Judgment S.B.Sinha, J. 1. These appeals arise out of a judgment of conviction and senence dated 4-6-1987 passed by Sri Xess, VIIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Patna in Sessions Trial No. 796/86. By reason of the impugned judgment, the said learned Court has convicted the appellants, Mahabir Prasad Sah alias Mahabir Prasad Gupta, Kameshwar Prasad Gupta and Sanjay Prasad Gupta (Appellants in Cr. Appeal No. 279 of 1987) and Hira Lal Sah (appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 302 of 1987) under Sections 302/34, 342/34 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and three months of each counts under Sections 342/34 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code repectively. 2. The learned Court below also convicted Raju Gope alias Langra (since deceased) for commission of an offence under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life as also under Sec. 27 of the Arms Act Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment on that count. 3. One Rajedra Prasad Sharma (P.W. 7) gave his fardbeyan at 10 p.m. on 3-3-1986 before the officer-in-charge of the Khagaul Police Station, in relation to an incident which allegedly took place at 9 p.m. on that date, alleging inter alia therein that his father Mishri Lal Tiwari (deceased) and Mahabir Prasad (a retired T.T.) purchased a house having separate shares therein and have been in possession of the portions which fell in their respective shares. On 3-3-1986 at about 9 p.m. when he returned home after looking after his bus-business, the appellants of Cr. Appeal Nos. 279 of 1987 and 302 of 1987 came to his house and asked him to vacate one of the rooms alleging that the same fell in their share but the informant refused to do so stating that the portion of the house which was in their occupation had fallen in his share and further allegedly in terms of the deeds of sale he would be entitled to some more land which is in possession of the appellants of Cr. Appeal No. 279 of 1987. 4. The appellants thereafter allegedly surrounded him and assaulted him with fists and slaps and upon hearing his alarm, Mishri Lal Tiwari (the father of the informant), his mother, wife, sister-in-law and other came there and tried to save him. Appeal No. 279 of 1987. 4. The appellants thereafter allegedly surrounded him and assaulted him with fists and slaps and upon hearing his alarm, Mishri Lal Tiwari (the father of the informant), his mother, wife, sister-in-law and other came there and tried to save him. In the meantime, the appellants allegedly asked the aforementioned Raju Gope alias Langra (since deceased) to do his work for which he had been brought; whereupon the latter took out his pistol and fired a shot at the informant which, however, hit the deceased who by that time came in between the assailant and the informant. His father received a gunshot injury on his left Panjhri and fell down there whereafter the accused persons fled away. Mishri Lal was removed to Railway Hospital, Khagaul for his treatment by his daughter-in-law. The deceased after having been first-aid, however, was referred to Patna Medical College Hospital where he breathed his last. 5. Before the trial court, the prosecution examined ten witnesses in order to prove its case. 6. All the material witnesses examined in the case are related to each other inasmuch as P.W. 3, Ramswaroop Sharma and P.W. 7, Rajedra Prasad Sharma are own brothers whereas P. W. 1 Prema Devi is the wife of P.W. 7 and P.W. 2 Usha Devi is the wife of P. W. 3. One Summitra Devi who examined herself as P.W. 4 did not support the prosecution case. D.W. 5 Dr. Janardhan Prasad Singh is the Assistant Medical officer of the Railway Hospital, Danapur who examined the deceased at the said hospital and gave first-aid to him. P.W. 6 Dr. Rama Shankar Prasad, is the medical Officer who held autopsy on the dead body of Mishri Lal Tiwari, P.W. 8 Rajgiri Rai is the Investigating officer, P.W. 9 and P.W. 10 are formal witnesses. 7. The learned trial Court, relying on testimonies of the aforementioned witnesses, passed the aforementioned judgment of conviction and sentence. 8. Mr. P. N. Pandey, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in Cr. Appeal No. 279 of 1987, took us through the depositions of all the material witnesses namely, P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 7 as also the deposition of the Investigating Officer (P.W. 8). 9. 8. Mr. P. N. Pandey, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in Cr. Appeal No. 279 of 1987, took us through the depositions of all the material witnesses namely, P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 7 as also the deposition of the Investigating Officer (P.W. 8). 9. The learned Counsel firstly submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the first beyan cannot be said to have been recorded at the time when it is said to have been recorded and the same appears to be an antedated one. 10. It was next contended that as the dispute in question has not been proved, the prosecution has not been able to prove the motive as against the appellants for commission of the crime. 