ORDER : 1. In Sessions Trial No. 217/125 of 1982/83, the VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Patna (sic) the four appellants namely, Thakur Singh, Om Prakash. Jamun Rai and Sheo Dutt Mishra along with Nand Kumar Singh and Surash Mehta were convicted tinder Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and RI for 5 years respectively. The appellant No. 2 Om Prakash was also convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo RI for one year. This conviction and sentence was affirmed by the High Court against which these appeals have been directed by the four accused named above. Nand Kumar Singh had preferred special leave petition in this Court being SLP No. 46/88 and the same was dismissed by this court; on 20th March )995 on his failure to surrender. Suresh Mehto, however, Sled no appeal to this court, During the pendency of this appeal, the appellant No. 3 - Jamtsn Rai aad did and, therefore, his appeal (being No. Cri A, 423/88) abates. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the accused appellants were in fact in possession of the property, & wall of which, was being demolished on the date of occurrence and therefore they had every right to defend their possession and as such it cannot be said that they had committed any offence. They also submitted that in fact when the wall was being demolished the complainant party itself opened fire and exploded bombs which hit the deceased. We have gone through the relevant evidence and also the judgment of the two courts below. The two courts below have consistently accepted the prosecution evidence that the property was in possession of the complainant party and it wag appellant No. 2 Om Prakash who had fired which hit the deceased resulting into his death. The other appellants had also shared the common intention in the occurrence. 3. We, therefore, find that there is no substance in the submissions made. Learned counsel for the appellant however, submitted that the appellant No. 4 Shoo Dutt Mishra and Suresh Mohto who has not filed the appeal ware employed as labourers by the appellants and they cannot be said to have shared the common intention with Thakur Singh, Om Prakash and others as they had goa there to demolish the wall labourers. Learned counsel for the appellant however, submitted that the appellant No. 4 Shoo Dutt Mishra and Suresh Mohto who has not filed the appeal ware employed as labourers by the appellants and they cannot be said to have shared the common intention with Thakur Singh, Om Prakash and others as they had goa there to demolish the wall labourers. We find that there is substance is his submission. There is no positive evidence to show that Sheo Dutt and Suresh Mehto had any knowledge that the house was not in possession of accused persons and there was any chance of the incident which actually took place on the date of the occurrence. We, therefore allow the appeal of Sheo Dutt Mishra (being Crl. A. No. 494 of 1988). He is acquitted of all the charge. His conviction and sentence are as set aside. His bail bonds are discharged. 4. Crl. Appeal No. 429/88 in respect of Thakur Singh and Om Prakash is dismissed. Their bails are cancelled and they are directed to surrender. 5. Since we have allowed the appeal of Sheo Dutt Mishra who was only a labourer and did not share the common intention, we extend the benefit to Suresh Mahto also though he has not preferred any appeal. We extend aside his conviction and sentence also. He is acquitted of all the charges. 6. A copy of this order be seat to the VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Patna for being forwarded to the Jail Superintendent concerned where Suresh Mehto is undergoing his sentence. Gr. A 492/86 dismissed.