D. N. Baruah,J.— Accused Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 in Sessions Case No. 6 (NL) of 1988 of the Sessions Court, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur have filed this appeal against the judgment dated 20.12.89 of the Sessions Judge convicting them under sections 302 and 324, IPC read with section 34 IPC and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-with default sentence. Accused Nos. 5 and 7 to U have been acquitted and the acquittal is not challenged by the State. 2. Prosecution case is as follows: On the evening of 22.9.81, State Transport Bus No.2580 was coming from North Lakhimpur to Bihpuria via Fatehpur. PW 11 was the driver and PW 12 was the conductor cf the bus. PW 1 Abdul Sabhan Master, his son, now deceased, Abdul Hakim, PWs 2 to 6, PW 14, PW 15 and others were travelling in the bus. The bus left Fatehpur Bazar and reached a small wooden bridge at Sundarikhal at about 6.45 PM. Entry to the bridge was seen blocked by putting a bamboo across it. On the instruction of the conductor, PW 2 alighted from the bus and pushed back the bamboo and got into the bus. Sixth accused armed with dao and others came to the bridge and sixth accused flourishing the dao replaced the bamboo so as to obstruct the passage. The twelve accused alongwith now deceased Yasin and Jabbar and others all armed with deadly weapon like daos, daggers etc. came to the bus. Some of them opened the driver's door and injured the driver. Others broke open the passengers' door of the bus and entered. Meanwhile Abdul Hakim moved near the seat where his father PW 1 was sitting. Some of the accused stabbed Abdul Hakim with daggers and daos. When PW 1 begged them to spare his son's life, some of them stabbed him with daggers. Thereafter they left the place with their weapons. Abdul Hakim, who received bleeding injuries died inside the bus. PW 11 drove the bus with the dead body and some of the passengers to Bihpuria Police Station. PW 18, Officer-in-charge of Laluk Police Outpost, who was present in the Police Station, was put in-charge of the investigation. PW 1 gave Ext. 1 ejahar on the basis of which a case was registered against 14 persons including the present appellants. PW 11 drove the bus with the dead body and some of the passengers to Bihpuria Police Station. PW 18, Officer-in-charge of Laluk Police Outpost, who was present in the Police Station, was put in-charge of the investigation. PW 1 gave Ext. 1 ejahar on the basis of which a case was registered against 14 persons including the present appellants. PWs 1 and 11, the injured, were sent to local hospital for treatmant. After being treated they returned to the station. PW 18 held inquest on the body and thereafter proceeded to the scene and seized certain articles. Post mortem was conducted by PW 16, Sub-divisional Medical Officer attached to North Lakhimpur Civil Hospital. PW 17, SI of Police also questioned the witnesses. Accused persons were duly arrested. PW 17, on completion of the investigation, laid charge sheet against 14 persons including the appellants, of them Yasin and Jabbar died later. 3. The Sessions Judge framed charges under section 148 and 302 read with section 34 and section 324 read with section 34, IPC against the 12 accuseds. They pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined 18 witnesses, of them PWs 2 to 4, 12 and 13 were declared hostile Defence did not tender oral evidence. Accused, when questioned by.the Sessions Judge, denied the truth of the prosecution evidence. Sessions Judge held that the charge under section 148, IPC has not been proved, that the complicity of accused Nos. 5 and 7 to 12 has not been proved and found the appellants guilty under sections 302 and 324 IPC read with section 34, IPC. 4. According to the prosecution three persons were injured in the occurrence, namely, Abdul Hakim, who succumbed to the injuries and PWs 1 and 11. There is evidence to show that PW 18, Investigating Officer sent PWs 1 and 11 to a hospital for medical examination. Injury certificates relating to PWs 1 and 11 have not been produced in Court and the doctor who examined or treated them was not cited as a witness. 5. PW 16, Medical Officer attached to North Lakhimpur Civil Hospital conducted autopsy over the dead body of Abdul Hakim. Injury certificates relating to PWs 1 and 11 have not been produced in Court and the doctor who examined or treated them was not cited as a witness. 5. PW 16, Medical Officer attached to North Lakhimpur Civil Hospital conducted autopsy over the dead body of Abdul Hakim. He found on the body nine external injuries above the right clavicle, above right nipple, below the right lower rib, over the right wrist joint, both thighs, over right knee with fracture of Tight patella, over anterior aspect of both thighs, above kree joint, over lateral aspect of left patella and over left fossae. Internally, lower lobe of the liver and upper lope of the right lung were ruptured. These injuries correspond to external injuries Nos.2 and 3. PW 16 deposed that death was on account of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries. He denied that the injured would have survived if proper treatment had been given. 