11. It was next contended that from a perusal of the evidence of P.W. 1, it would appear that she or P.W. 2 did not make any statement before the police naming the accused persons as the assailants of their father-in-law and further despite the fact that the deceased was all along conscious, his statements were recorded by the police which clearly proves that a prosecution story is a got up one. 12. It was also contended that the substance of the allegations made in the fard beyan having not been recorded in a book maintained for that purpose as is mandatorily required under Sec. 154 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the same must be held to be inadmissible in evidences and thus, the entire edifice of the prosecution case must fall to the ground on that score also. 13. It was lastly submitted that in this case the appellants could not have been convicted under Secs. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code in view of the fact that even assuming that the allegations made in the first information report are correct, evidently the appellants came to kill the informant and not the deceased and thus they could not be said to have been sharing common intention for that purpose. 14. Mrs. Anjana Prakash, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 302 of 1987, submitted that as it has been admittedly the prosecution witnesses that the family of the informant had no dispute with Hira Lal, there is no reason as to why he should share common intention with the appellants of Cr. 14. Mrs. Anjana Prakash, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 302 of 1987, submitted that as it has been admittedly the prosecution witnesses that the family of the informant had no dispute with Hira Lal, there is no reason as to why he should share common intention with the appellants of Cr. Appeal No. 279 of 1987 in murdering the deceased Mishri Lal Tiwari. 15. Mr. Lala Kailash Behari Prasad, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the informant, on the other hand, submitted that the prosecution case as narrated by the material witnesses had been consistent with the allegations made in the first information report and as they had identified the appellants, the prosecution must be held to have proved its case. 16. The following facts, which are borne out from the records of the case may be noticed: (a) From Ext. 8 (formal first information report), it appears that the fard beyan was recorded at 10 p. m. on 3-3-1986 at the residence of the informant situated at Neora Road which is at a distance of about 2 Kms. from the police station. The said case was initially instituted under Secs. 307/3 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 27 of the Arms Act. (b) From a perusal of the fard beyan (Ext. 7), it appears that the incident took place at about 9 p. m. (c) The deceased was brought to Khagaul Railway Station at about 9.15 p. m. by his daughter-in-law with lacerated cut injury about 3" in size above the left iliac fossa. He was thereupon given first aid treatment by P. W. 5 who then referred the patient to PMCH P. W. 5 informed the officer-in-charge of the Khagaul Police Station about the incident on phone (See the statements of P. W. 8 in paragraph 1). He also intimated the officer-incharge in writing about the said fact as it appears from Ext. 2. (d) Immediately upon receipt of the information, P. W. 8 left for railway hospital and found that the injured was not in a position to talk. He, however, came to learn that the male members of the family of the deceased could not, come out of their house as they have been kept confined. He, therefore, left for the place of occurrence of about 9.35 p.m. from the hospital. He, however, came to learn that the male members of the family of the deceased could not, come out of their house as they have been kept confined. He, therefore, left for the place of occurrence of about 9.35 p.m. from the hospital. According to P. W. 8, he reached the place of occurrence within 10 minutes. He found the informant and his brother locked up in a room and upon opening the room recorded the fard beyan of P. W. 7, P. Ws. 3 and 7 thereafter accompanied by P. W. 8 and a Jamadar. arrived at Khagaul Railway Hospital at about 11.30 p.m. The deceased thereafter was taken in a tempo to P.M.C.H. where he breathed his last at about 2.30 a.m. (e) The information of the death was given by P. W. 3 to the inmates of the house at about 4 a.m. The first information report was sent to the Court on 4-3-1986 on which the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate made endorsements to the effect that he had seen the same. The case was converted into one under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code on 5-3-1986. 17. Sec. 154 (1) of he Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows: 154. Information in cognizable cases,-(1) 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 as aforesaid, 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 form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf. From a bare perusal of the aforementioned provision, it is evident that the same permits recording of statements of a person who is acquainted with the facts of the case and reduced to writing. It, however mandates the police officer recording such a statement to note the substance of the allegations in a book maintained in the form prescribed by the State Government. 18. Sec. 154 (1) of he Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows: 154. It, however mandates the police officer recording such a statement to note the substance of the allegations in a book maintained in the form prescribed by the State Government. 