Judgment B.N.Agrawal, J. 1. The sole appellant has been convicted by the trial Court under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The appellant has been further convicted under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years. Both the sentences, however, have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. Prosecution case, in short, is that on 2-8-1985 at 9.30 p.m. when the informant, Bajrangi Singh (PW 7), was returning from his brick-kiln and arrived 1 k.m. from Sonbarsa Chatti, he found the appellant and 3-4 unknown persons armed with country made pistol coming on the road. He heard the sound of firing on an unknown person, who was going on the road. Upon receiving firearm injury, the said unknown person, whose name subsequently transpired as Ram Lal, fell down on the ground and succumbed to the injury. The informant (PW 7) was chased by the accused persons and they fired at him, as a result of which the informant received injury on his left hand and right little finger. Thereafter the accused persons fled away. On hulla being raised villagers arrived Stating the aforesaid facts, a formal first information report was drawn up on the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, Bajrangi Singh (PW 7). 3. The Police after registering the case took up investigation, during the course of which name6 of five other accused persons transpired, and therefore, chargesheet was submitted against six accused persons including the appellant. Upon receipt of chargesheet, the learned Magistrate took cognizance and committed all the six accused persons including the appellant to the court of sessions to face trial. Upon conclusion of trial the court below acquitted other five accused persons, but has convicted the appellant as stated above. Hence this appeal. 4. Upon receipt of chargesheet, the learned Magistrate took cognizance and committed all the six accused persons including the appellant to the court of sessions to face trial. Upon conclusion of trial the court below acquitted other five accused persons, but has convicted the appellant as stated above. Hence this appeal. 4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in support of this appeal contended that according to the prosecution case and evidence, apart from these six accused persons including the appellant, there was no other accused person, all of them were charged unucr Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code and also under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code and as other five accused persons have been acquitted of the said charges, the sole appellant could not have been convicted either under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code or under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, inasmuch as there was no other accused person with whom he could have shared the common intention either to kill the deceased or to make an attempt to kill PW 7. It has been further contended that as there was no other person with whom the appellant could have shared common intention and there was no charge either under Section 302 or under Section 307 of the Pena Code, conviction of the appellant on both these counts with the aid of Section 34 of the Penal Code is unwarranted. In support of her submission, learned Counsel has placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Sohar Singh and others V/s. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 Patna 448, wherein following two decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Prabhu Babaji V/s. State of Bombay (S), AIR 1956 SC 51 ; and Krishna Govind V/s. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 SC 1413 , it was laid down that if other accused persons with whom also charge was framed with the aid of Section 34 of the Penal Code were acquitted and there was no other persons with whom another convicted accused could have shared the common intention, the conviction of the accused with the aid of Section 34 of the Penal Code was unwarranted. 5. 5. It my new the present case is squarely covered by the aforesaid decisions, therefore, conviction and sentence awarded against the appellant is wholly unwarranted. As this appeal has got to be allowed on the question of law only, it is not necessary for us to go into merit of the case. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed, conviction and sentence awarded against the appellant are set aside and he is acquitted of the charges. The appellant, who is in jail directed to be released forthwith if he is not required in connection with any other case.