6. PWs 1 to 6, 9, 11, 12, 14 and 15 were examined as eye witnesses. Of them, PWs 2 to 4t 6 and 12 turned hostile to the prosecution. PW 9, a shopkeeper heard only commotion inside the bus. PWs 1 to 6, 14 and 15 are passengers in the bus, PW 11 was the driver and PW 12, the conductor of the bus. PW 7 the mother of the deceased, was examined to prove motive. PWs 8, 10 and 13 were examined to prove that appellants and others were planning the incident. 7. The evidence of PW 1 can be summarised as follows : He was travelling in the bus from North Lakhimpur. His son Abdul Hakim sat in the front part of the bus. When the bus reached a small wooden bridge at Sundarikbal at about 6.45 PM it had to be stopped because a bamboo was found across the bridge. PW 2 removed the bamboo, though not completely and came back to the bus. Kasem Ali, sixth accused (third appellant) who was armed with a dao, came to the bridge and put it back. Then the driver switched off the engine; lights of the bus were on. Some persons, who were waiting close by, entered the bus by breaking open the passengers' door and some others through the driver's door after dragging out the driver. Then the driver switched off the engine; lights of the bus were on. Some persons, who were waiting close by, entered the bus by breaking open the passengers' door and some others through the driver's door after dragging out the driver. Deceased Yasin, deceased Zabbar, Sarafat AH (A 2), Abdui Ali (A 3), Aboul Jabbar (A 4), Kashem AH (A 6), Abdul Gafur (A 7), Muslim (A 12) and one Sadar Ali entered the bus. Witness asked why they entered and the accused stated- "It is necessary. You will know soon enough." Witness identified the accused other than those who died. Abdul Hakim was sitting in front of him. Immediately he came .and sat by his side. Seventh accused, Abul Gafar stabbed Abdul Hakim on the abdoman with a dagger. Sixth accused, Kasem Ali, stabbed him on the upper abdomen with a dagger and the injured fell down. The other accused persons also hacked him with daggers. Second accused, Sarafat Ali stabbed him on the neck with a dagger. None of the passengers rendered any help. PW 1 tried to save his son using his hands. The persons who entered through the passengers' door went out and came it again through the driver's door and hacked Abdul Hakim with daggers. The witness took Abdul Hakim in his arms saying, "Don't kill the boy. Kill me." The witness was hit with a dagger, but he was not stabbed. He sustained injuries. Some one cried for water and some one brought water. Accused persons left the bus. Abdul Hakim died inside the bus. Before getting down, second accused, Sarafat Ali, stained his hand with Abdul Hakim's blood and put his hand print on the body of the vehicle. The bus with Abdul Hakim and some of the passengers was taken to Bihpuria PS. PW 1 got an ejahar written and after lodging it he and PW 11 were sent to the hospital. They returned to the police station later. Ext 1 is the ejaliar. By the this time clock struck 1.00 AM. He was present at the time of the inquest. Leaving the dead body on the verandah of the PS the police accompanied by him and the witnesses went to the scene of occurrence. Material Ext 1, the bamboo placed across the bridge, was seized under Ext 3. His son's clothes were also seized. He was present at the time of the inquest. Leaving the dead body on the verandah of the PS the police accompanied by him and the witnesses went to the scene of occurrence. Material Ext 1, the bamboo placed across the bridge, was seized under Ext 3. His son's clothes were also seized. He could recognise the accused persons by the glow of the lights. 8. PW 2, a hostile witntness and a passenger of the bus deposed that he did not recognise any of the assailants. He denied his case diary statement which was put to him. He deposed that the bridge was found blocked by a bamboo and the bus had to be stopped. He removed the bamboo on the request of the conductor. When he got back to the bus again, two persons replace the bamboo. At that time four or five persons were moving around the bus. He deposed that a few persons entered the bus through the driver's door and asked the passengers to get down or go to the rear part and the witness went to the rear part and some people got down. When some people alighted, be also alighted. When he later boarded the bus, he found Abdul Hakim lying inside the bus. He was dead. According to him it was not possible to see what was happening at the time of the occurrence. 9. PW 3, a hostile witness was also a passenger. He also deposed that the bridge was blocked by the bamboo and PW 2 removed the bamboo and it was put back by some persons and some persons attacked the bus. He recognised only second accused, Sarafat, and fourth accused, Abdul Zabbar and could not recognise any one else. He denied his earlier case diary statement. 