18. Sec. 154 (1) of he Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows: 154. Information in cognizable cases,-(1) 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 as aforesaid, 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 form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf. From a bare perusal of the aforementioned provision, it is evident that the same permits recording of statements of a person who is acquainted with the facts of the case and reduced to writing. It, however mandates the police officer recording such a statement to note the substance of the allegations in a book maintained in the form prescribed by the State Government. 19. The State, by reason of Rule 143 of the Bihar Police Manual has prescribed that the form in which the first information report in terms of Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 154 should be recorded, would be Form 26 appended to Vol. 2 of the said Manual. The first information report has been drawn up in the aforementioned prescribed form. 20. Rule 143 of the Bihar Police Manual (Vol. 1) read as follows: 143. Recording of information.- {a) The first information of cognizable crime mentioned in Sec. 154 (1), Cr. P.C. shall be drawn up by the Officer-in-charge of the police station in M. M. Form No. 26 in accordance with the instructions pointed with it. (b) The informants statement when complete shall be read over to him. He shall be asked to sign it. If the informant is incapable of affixing his signature, his left thumb-impression shall be taken on the statement. It is not necessary to insist on a written information being lodged for purposes of drawing up a FIR. 21. The decision of the Calcutta High Court in Jay Engineering Works V/s. State of West Bengal , upon which strong reliance has been placed by Mr. It is not necessary to insist on a written information being lodged for purposes of drawing up a FIR. 21. The decision of the Calcutta High Court in Jay Engineering Works V/s. State of West Bengal , upon which strong reliance has been placed by Mr. Pandey, does not help the appellants at all. In that decision, it has been held as follows: (1) Every information shall be reduced to writing ; if given orallyshall be read over to informant after it has been reduced towriting. (2) Whether given in writing or reduced to writing shall be signedby the person giving it. (3) Substance thereof shall be entered in a book in such form asState Government may prescribe. There is duty certainly toread over to informant oral information reduced to writingand written information being signed by person giving it.But the duty to enter in the prescribed book every informationis not dependant on these requirements being fulfilled. Thatprescribed book is the General Diary Book of the PoliceStation. 22. As noticed hereinbfore, in this case, it is clear that the Investigating Officer had complied with the requirement of law. It is relevant that even the Calcutta High Court has held the duty to enter into the prescribed book every information is not dependant on the other requirements being ful filled. In the State of Bihar, as noticed hereinbefore, the prescribed book is in Form No. 26 of the Bihar Police Manual. 23. We have compared the form in which the first information report has been drawn up which is in Form No. 26 as prescribed by the State of Bihar in terms of Rule 143 of the Bihar Police Manual. In the said formal first information report the substance of the allegations have been recorded. The said form appears to be serially numbered and all the aforementioned forms must be maintained in a boofe form, No illegality, therefore, can be said to have been committed by the said officer-in-charge in recording the fard beyan nor can it be said that the first information report contravenes the provisions of Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 24. It is true that P. Ws. 1 and 2 did not name the assailants at the railway hospital nor the statements of the deceased were taken by P. W. 8. (1) of Sec. 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 24. It is true that P. Ws. 1 and 2 did not name the assailants at the railway hospital nor the statements of the deceased were taken by P. W. 8. While, however, judging a case of this nature, this Court cannot shut its eyes to the normal human conduct. 25. According to the prosecution witnesses, the situation had come to such a pass that the neighbours prevented P. Ws. 3 and 7 from going to the hospital along with their injured father. The injured Mishri Lai Tiwari had lo be placed in a push cart and P. Ws. 1 and 2 had to push the same to the railway hospital. 26. In the fard beyan of P. W. 7, it has clearly been stated that injured had been taken to hospital but he was in his house out of fear. 27. As indicated hereinbefore, P. W. 5 in his letter dated 3-3-1986 addressed to the Officer-in-charge of the Khagaul Police Station has also stated that the injured had been brought to the hospital by his daughter-in-law. Thus, evidently, although, P. Ws. 3 and 7 were not at the railway hospital when the injuries of the deceased were examined by P. W. 5 who had given the first aid treatment to him. 28. It is also true that it has been contended by P. W. 1 that her father-in-law was in hosh but P. W. 8 in Ms deposition categorically stated that when he visited the railway hospital at the earliest opportunity i.e. at about 9.15-9.25 p.m. the injured was not in a position to convey to him the fact of the matter even by using signs. In view of the injuries sustained by the deceased, is not unlikely that the deceased, at that time, was not in a position to give his statements before the police P. W. 1 also categorically stated that the deceased in pains. 