Judgment J.C. Gupta & Bhanwar Singh, JJ. (1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.1.1980, passed by the then 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Etah, convicting the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and under Section 307 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and each of the appellants has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and five years rigorous imprisonment respectively under the said counts. (2) At the outset, we may state that the appeal of appellant No. 1 Jai Lal stands abated as he has expired during the pendency of appeal. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the houses of Megh Singh and Gopal situate in the eastern side of the village Mirzapur while the house of accused persons situate in the western side of that village. There was an old well near the houses of the accused persons. In April, 1979, some grant was received for construction of a well in village Mirzapur. Megh Singh and Gopal deceased wanted the construction of that well in the vicinity of their houses whereas the accused wanted that well to be constructed in the neighbourhood of their house. It is said that in this connection, on some occasions, harsh words and abuses were exchanged between the accused persons and the complainant party. In May, 1979, the well was constructed near the houses of Megh Singh and Gopal. On account of this, the accused persons started bearing ill-will towards the deceased and his family members and they threatened Gopal and Megh Singh saying that though they had succeeded in getting the well constructed in their neighbourhood but they would not be allowed to take water from the same. (3) On 24.6.1979 at about 11.30 a.m. when Megh Singh, Smt. Angoori and her husband, Gopal, were coming back from their field existing in the west of village, after setting fire to the 'Jawansa' and had reached at the crossing of the houses of Mitthu and Beni, Jia Lal, accused armed with a rifle and Kehari and Shyam armed with guns arrived there from northern side. They challenged Gopal and Megh Singh and ironically said that they will make them drink the water of the well in a better way and they fired three or four shots from their respective firarms, as a consequence of which, both Gopal and Megh Singh sustained firearm injuries. They challenged Gopal and Megh Singh and ironically said that they will make them drink the water of the well in a better way and they fired three or four shots from their respective firarms, as a consequence of which, both Gopal and Megh Singh sustained firearm injuries. Gopal died an instant death. The incident was also witnesses by Kedari, P.W.3, Smt. Angoori, P.W.4 and others. The accused persons after commission of crime ran away with their respective weapons. (4) Megh Singh who had suffered firearm injuries proceeded to Police Station Awagarh and reached there at 1.30 p.m. He dictated an oral report, Ex. Ka-1 which was reduced to writing in the chick register and the case was registered against the nominated accused persons. Megh Singh was sent for medical examination to Government Hospital, Awagarh where his injuries were medically examined by Dr. O.P. Varshney, P.W.6 on the same day at 3.00 p.m. and following injuries were found. (1) Gun shot wound 1/4 cm. 1/4 cm. with inverted edges with darkening of the skin, skin deep oozing at time of examination on the upper and front part of right arm, near axilla. (2) Gun shot wound 1/4 cm. 1/4 cm. with blackening of the skin and slight swelling around the wound on the front of chest, 7 cm. medial to the right nipple, slightly above the line. (3) Gun shot wound 1/4 cm. 1/4 cm. skin deep on the front of chest, 3 cm. medial and slightly lower to injury No. (4) Gun shot wound 1/3 cm. 1/3 cm. skin deep with slight swelling on the lower part of left side of chest, 7.5 cm. outer and lower side of chest from injury No. 3. (5) Gun shot wound 1/4 cm. 1/4 cm. skin deep with blackening on outer side of wound on the front of left shoulder with palpable pellet on outer side. (6) Gun shot wound 1/4 cm. 1/4 cm. skin deep with blackening on outside of wound with red swelling 2.5 cm. 1/5 cm. on outer side of wound, wound on the front of left shoulder 2 cm. outer to injury No. 5 pellet palpable. (7) Gun shot wound 1 cm. 1/4 cm. skin deep with irregular black margins on the outer side of upper 1/3 of left arm, wound oozing at time. (8) Gun shot wound 1/4 cm. 1/4 cm. 1/5 cm. on outer side of wound, wound on the front of left shoulder 2 cm. outer to injury No. 5 pellet palpable. (7) Gun shot