10. PW 4, a hostile witness was also a passenger. He also deposed that the bridge was found blocked with a bamboo. It was removed by PW 2, but put back by sixth accused. Some persons attacked the bus. Two persons dragged him out and he fell down. When he went inside later he found Abdul Hakim lying dead on a pool of blood. He could recognise two of the miscreants, namely, second accused Sarafat and deceased Yasin, who dragged him and pushed him. He denied his earlier case diary statement. He is the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat. Two persons dragged him out and he fell down. When he went inside later he found Abdul Hakim lying dead on a pool of blood. He could recognise two of the miscreants, namely, second accused Sarafat and deceased Yasin, who dragged him and pushed him. He denied his earlier case diary statement. He is the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat. He had a bag containing Rs. 5,000/-. He left it in the bus and later went to the police station and recovered it. 11. PW 5 was a passenger in the bus and brother of PW 4. He also deposed to the bridge being blocked by a bamboo, PW2 removing it and sixth accused patting it back. When the driver wanted to proceed second accused and deceased Yasin wanted to assault him with daggr. Yasin stabbed the driver with a dagger, who thereupon said, "Don't kill me" and switched off the engine. PW 5 was able to identify deceased Jabbar, first accused Safar, second accused Sarafat, third accused Abdul and sixth accused Kasem and Abbas AH who entered the bus through the passengers' door. According to him the accused persons attacked Abdul Hakim with daggers. When PW 1 held his son, deceased Yasin and deceased Jabr»ar caught him and struck him with dagger. Thereafter all the accused persons except Yasin got down from the bus. When Yasin said that Abdul Hakim was not yet dead, second accused Sarafat entered the bus again and stabbed Abdul Hakim in thegthroat with a dagger. The witness also fetched water for the injured. He could recognise the accused persons by the glow of light. 12. PW 6, a hostile witness was a passenger in the bus. He deposed to the bridge being blocked with bamboo, PW 2 removing it, the bamboo being replaced and the driver switching off the engine. He deposed that some people hit the bus and boarded it through the driver's door and threatened the driver. The witness got down. Ten or twelve persons entered the bus through the driver's door. He could recognise first accused Safar, second accused Sarafat, third accused Abdul, sixth accused Kasem and deceased Zabbar, but not the others. He denied his earlier case diary version. Since 4 or 5 years his eye sight and hearing was not good. He found it difficult to recognise persons at night. He cannot recognise any one a cubit away. 13. He could recognise first accused Safar, second accused Sarafat, third accused Abdul, sixth accused Kasem and deceased Zabbar, but not the others. He denied his earlier case diary version. Since 4 or 5 years his eye sight and hearing was not good. He found it difficult to recognise persons at night. He cannot recognise any one a cubit away. 13. PW 9, a nearby shopkeeper, heard the commotion inside the bus and saw the dead body. PW 11, the driver deposed that there was a bamboo lodged across the bridge and he stopped the bus and switched on the head lights and body lights. Some persons came up and he was stabbed on the Jeft foot with a sharp weapon. Some people boarded the bus. He heard a hue cry, "Sobhan master is assaulted, Sobhan master is assaulted", "Don't hit him, Don't hit him." Thereafter he took the vehicle to the thana. He could not identify any of the accused. 14. PW 12, the conductor of the bus, deposed that the passage of the bus was blocked by a bamboo and PW 2 removed it. When the bus was about to move some people put back the bamboo. 12 or 14 persons broke open the door lock and boarded the bus. Seeing this, Abdul Hakim went near his father. He was stabbed and beaten and cut by some of these persons with daos and daggers. PW 1 begged for the life of his son. Some of these persons inflicted injuries on the driver. After killing Abdul Hakim they left. The vehicle was taken to the Police Station. He did not identify any one of the accused and was cross-examined by the Prosecutor. PW 14 a passenger, also deposed regarding the obstruction at the bridge and some people boarding the bus. One of them was carrying a long dao and others carried daggers. Seeing this Abdul Hakim went near his father. Some persons stabbed Abdul Hakim with daggers. They also assaulted PW 1 and the driver. Seven or eight persons assaulted Abdul Hakim, of whom he had recognised second accused. The lights inside the vehicle were on. He also went to the Police Station. He had been questioned 15 to 20 days after the occurrence. 15. Some persons stabbed Abdul Hakim with daggers. They also assaulted PW 1 and the driver. Seven or eight persons assaulted Abdul Hakim, of whom he had recognised second accused. The lights inside the vehicle were on. He also went to the Police Station. He had been questioned 15 to 20 days after the occurrence. 15. PW 15, a passenger of the bus^ deposed to the passage being blocked by a bamboo, which was removed by PW 2 and replaced by a person. Yasin assaulted the driver and the latter switched off the engine. At that time first accused Safar, second accused Sarafat, sixth accused Kasem and deceased Zabbar entered the bus and started a commotion. He could not recognise the others Being afraid he went to the rear part of the bus. He saw deceased Yasin and deceased Jabbar hacking PW 1 and Abdul Hakim lying dead. He also deposed that rest of the accuseds whom he recognised are present in Court. He was questioned 4 or 5 days after the occurrence. The lights inside the bus had been switched on. 16. PW 7, mother of Abdul Hakim deposed that on the day before the occurrence accused Subed (A 11) told her that he would effect a compromise between Abdul Hakim and other