29. The prosecution has examined Dr. Janaradhan Prasad Singh who also stated that the patient was given injection and medicine. He was not asked any question in cross-examination by the defence as to whether the injured at the relevant time was in a position to give his statements before the police or not. 30. Mr. 29. The prosecution has examined Dr. Janaradhan Prasad Singh who also stated that the patient was given injection and medicine. He was not asked any question in cross-examination by the defence as to whether the injured at the relevant time was in a position to give his statements before the police or not. 30. Mr. Pandey has contended that the prosecution has not offered any explanation as to why the statement of the deceased was not taken even at the P. M. C. H. 31. From Exts. Y and Y/1 which are the been had tickets of the deceased, it appears that the patient was advised immediate operation. P. W. 7 had also signed the risk bond. 32. However, it appears from that the Doctor made an endorsement at 2.15 a.m. that the patient was not fit for anaesthesia and operation as he was gasping. At that moment even Oxygen was given but he was not responding well. 33. At the time of his admission in the hospital his pulse rate was 84 per minutes and blood pressure 106/78. The deceased, therefore, could not have been expected to be in a condition to make his statements before the police. 34. The defence, however, in its examination of D. W. 1 has got the endorsement of the hospital doctor to the effect "C/O" proved as Ext. E for the purpose that C/O means the patient complains of. 35. On the basis of the aforementioned endorsement, it was suggested that as a complaint could be made by the deceased, he did not lose his consciousness at that time. There is no foundation for the aformentioned suggestion. The word C/O may also denote complained of. Such complaint may come either from the patient himself or from his attendant. The said endorsement, therefore, cannot be said to be a pointer to the fact that the deceased was in a position to make statements before the police even in PMCH. Further there is nothing on record to show that the investigating officer or any other police officer was present at that time. From the bed head ticket, it appears that the doctor attending the deceased noted that the police was to be informed. Further there is nothing on record to show that the investigating officer or any other police officer was present at that time. From the bed head ticket, it appears that the doctor attending the deceased noted that the police was to be informed. It is, thus, apparent that as at the relevant time the deceased was howering between life and death, it was wholly unlikely that he was in a position to make any statement before the police. 36. Mr. Pandey has next contended that P. W. 2 contradicted P. W. 1 in relation to the statements that the push cart was not only pushed by P. Ws. 1 and 2, as was suggested by P. W. 1, but two other persons also helped them The contradiction in the statements of P. Ws. l and 2 to the aforementioned effect is not of any importance whatsoever. The very fact that the deceased had been placed on a hand cart clearly goes to show that the deceased was taken to hospital in an emergent situation so much, the cart had to be pushed by two ladies and if on the way some unknown persons helped them in pushing the cart, it cannot be said to be unnatured. 37. Mr. Pandey next contended that P. Ws. 1 and 2 made improvements in their statements in so far as they did not state before the police that they not only advised P. Ws. 3 and 7 not to go out their house but also locked them in. 38. It is true that p. Ws. 1 and 2 did not make any such statements before the police but the fact remains that P. W. 7 at the time of recording of his fard beyan was in his house. P. W, 8 in his deposition, categorically stated that he had received an information to the effect that people had surrounded the house of the informant and the informant had been kept confined. In paragraph 2 of his deposition he also stated that he got the door of the room opened wherein the informant was locked in and thereafter his fard beyan was recorded. 39. As noticed hereinbefore, even in the fard beyan (which was recorded in his home), P. W. 7 categorically stated that the deceased had been taken to hospital but he had to remain in his house out of fear. 39. As noticed hereinbefore, even in the fard beyan (which was recorded in his home), P. W. 7 categorically stated that the deceased had been taken to hospital but he had to remain in his house out of fear. Such fear on the part of P. W. 7 evidently struck him because of the incident and must have arisen out of an apprehension of being assaulted at the hands of the appellants. Such an apprehension on the part of the informant has fully been corroborated by P. W. 8. It is now well known that all omissions are not contradictions. The commission on the part of P. Ws. 1 and 2 in stating before the police in disclosing the fact that P. Ws. 3 and 7 were not permitted by the neighbours to come out of their home is not of such importance. Further as the police recorded their statements in the railway hospital is also suggestive of the fact that the ladies were not in proper mental condition to narrate the minutes of details of the incident which took place after the occurrence. 