JUDGEMENT 1. For an occurrence which took place on 24-6-1976, Rohan Singh and Dulare the respondents herein along with Lakhan Singh and Jai Singh were sent up for trial in connection with the murder of Naqi Raza and for causing injuries to Mashooq Khan, PW 2. According to the prosecution case on 24th June, 1976 in the evening when Daya Ram, complainant was sitting at the main door of his house talking to Natha and Hari Ram about the purchase of groundnut seeds, deceased Naqi Raza and injured Mashooq Khan arrived there. While the complainant Daya Ram was talking to Mashooq Khan, the four accused, namely, Rohan Singh, Dulare, Lakhan Singh and Jai Singh arrived at the scene of occurrence. Rohan Singh was armed with a double barrel licensed gun. Dulare with a single barrel country-made gun while Lakhan Singh and Jai Singh were armed with lathis. Jai Singh and Lakhan Singh exhorted that Mashooq Khan and Naqi Raza be killed whereupon Rohan Singh fired a shot at Mashooq Khan while Dulare fired a shot at Naqi Raza. Several persons arrived at the spot and on seeing them the accused persons fled away. The trial Court after examining the evidence on the record acquitted Lakhan Singh and Jai Singh. 2. However, Rohan Singh was convicted for an offence under S. 302/34, IPC and awarded the sentence of life imprisonment. He was also convicted for an offence under S. 307, IPC and sentenced to suffer 5 years’ R.I. Dulare was convicted for an offence under S. 302, IPC and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment. He was also convicted for an offence under S. 307/34, IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 5 years. The sentences of both the respondents were, however, directed to run concurrently. Both the convicts preferred an appeal against their conviction and sentence in the High Court of judicature of Allahabad at Lucknow. A Division Bench of that Court after critically analysing the evidence and hearing learned counsel for the parties found that P.W. 2, Mashooq Khan had received injuries at the hands of Rohan Singh only while Naqi Raza had died as a result of the injury caused to him by the gun shot fired by Dulare. A Division Bench of that Court after critically analysing the evidence and hearing learned counsel for the parties found that P.W. 2, Mashooq Khan had received injuries at the hands of Rohan Singh only while Naqi Raza had died as a result of the injury caused to him by the gun shot fired by Dulare. The respondents as a matter of fact did not challenge the date, time and place of the occurrence not even seriously disputed the substratum of the prosecution case before the High Court. The submission made on behalf of the respondents before the High Court, however, was that the respondents Rohan Singh and Dulare could not be said to have shared the common intention to either cause the murder of Naqi Raza or to cause injuries to Mashooq Khan and that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents could only be held responsible for their own individual overt acts. It was argued in the High Court that with the acquittal of Lakhan Singh and Jai Singh who according to the prosecution case had exhorted Rohan Singh and Dulare to cause the murder of Naqi Raza and injure Mashooq Khan, the very basis for the applicability of S. 34, IPC stood completely knocked off. The submissions made on behalf of respondents found favour with the High Court and accordingly the High Court partly allowed the appeal of the respondents. The conviction of Dulare for the offence under S. 307/34, IPC and the sentence of 5 years’ R.I. for the said offence was set aside. His conviction for the offence under S. 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment for the murder of Naqi Raza was however maintained. Similarly, in the case of Rohan Singh, his conviction for an offence under S. 302/34, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on him was set aside and he was acquitted of that charge. His conviction for an offence under S. 307. IPC and the sentence of 5 years’ R.I. for the injury caused to Mashooq Khan, PW 2 was however maintained. The State being aggrieved by the order of the High Court has filed this appeal by special leave. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record. His conviction for an offence under S. 307. IPC and the sentence of 5 years’ R.I. for the injury caused to Mashooq Khan, PW 2 was however maintained. The State being aggrieved by the order of the High Court has filed this appeal by special leave. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record. The only question which has been argued before us on behalf of the State is that in the facts and circumstances of the case, S. 34 IPC was attracted and both the respondents should have been held guilty with the aid of S. 34 IPC for the murder of Naqi Raza and for injuries to Mashooq Khan, P.W. 2. 4. From the statement of Mashooq Khan, PW 2 it transpires that Rohan Singh had fired on him and at the same time Dulare had fired a shot by his unauthorised single barrel gun on Naqi Raza. Neither Rohan Singh assaulted Naqi Raza deceased nor did Dulare fire any shot at Mashooq Khan, P.W. 2. After analysing the evidence led by the prosecution we are of the opinion, that the most that can be said in favour of the prosecution is that the two respondents shared a similar intention to shoot at the two victims but from the material on record, it is not possible to positively attribute to them the common intention to commit the crime. There is a material difference between the sharing of similar intention and common intention. Section 34, IPC can be attracted only if the accused share a common intention and not where they share only similar intention. There are no circumstances on the record from which it may be possible to draw the inference that the respondents had shared the common intention. Mere presence together is not sufficient to hold that they both shared the common intention to murder Naqi Raza and injure Mashooq Khan. In this view of the matter, we find that the judgment of the High Court does not call for any interference. The reasons recorded by the High Court are sound and cogent and the same have appealed to us. 5. Thus, for what has been said above, we find that the judgement of the High Court does not call for any interference. The appeal consequently fails and is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.