accused persons and there was nothing today. Her son told her that if any one kills him, it would be accused Subed master. Accused Subed master and Abdul Hakim were at loggerheads over a girl. She advised Abdul Hakim to be cautious in his movements. Her son had been arrested in connection with the killing of a Mishing youth. PW S, a tea shopkeeper at Fatehpur Bazar deposed that at about 5 PM on the date of the occurrence he had seen accused Jabbar and accused Abdul moving around the bazar. Later they had tea in his shop. PW 10, who had a tea shop about 2 furlongs away from the scene of occurrence deposed that he had seen accused Jabbar, accused Yasin, accused Akkas and accused Kasem on the day of the occurrence in the bazar. PW 13 deposed that one or two days before the occurrence on his way back from Fatehpur bazar he met 10 or 12 persons on the road hatching conspiracy to assault Hakim. He did not tell the police about it. He was cross-examined by the Prosecutor. PW 13 deposed that one or two days before the occurrence on his way back from Fatehpur bazar he met 10 or 12 persons on the road hatching conspiracy to assault Hakim. He did not tell the police about it. He was cross-examined by the Prosecutor. He denied that he had identified those persons as some of the accused. It was a dark night. 17. The question which arises for consideration is whether the above evidence is acceptable, could be acted upon and, if so, the conviction of the appellants is justified. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the first information and the first information report in the case are concocted documents which came into existence after the commencement of the investigation, that the real first information has been suppressed, that there is no evidence to show that there were any blood stains inside the bus and it is probable that the occurrence took place in the road and not inside the bus, as alleged by the prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel also contended that identification made by any of the eye witnesses is unreliable. Even assuming that the occurrence took place inside the bus, on account of darkness and confusion witnesses could not have recognized any of the assailants, the evidence could not be acted upon to sustain conviction of any of the appellants. Learned Public Prosecutor sought to rebut these contentions. 18. Though the officer who received the information (ejahar) and prepared the first information report (FIR) was not examined, the ejahar has been proved by PW 18. FIR shows that the first information was lodged at 8.15 PM on 22.9.91. The FIR was despatched from the station the very next morning. PW1 and other witnesses deposed that after the occurrence the bus was taken to Bihpuria PS. PW 1 deposed that he had the ejahar written and after lodging it he and PW 11 were sent to the hospital. Thereafter they returned to Police Station. He identified Ext 1 as the ejahar. By the time everything was over, it was 1.00 AM. Police thereafter held inquest. PW 18, SI of Police, who was in charge of investigation deposed that after the case was registered on the basis of ejahar lodged by PW 1, he was given charge of investigation and he sent PWs 1 and 11 to the hospital. By the time everything was over, it was 1.00 AM. Police thereafter held inquest. PW 18, SI of Police, who was in charge of investigation deposed that after the case was registered on the basis of ejahar lodged by PW 1, he was given charge of investigation and he sent PWs 1 and 11 to the hospital. This evidence would clearly show that PWs 1 and 11 were sent to the hospital after first information was received and case was registered. PW 1, in cross-examination, deposed that they reached the Police Station at about 10 PM and immediately he told the officer about the occurrence, but it was not recorded, that the other passengers also told the police about the occurrence and their statements were not recorded. Thereafter Police Officer looked at the dead body and held inquest. This was at about 11 PM. After that he went to the doctor and after returning from the hospital he had the ejahar written and lodged it. That was at about 1.30 AM. In view of these answers we are inclined to think that the time at which the ejahar was written and the case was registered is not clear; whether it was done before or after PWs 1 and 11 were sent to the hospital is not clear. It may be that PW 1 and several other witnesses who reached the Police Station immediately started expressing themselves and the Police Officer present might not have recorded whatever they said. That might be because the dead body of a person brutally murdered had been brought to the Police Station and there might have been a good deal of confusion. However, it is not clear Ext. 1, ejahar was really the first version of the occurrence given by PW 1 to the police. What should be the approach of the Court in the background of this doubt ? 19. However, it is not clear Ext. 1, ejahar was really the first version of the occurrence given by PW 1 to the police. What should be the approach of the Court in the background of this doubt ? 