40. P. W. 1 is Prema Devi Sharma, she stated in here deposition that the house in question was purchased by the family by reason of three deeds of sale , one being in the name of Usha Devi (P. W. 2) ; one in her name and the third in the name of her father in-law (deceased). She categorically stated that for about 15 days prior to the occurrence, Kameshwar Prasad had been asking them to vacate one room and had also been giving threats to them. She further stated that on the date of occurrence, while her husband had been to Hardings Park (Bus Stand) at Patna, the appellant came there two and three times searching for her husband. While the inmates of the house had been talking amongst themselves, her husband came and as soon as he climbed up the stairs of the verandah, Mahabir, his son Sanjay and Hira Lal Sah came up to the verandah and asked him to accompany them as they have some urgent talks with him. Her husband at first refused to go at that time but on their pursuations he accompanied them. Her husband at first refused to go at that time but on their pursuations he accompanied them. Mahabir Prasad, Kameshwar Prasad, Sanjay and Hira Lal allegedly told her husband as to whether he would give up the possession of the room as they must to come to a decision on that day, to which her husband replied that the room belong s to him, he would not vacate. He further stated that when her family members came out, it was found that her husband had been caught by the aforementioned four persons and was being assaulted. She further stated that when her father-in-law asked them not to quarrel and in the process had been stepping down the stairs, those people (surrounding the informant) asked Raju Gope to do the work for which he had been brought. Raju Gope, thereafter, took out his revolver and fired a shot at her husband. In the meantime as the deceased came between them, he received a gun shot injury on the left side of the ribs and after that all the persons fled away. 41. She further stated that he and P. W. 2 took the injured to the railway hospital and her statement was taken by the police at Railway hospital. She further stated that an electric light had been burning in the electric pole belonging to the Railways which was at distance 10-12 steps from her house. 42. In her cross-examination, she stated that the neighbours came to the place of occurrence and asked her husband and her brother-in-law not to accompany the injured to the Hospital and they locked them in a room, as they apprehended that if they do something, they would also be killed. This witness had thoroughly been cross-examined and only certain omissions which are absolutely trivial in nature had been taken from her. The said omissions have got nothing to do with the actual occurrence or the manner there of but merely relate a minor details which are of no consequence whatsoever. 43. Mr. Pandey, however, apart from the criticisms as noticed also drew our attention to paragraph 43 of her deposition wherein she stated that Hira Lal used to live alone and prior to the date of occurrence, there had been no dispute between the family of Hira Lal. She admitted that Hira Lal is an old man. 44. 43. Mr. Pandey, however, apart from the criticisms as noticed also drew our attention to paragraph 43 of her deposition wherein she stated that Hira Lal used to live alone and prior to the date of occurrence, there had been no dispute between the family of Hira Lal. She admitted that Hira Lal is an old man. 44. This aspect of the matter would be considered separately. 45. Our attention was further drawn to the fact that there was no occasion for the appellants of Criminal Appeal No. 279 of 1987 to pick up quarrel with the family of the deceased relating to the house properties. 46. However, as noticed hereinbefore, P. W. 1 in her deposition categorically stated that there had been a dispute between the family of the accused and the family of the deceased. All the other material prosecution witness have corroborated the said statements. 47. P. W. 2 is Usha Devi, who is wife of P. W. 3 she also stated about the occurrence in question by giving a graphic details. 48. Our attention has also been drawn to some of the omissions in her statement before the police but the omission are not of such nature which can be said to be in the nature of contradictions. 49. In paragraph 11 of her deposition, she stated as to how her father-in-law came between Raju Gope and the informant P. W. 7. In paragraph 15 of her deposition, she stated that her husband and brother-in-law were locked in a room by the neighbourers. 50. She further stated that the police came to the hospital but soon thereafter left the same and after some time, in the police vehicle her husband, brother-in-law, mother-in-law and her son came. 51. It is true as has been submitted by Mr. Pandey that in Paragraph 29 of her deposition she had not stated before the police that the informant was also being assaulted by fist. She further stated that she had not seen the actual firing of shot from the pistol by Raju but in the same breath she stated that she had seen the pistol. In her deposition she had merely stated that she had not seen the informant being assaulted by fists also, but while a person being assaulted by firsts and slaps actual assault by first might not have been seen by her. In her deposition she had merely stated that she had not seen the informant being assaulted by fists also, but while a person being assaulted by firsts and slaps actual assault by first might not have been seen by her. This witness has also stated in her deposition that there has been no dispute with Hira Lal. 52. P.W. 3 and 7 also fully corroborated the statements of the aforementioned witnesses. The only omission on the part of P. W. 3 in making a statement before the police was to the effect that she had not stated as to who had given the order of killing the informant. In paragraph 15 of his deposition he stated that police took her statements in Khagaul hospital. As - indicated hereinbefore, at the relevant time, the mental condition of P, W. 1 and P.W. 2 cannot be said to be such which would enable them to state entire incident in their minutes of details. 