wound 1 cm. 1/4 cm. skin deep with irregular black margins on the outer side of upper 1/3 of left arm, wound oozing at time. (8) Gun shot wound 1/4 cm. 1/4 cm. skin deep on the middle of the lateral side of the right side of neck with swelling 1 cm. 1 cm. on outer side of wound. (9) Gun shot wound 1/4 cm. 1/4 cm. entrance round shot on the right upper lip, 1.5 cm. above the angle (right) of mouth with exist on inner side of lip with lacerated wound on the gums in between the 5th and 6th teeth of the upper right side. (10) Gun shot wound 1/4 cm. 1/4 cm. skin deep on the left nostril outer side and near the junction of nostril. (11) Gun shot wound 1/4 cm. 1/4 cm. skin deep with swelling around the wound 3 cm. 2.5 cm. on the front of the forehead on left side, 1.5 cm. above the medial end of the left eyebrow. (12) Gun shot wound 1/4 cm. skin deep on the middle of the left eyebrow with swelling and bluish of the whole upper left eye lid giving appearance of closing of left eye and inner side of eye could not be examined due to mass swelling of eye. Referred to Etah District Hospital for removal of pallet. The duration of injuries was fresh and they were kept under observation. In the x-ray examination of the injured, MEGH Singh, three radio opaque shadows were seen in the area of face as is apparent from the x-ray report, Ex. Ka-6. S.I. Satyapal Singh, P.W.8 was posted as second officer at police station, Awagarh. He was present at the Police Station when the case was registered. He took up the investigation and recorded the statement of the first informant, Mega Singh, at the Police Station itself. Thereafter, she proceeded to the place of occurrence, held inquest and after preparing necessary papers, sent the dead body of Gopal to mortuary for post-mortem examination. He also recorded the statements of Smt. Angoori, Kedari, Nawab Singh and others and prepared site plan, Ex. Ka-7. He also collected blood stained and plain earth from the scene of occurrence and prepared memo Ex. Ka-11. He also recorded the statements of Smt. Angoori, Kedari, Nawab Singh and others and prepared site plan, Ex. Ka-7. He also collected blood stained and plain earth from the scene of occurrence and prepared memo Ex. Ka-11. On completion of investigation, he submitted charge-sheet. Ex. Ka-13 against all the three nominated accused persons. Dr. P.K. Jain, P.W.5 conducted autopsy on the dead body of deceased, Gopal on 25.6.1979 at 12.15 p.m. and following ante-mortem injuries were found. "1. Firearm wound of entry 2 cm. 2 cm. into through and through on the back of the skull. Margins are inverted and lacerated, blackening present. Direction forward. 2. Firearm wound of Exit 15.12 cm. on the top and front of the skull. Margins are inverted and lacerated. Bones are grossly fractured. Brain matter coming out through the wound. Left eye is also grossly damaged. Injury communicating injury No. (1). 3. Firearm wound of entry 1-1/2 1-1/2 cm. into cavity deep on the upper part of right scapula. Margins are inverted and lacerated. Blackening present. Direction forward and downward. 4. Firearm wound of entry 1-1/2 1 cm. into skin deep on the left palm outer side. Margins are inverted and lacerated. Blackening present." In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was coma as a result of ante-mortem injury Nos. 1 and 2. The post-mortem report is Ex. Ka-3. (5) The prosecution before the trial court examined six witnesses. They were P.W.1 Constable Sheo Saran Rawat who prepared the chick F.I.R. and registered the case in the general diary of police station, Awagarh, P.W.2 Megh Singh, is first informant and injured, P.W.3 Kedari, an eye-witness, P.W.4 Smt. Angoori, an eye-witness. P.W.5 Dr. P.K. Jain, who proved the post-mortem report of the deceased. P.W.6 Dr. O.P. Varshney who had medically examined injuries of injured Megh Singh, P.W.7 Dr. Daya Shankar Gupta, who proved the x-ray report of injured Megh Singh and P.W.8, S.I. Satya Pal Singh, Investigating Officer. (6) The case of the accused persons was of complete denial. They produced no witness in defence. On appraisal of evidence, the learned Sessions Judge has found the appellants guilty of the offences of murder and attempt to murder and accordingly has convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated above. (6) The case of the accused persons was of complete denial. They produced no witness in defence. On appraisal of evidence, the learned Sessions Judge has found the appellants guilty of the offences of murder and attempt to murder and accordingly has convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated above. (7) We have heard Sri Apul Mishra, amicus curiae for the appellants Kehari and Shyam and Sri K.C. Saxena, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. (8) The factum of death of Gopal on account of firearm injuries has neither been challenged nor assailed by the learned counsel for the appellants. Gopal died a homicidal death due to firearm injuries is also established beyond doubt from the evidence produced before the trial court. Dr. P.K. Jain, P.W.5 who conducted post-mortem examination, has specifically stated that he had found three firearm wounds of entry and one exit wound on the dead body of Gopal and death of Gopal had occurred due to coma as a result of ante-mortem injury Nos. 1 and 2. He further stated that injuries 1 and 2 were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. It also could not be disputed that Megh Singh, P.W.2 had also sustained firearm injuries on his person on 24.6.1979. Dr. O.P. Varshney, P.W.6, who had medically examined Megh Singh on 24.6.1979 at 3.00 p.m. proved his injury report as Ex. Ka-4. He had found as many as 12 firearm injuries, description of them, we have already given above. Dr. Varshney in his statement before the trial court stated that the injuries of Megh Singh were caused by firearm and they were fresh in duration and could be caused at about 11.30 a.m. on the same day. The X-ray examination of Megh Singh further fortifies that the injuries of Megh Singh were of firearm. (9) In the trial court, the prosecution produced three witnesses of fact, namely, Megh Singh, P.W.2, Kedari, P.W.3 and Smt. Angoori, P.W.4. (10) Megh Singh, P.W.2 is brother of deceased Gopal. He has stated of the motive and also narrated entire facts leading to the incident in question. It was specifically stated by him that accused party were bearing enmity on account of the fact that they wanted construction of well in their vicinity whereas the deceased and he himself succeeded in getting well at State expenses constructed in their neighbourhood. He has stated of the motive and also narrated entire facts leading to the incident in question. It was specifically stated by him that accused party were bearing enmity on account of the fact that they wanted construction of well in their vicinity whereas the deceased and he himself succeeded in getting well at State expenses constructed in their neighbourhood. There had been exchange of hot words and abuses between them. On account of this accused persons were bearing ill will towards the deceased and his family members and they had even threatened Gopal and Megh Singh that though they had succeeded in getting the well constructed near their houses but they would not be allowed to take water from the same. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the motive suggested by the prosecution is too meagre and inadequate. The fact that well at State expenses was constructed in the neighbourhood of deceased is not disputed. In the first information report also, the same motive was clearly stated. The mere fact that this motive is not so strong as may prompt the accused persons to commit the murder of the deceased in a calculated manner will not, however, weaken the direct evidence led by the prosecution. It is well-settled that inadequacy or insufficiency of motive relating to the cause of attack cannot adversely affect the prosecution case, because motive is a thing which is primarily known to the accused himself and it may not be possible for the prosecution in every case to explain what exactly prompted or excited the accused to commit the particular crime. The alleged motive may be meagre or ostensibly, in some cases there may not be any motive but for that reason alone, the prosecution case cannot be thrown out as false or regarded or improbable or suspicious. If the evidence produced by the prosecution is sufficiently clear, inadequacy of motive is not of much consequence. It has been repeatedly pointed out by Courts that where the case of the prosecution is proved beyond all reasonable doubt on the basis of material produced, the motive loses its importance. It is also well-known that various persons react differently in similar circumstances. It has been repeatedly pointed out by Courts that where the case of the prosecution is proved beyond all reasonable doubt on the basis of material produced, the motive loses its importance. It is also well-known that various persons react differently in similar circumstances. There are some persons who react sharply even on minor or trifle issues whereas