19. Under section 154, CrPC, every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an Officer in charge of a Police Station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such from as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf. Section 156 of the Code empowers Officer in-charge of Police Station to investigate any cognizable case without order of a Magistrate. Under section 157, CrPC, if from information received or otherwise, an Officer in-charge of a Police Station has reason to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence, he shall forthwith send a report of the same to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon a police report and shall proceed in person or shall depute a competent officer to proceed to the spot to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case, and if necessary, to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offiender. It is clear that information , whether givenin writing or reduced to in writing referred to in section 154,CrPC is the first information and the substance thereof is required to be entered in a book to be prescribed by the State Government. It is also clear that the report which he is required to prepare and forward to the Magistrate is the first information report. Section 44 of the Police Act lays down that the book referred to in section 154, CrPC, where the substance of information is to be entered, is the general diary in the proforma to be prescribed by the State Government. 20. Government of Assam has issued detailed instruction in this behalf in Chapter III of Part V of Assam Police Manual. Rule 110 prescribes Form No. 137 for the first information report. 20. Government of Assam has issued detailed instruction in this behalf in Chapter III of Part V of Assam Police Manual. Rule 110 prescribes Form No. 137 for the first information report. Rule 112 states that except for the cases specifically mentioned therein, first information report in Form No. 137 should be drawn up in respect of every cognizable offence for which an information is lodged in the station, whether that information be prima facie false or true, serious or petty. Rule 114 indicates that information, written or oral of the commission of a cognizable offence which first reaches an Officer in charge of a Police Station, whether given by an eye witness of the occurrence or based on hearsay only, is the first information contemplated by section 154, CrPC and it must be so treated by the Officer-in-charge. When hearsay information of a crime is given, the station officer should not wait to record, as the first information, the statement of the actual aggrieved person or an eye witness. The Rule clarifies that a hearsay report does not include a vague rumour such as an anonymous information or a rumour of a indefinite nature or one which cannot be reduced to writing and signed by the informant. A vague rumour would be entered in the general diary and if confirmed subsequently by more exact information a first information based on the subsequent information would be drawn. Rule 115 states that drawing of first information report is not to be delayed or deferred till a preliminary enquiry into the truth or otherwise of the information is made. Rules 116 and 117 contain further instructions for recording first information report. Every first information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence given orally must be reduced to writing and mast be recorded in plain and simple language as nearly as possiple in the informant's own words and if the information be not complete in itself the officer should elicit by interrogation such further information as may be necessary. Rule 121 requires the officer to promptly send the FIR to the competent Court and the first carbon copy to the Superintendent of Police and to retain the second copy at the Police Station. A copy should be sent to the Circle Inspector and another copy to the Sub-divisional Police Officer. 21. Rule 121 requires the officer to promptly send the FIR to the competent Court and the first carbon copy to the Superintendent of Police and to retain the second copy at the Police Station. A copy should be sent to the Circle Inspector and another copy to the Sub-divisional Police Officer. 21. As observed by the Privy Council in Emperor vs. Khwaja Nazir Ahmed, AIR 1945 PC 18, the object of the provisions regarding first information report is to obtain early information of alleged criminal activity, to record the circumstances before there is time for them to be forgotten or embellished. As observed by a Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in State of Kerala vs. Samuel, AIR 1961 Kerala 99, in case of a cognizable offence there should be no time lag between the reception of the information and the recording of such information. In Thukia Kali vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1973 SC 501 , the Supreme Court observed : "...first information report in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial. The importance of the above report can hardly be over estimated from the standpoint of the accused. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits, and the part played by them as well as the names of eye witnesses present at the scene of occurrence. Delay in lodging the first information quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of after thought. On account of delay the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. It is, therefore, essential that the delay in the lodging of the first information report should be satisfactorily explained." 