53. P. W. 7 is the informant. He had also fully supported the prosecution case. 54. Mr. Pandey further submitted that in view of the fact that all the material witnesses are interested and partisan witnesses, their testimonies should not be relied upon. 55. It is now well known that the testimonies of a person cannot be rejected only on the ground that he is an interested witness. 56. It is also well known that in a case of this nature kith and kin of the deceased would not like to spare the actual assailant. 57. It is true that P, W. 4 who was independent witness did not support the prosecution story, but that by itself, in our opinion, does not militate against the veracity of the statements made by other P. Ws. The statements of all the material witnesses, as noticed hereinbefore are fully corroborated by documentary evidence and the evidence of the investigating officer which are also corroborated by the circumstances attending thereto. 58. Upon considering the evidences of P. Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 7 in their totality, we are satisfied that the statements of the said witnesses are absolutely natural and there is no reason to disbelieve their testimonies. There are, of course, minor contradictions in their statements with regard to the details of incident, as pointed out hereinbefore, but such minor contradictions, in our opinion, must be held to be natural. There are, of course, minor contradictions in their statements with regard to the details of incident, as pointed out hereinbefore, but such minor contradictions, in our opinion, must be held to be natural. The Court has also to give some allowances for loss of memory of the witnesses and their respective capacities to judge a particular indicent from their own points of view. 59. So far as the submission of Mr. Pandey to the effect that the accused persons had no intention to kill the deceased Mishri Lal Tiwari is concerned, we do not find any substance therein. It has came on records that the accused persons had hired the services of Raju Gope and another unidentified person. The witnesses categorically stated that it was Raju Gope who had fired a shot at the instance of the appellants. If the appellants had come with hired goondas at the spot, who came there with lethal weapons, there cannot be any doubt that there had been a prior meeting of minds amongst the persons who went there with an intention to kill somebody. The appellants might no be charged under Sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code but they can certainly be charged under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 60. It is true that their common intention was to kill the informant but only because accidentally instead of killing the informant they had killed the deceased Mishri Lal Tiwari, it cannot be said that they could not be charged for commission of an offence under Secs. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code at all. 61. We, thus, do not find any infirmity in the judgment so as to allow Cr. Appeal No. 279 of 1987. 62. So far as Criminal Appeal No. 302 of 1987 is concerned, in our opinion, however, the appellant thereof is entitled to benefit of doubt. The appellant Hira Lal Sah as has been admitted by P. Ws. is an old man. He used to remain along in one room which had been given to him by way of gift by Sri Rathore from whom the appellants as also the family of the deceased purchased the house properties in question. The appellant Hira Lal Sah as has been admitted by P. Ws. is an old man. He used to remain along in one room which had been given to him by way of gift by Sri Rathore from whom the appellants as also the family of the deceased purchased the house properties in question. With regard to the said room, the family of the deceased had some grievances against Hira Lal Sah but nothing has been brought on records to show that Hira Lal Sah had been nursing any grudge as against them. As noticed hereinbefore, P. W. 1 in paragraph 43 of her deposition categorically admitted that Hira Lal Sah had been living alone and he never visited their house. She further admitted that there was no dispute with Hira Lal Sah. Similar are the statements of the other prosecution witnesses. 63. In this situation, I am of the view that although Hira Lal Sah might . have come along with the appellants but there is nothing on records to suggest that he had shared a common intention with the appellants of Criminal Appeal No. 297 of 1987 to kill the informant or the deceased. In that view of the matter, Criminal Appeal No. 302 of 1987 has to be allowed. 64. In the result Criminal Appeal No. 279 of 1987 is dismissed and the appellants are directed to surrender to serve out their sentences. Criminal Appeal No. 302 of 1987 is, however, allowed. The Appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 302 of 1987 (Hira Lal Sah) is no bail. He is discharged from his bail bonds. 65. Criminal Appeal No. 338 of 1987 is dismissed as having abated. S.N.Jha, J. 66 I agree.