revision filed by the petitioners under Sections 397, 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of the court of learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, dated 7.9.2002, vide which he dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners against the judgment of the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barsar, dated 23.6.2000, vide which the petitioners were held guilty under Section 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced as under:

Rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, each of the petitioners were to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months.

2. On realization of the fine, an amount of Rs.25,000/- was payable as compensation to the LRs of the deceased.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 30.11.1986, at 6.00 p.m., a rapat was lodged with the police by one Rattan Singh that on 30.11.1986, at about 11.00 a.m., in the house of Dhiana, a bundle of bamboos was kept in the courtyard in front of the door by the labourers. His mother Smt.Purvo Devi asked his son Surjit Singh as to who has kept the bamboos in front of the door to which his son told her that these bamboos belonged to Dhian Singh. Thereafter, his mother addressed Dhian Singh, Joginder Singh, Promila and their mother Vidya Devi, who were standing in their courtyard, as to why they have not kept the bamboos in their own courtyard and why these have been kept in their courtyard since it is a bad omen. The exchange of words took place between both the parties and the other party started giving filthy abuses and the complainant came out and told Dhianu etc. as to why they were giving abuses since his mother had rightly said that it was a bad omen to keep bamboos in the courtyard, but they refused to remove them. His mother again asked them to remove the bamboos and not to give abuses and at this instance they all came towards his mother to give her beatings. It was further alleged that Promila took a plastic shoe from her right foot and gave several blows on the face, head etc. of his mother and threw her on the ground by pushing her. His brothers’ wives Premi Devi, Savitri and Hukmi Devi came forward to rescue his mother and all those persons ran away. It was further alleged that the occurrence was witnessed by Lachhi Ram and Nikku Ram, who were working as masons in their house. His brothers’ wives massaged his mother at the spot on the foot and hand and proclaimed that old lady had been killed and doctor should be brought. The complainant went to a private doctor Desh Raj who came and after examining his mother, he opined that she is already dead.

4. On this report, a case was registered and after investigation, the challan was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate under Section 302/34 IPC. The case was committed to the learned Sessions Judge who framed the charge under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sent the case to the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur, for trial. A charge was framed under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC against all the petitioners. A revision was preferred before this Court against the said order and this Court vide its judgment dated 12.5.1988, upheld the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. A Special Leave Petition was filed before the Supreme Court by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the said judgment, which was dismissed. Thereafter, the learned trial court proceeded with the trial of the case and on conclusion, the petitioners were held guilty and were convicted and sentenced, which findings were upheld by the learned Sessions Judge on appeal, as detailed above.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.

6. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners were that on appraisal of the evidence led by the pros