22. We have indicated that it is not clear if before the Police Officer received the ejahar, Ext. 1, from PW 1 he had received oral information about the occurrence from PW 1, if not others. The exact version which PW 1 and others gave to the Police Officer at that stage is not before the Court. We have indicated that it is not clear if before the Police Officer received the ejahar, Ext. 1, from PW 1 he had received oral information about the occurrence from PW 1, if not others. The exact version which PW 1 and others gave to the Police Officer at that stage is not before the Court. In Apren Joseph & others vs. State of Kerala, 1973 Crl LJ 185, Supreme Court held : "… first information is a report relating to the commission of an offence given to the police and recorded by it under section 154, Cr PC ... the receipt and recording of information report by the police is not condition precedent to the setting in motion of a criminal investigation Nor does the statute provide that such information report can only made by an eye witness. First information report under S. 154 is not even considered a substantive piece of evidence. It can only be used to corroborate or contradict the informant's evidence in Court. But this information when recorded is the basis of the case set up by the informant It is very useful if recorded before there is time or opportunity to embellish or before the informant's memory fades. Undue or unreasonable delay in lodging the FIR, therefore inevitably gives rise to suspicion which put the Court on guard to look for the possible motive and the explanation for the delay and consider its effect on the trustworthiness, or otherwise of the prosecution version," 23. It is thus clear that the fact that there was delay in recording the first information or preparing the first information report, that the earliest version is not before the Court are, by themselves, not sufficient to reject prosecution evidence or throw out the prosecution case. The Court must take due note of this infirmity bearing in mind that the recorded first information might therefore contain an exaggeration or concoction and look for explanation which may be offered by the prosecution. These features put the Court on its guard to look for the possible motive and explanation and consider its effect on the trustworthiness or otherwise of the prosecution version. 24. We have indicated that there must have been a confused situation at the Police Station when the bus reached and the witnesses met the police officers. These features put the Court on its guard to look for the possible motive and explanation and consider its effect on the trustworthiness or otherwise of the prosecution version. 24. We have indicated that there must have been a confused situation at the Police Station when the bus reached and the witnesses met the police officers. The police officer concerned probably thought that without spending time over recording oral statement of PW 1 he should look at the dead body and attend to other details, such as, sending the injured persons to the hospital. Thereafter PW 1 returned from the hospital. It is not clear if the ejahar, Ext 1, was got prepared before or after PW 1 went to the hospital. 25. We have indicated the nature of the prosecution evidence. Many of the witnesses turned hostile and declined to identify the culprits though they spoke to the main events in the occurrence, namely, the obstruction to the bridge, evidently, with a view to stop the bus so as to facilitate attack on Abdul Hakim, the group of assailants entering the bus and assaulting Abdul Hakim. That there was such an incident at the bridge and inside the bus is spoken to by almost all the eye witnesses, hostile or otherwise. In the ejahar, Ext 1, which came into existence without much delay 15. persons were named, including accused Nos. 2 to 9, 11 and 12. In the circumstances, the fact that Investigating Officer did not remember to take a sample of the blood inside the bus is not sufficient to throw any doubt on the evidence to the effect that the occurrence took place the thing in the evidence to give the slightest indication the road, outside the bus. The defence had jce took place in any different manner. The.Court has given of doubt to many of the accuseds. We need impact of the evidence regarding the appellants. at evidence is overwhelming to show that the occurrence took place inside the bus. Almost all the eye witnesses deposed that the bus had stopped because of the obstruction placed across the bridge. There is no reason to doubt this part of the evidence. The obstruction to the bus was removed by PW 2, a passenger, but the bamboo was replaced by one i of the accused persons. Almost all the eye witnesses deposed that the bus had stopped because of the obstruction placed across the bridge. There is no reason to doubt this part of the evidence. The obstruction to the bus was removed by PW 2, a passenger, but the bamboo was replaced by one i of the accused persons. This is sufficient to show that the object was to stall the bus for a definite purpose. What the purpose was, is clear from what took place subsequently, namely, attack oh Abdul Hakim, a passenger. Almost all the eye Witnesses gave evidence that a group of assailants entered the bus and attacked Abdul Hakim using deadly weapons like dagger. The injuries found on Abdul Hakim are consistent with this version. He died instantaneously. There is no reason to disbelieve any of the witnesses with regard to the broad version of the occurrence. In these circumstances we are satisfied that the broad version of the occurrence placed before the Court is true. 27. We will now analyse the evidence with specific reference to each appellant. 28. There is some suspicion surrounding the first information report. There is overwhelming evidence to show that the occurrence took place inside the bus. The evidence of the driver, PW 11 and the conductor, PW 12, shows that the lights in the body of the bus had been switched on. This is supported by many other eye witnesses. There were large number of passengers inside the bus. Many of the hostile witnesses deposed that they could not identify the assailants in the confusion. Hence the Court has a duty to subject the evidence regarding identification and the overt acts of the appellants to careful and cautious scrutiny. PW 1 is the father of the deceased, who claims to have been injured in the occurrence. However, there is no medical evidence in support of his alleged injuries. There is no particular reason for him to falsely implicate any one in the crime. PWs 3 to 6 and 14 and 15 are the other witnesses who identified some assailants. There is no ground to believe that they had any animus against the assailants or were interested in roping in innocent persons. But as we have indicated earlier the evidence requires a close scrutiny. 29. PWs 3 to 6 and 14 and 15 are the other witnesses who identified some assailants. There is no ground to believe that they had any animus against the assailants or were interested in roping in innocent persons. But as we have indicated earlier the evidence requires a close scrutiny. 29. PW 1, the first informant, though gave the name of 15 persons in the first information statement, did not name the first accused (fifth appellant). Prosecution has no case that PW 1 was not familiar with the name of first accused. In the course of his evidence, he did not specifically identify the first accused. PWs 5, 6 and 15 are the only witnesses who identified first accused. PWs 5, 6 and 15 referred to him as one of the persons who entered the bus in the course of the occurrence. PW 5 did not specifically refer to overt acts of the first accused, but made a general statement that all the seven accused whom he recognised, stabbed Abdul Hakim. It was elicited from him that such a statement was not made by him to the police. la the circumstances there is a serious and genuine doubt regarding the presence of and participation of the fifth appellant (first accused) in the occurrence. He is certainly entitled to benefit of doubt. 30. Second accused (first appellant) was named in, the first information statement as one of the assailants. PW 1 clearly identified him as one of the persons who entered the bus and stabbed Abdul Hakim on the neck with a dagger. PWs 3, 4, 5.6,14 and 15 recognised him as one of the persons who entered the bus. We have therefore no doubt in our mind that second accused (first appellant) was one of the participants in the occurrence. 31. Third accused is the second appellant. He was named in the first information statement. He has been inentified by PWs 1, 5 and 6 as one of the persons who was in the group of assailants. This evidence is sufficient to hold that third accused was one of the group of assailants. 32. There is some confusion regarding the fourth accused (fourth appellant), whose name is Abdul Jabbar, son of Gohar Ali. He is named in the FIR. This evidence is sufficient to hold that third accused was one of the group of assailants. 32. There is some confusion regarding the fourth accused (fourth appellant), whose name is Abdul Jabbar, son of Gohar Ali. He is named in the FIR. PW 1 deposed that a group of persons including fourth accused and a person named Jabdar entered the bus and attacked his son. The evidence shows that no other witnesses identified the fourth accused as one of the assailants though many of them mentioned the name 'Jabbar' and said that Jabbar was no more. Now deceased Jabbar referred to by the other witnesses therefore could not be the fourth accused. The evidence of PW 1 identifying fourth accused as one of the assailants is not corroborated by any of the other witnesses. It is therefore not safe to hold that the identity of fourth accused has been established satisfactorily. He is entitled to benefit of doubt. 33. PW 1 deposed that sixth accused (third appellant) stabbed Abdul Hakim with a dagger in the upper abdomen. PW 5 deposed that sixth accused and others assaulted Abdul Hakim. PWs 1 and 5 identified sixth accused on the place who put back the bamboo. We find no reason to disbelieve this mass of evidence implicating sixth accused in the crime. 34. It is thus satisfactorily proved that sixth accused (third appellant) obstructed the passage of bus by placing a bamboo across the bridge, and accused Nos. 2, 3 and 6 along with deceased Yasin, deceased Jabbar and a large number of other persons, armed with deadly weapons, entered the bus and assaulted Abdul Hakim as a result of which he died instantaneously. Though there is some evidence to show that PWs 1 and 11 sustained injuries and they had been sent to hospital, no medical evidence in this behalf is forthcoming. It is therefore not safe to act upon the evidence indicating that PWs 1 and 11 sustained injuries. 35. There were nine incised injuries on the dead body, two of the injuries leading to rupture of the lower lobe of the liver and upper lobe of the right lung. In the very nature of things these two injuries must be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Death was on account of shock and haemorrhage due to all the injuries. 36. In the very nature of things these two injuries must be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Death was on account of shock and haemorrhage due to all the injuries. 36. The group of assailants lay in wait armed with deadly weapons, blocked the bus from crossing the bridge, entered the bus and assaulted Abdul Hakim with dangerous weapons. There can be no doubt that they did so with the intention of causing death of Abdul Hakim. However, there is no acceptable evidence to indicate who among the assailants caused which injury. Sessions Court has convicted the five appellants invoking section 34 IPC. According to learned counsel for the appellants prosecution has/ failed to prove that any of ttie appellants had shared any comman intention either among themselves on with any others and in the absence of evidence that any particular appellant inflicted a particular injury, conviction under section 302 IPC, cannot be sustained. 37. Section 34 IPC does not create a distinct offence; it only lays down the principle of joint criminal liability. The necessary conditions for application of section 34, IPC are common intention of several persons and doing of a criminal act by them in furtherance of the common intention. If these two conditions are satisfied, all those persons would be liable for the said act. la Gurdatta Mal vs. State of UP, AIR 1965 SC 257 the Supreme Court held that the essence of section 34 is to be found in the existence of a common intention animating the offenders leading to the doing of a criminal act in furtherance of the common intention. Common intention presupposes meeting of minds or preconcert. Common intention may also be conceived immediately before or at the time of the assault. The act must be shown to have been done in furtherance of the common intention entertained by all. Common intention to commit an offence coupled with participation in action in furtherance of the common intention will attract section 34. Each of the participants need not necessarily have struck the fatal blow or any blow. It is sufficient if he participates in joint action in some manner. When an offence is committed in pursuance of the common intention each and overy one of the accused is responsible for the acts of every other in furtherance of the common intention. 38. Each of the participants need not necessarily have struck the fatal blow or any blow. It is sufficient if he participates in joint action in some manner. When an offence is committed in pursuance of the common intention each and overy one of the accused is responsible for the acts of every other in furtherance of the common intention. 38. As observed by the Privy Council in Mehbub Shah vs. Emperor, AIR 1945 PC 118, it is difficult if not impossible to procure direct evidence to prove the intention of an individual and in most cases it has to be inferred from his act or conduct or other relevant circumstances of the case. 39. There is reliable evidence to show that the approach to the bridge was obstructed to ensure that the bus is stopped, that one among the group replaced the bamboo after it was removed by PW 2 and thereafter the group of assailants entered the bus, armed with deadly weapons, and assaulted Abdul Hakim causing nine injuries on various parts of the body including two fatal injuries and thereafter they withdrew in a body. These proved facts necessarily lead to the inference that the assailants had the common intention to cause the deeth of Abdul Hakim. There is sufficient evidence to show that in furtherance of the common intention members of the group including accused Nos. 2, 3 and 6 (appellants Nos. 1, 2 and 3) caused injuries to Abdul Hakim with daggers and other deadly weapons. There can therefore be no doubt that the operation of section 34 is attracted. It must necessarily follow that the conviction of and sentence entered against accused Nos. 2, 3 and 6 (appellants Nos. 1,2 and 3) under section 302 read with section 34, IPC, must stand, In the absence of medical evidence regarding injuries allegedly sustained by PWs 1 and 11, the charge under section 324 IPC must fail. 40. In the result, the conviction of and sentence entered against accused Nos. 1 and 4 (appellants Nos. 5 and 4)are set aside and they are acquitted of all charges. The conviction of and sentence against accused Nos 2,3 and 6 (appellants Nos. I. 2 and 3) under section 324, IPC read with section 34 PC are set aside and they are acquitted of that charge. However, the conviction of and sentence entered against accused Nos. 5 and 4)are set aside and they are acquitted of all charges. The conviction of and sentence against accused Nos 2,3 and 6 (appellants Nos. I. 2 and 3) under section 324, IPC read with section 34 PC are set aside and they are acquitted of that charge. However, the conviction of and sentence entered against accused Nos. 2, 3 and 6 41. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.