there are some persons whose sentiments are not aroused even when they are faced with serious incident. The human nature cannot be measured in any balance. Motive of men are often so deep seated as to be almost unfathomable. Therefore, in the present case the primary question that arises for consideration is whether the evidence brought on record is clear and reliable. P.W.2 Megh Singh is brother of the deceased Gopal. As already pointed out above, he himself sustained firearm injuries which were examined on the same day at 3.00 p.m. by Dr. O.P. Varshney P.W.6. Since Megh Singh himself sustained injuries during the course of the same incident in which firearm injuries were sustained by deceased Gopal, presence of Megh Singh at the time of incident cannot be doubted. Megh Singh specifically stated that on the day of occurrence, he and Gopal deceased were coming back from their field when at about 11.30 a.m. Jia Lal appellant armed with rifle, Kehari and Shyam appellants with guns arrived at the scene of occurrence. All the three appellants fired three or four rounds of shots from their respective arms as a consequence of which both he and Gopal sustained firearm injuries. Gopal died on the spot. Megh Singh further stated that Smt. Angoori P.W.4, wife of Gopal deceased, was also with them. Kedari P.W.3 and Nawab Singh witnessed the incident. After causing firearm injuries, accused persons ran towards north. Immediately thereafter, he himself ran to police station and dictated his report orally, which was reduced to writing in check register. He was then sent to hospital where his injuries were medically examined and from there he was referred to District Hospital, Etah. (11) P.W.3 Kedari stated that at the time of incident, he and Nawab Singh were talking to each other on the eastern chabutra of Beni's chappar. While Smt. Angoori P.W.4 stated that she was accompanying her husband deceased Gopal and his brother Megh Singh when this firing incident occurred. (11) P.W.3 Kedari stated that at the time of incident, he and Nawab Singh were talking to each other on the eastern chabutra of Beni's chappar. While Smt. Angoori P.W.4 stated that she was accompanying her husband deceased Gopal and his brother Megh Singh when this firing incident occurred. Both of these witnesses have also given a vivid account of the incident. Their names find place in the first information report which was lodged at the Police Station without any loss of time. (12) Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that all the three witnesses were interested inasmuch as P.W.2 Megh Singh is real brother of the deceased, while Smt. Angoori P.W.4 is his wife. Kedari P.W.3 is also first cousin of Megh Singh inasmuch as Dorilal father of Kedari and Gopi father of Megh Singh were real brothers being sons of Manphool. Apart from this, according to the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants, presence of P.W.4 Smt. Angoori and P.W.3 Kedari was only by chance. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that P.W.3 Kedari and Smt. Angoori were chance witnesses cannot be countenanced as they have given plausible explanation of their presence at the time of incident. Smt. Angoori has stated that at the time of incident she was accompanying her husband Gopal deceased. There is nothing unnatural in it. Whereas P.W.3 Kedari stated that he was present at the chabutra of Beni and was talking to Nawab. This witness had no personal animosity against the accused persons. He has specifically named all the appellants as assailants of deceased Gopal and his brother Megh Singh P.W.2. Both these witnesses withstood the test of cross-examination and nothing could be brought out to demolish their claim of being present at the time of incident. Merely because all the three witnesses happened to be close relations of the deceased their evidence cannot be discarded on that basis alone. Megh Singh P.W.2 himself sustained firearm injuries and the incident had occurred in broad day light. All the appellants were well known to the witnesses, they being their own khandani. Thus, it would not have been difficult for the witnesses to identify appellants as assailants of the deceased. Megh Singh P.W.2 himself sustained firearm injuries and the incident had occurred in broad day light. All the appellants were well known to the witnesses, they being their own khandani. Thus, it would not have been difficult for the witnesses to identify appellants as assailants of the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellants made an abortive effort to create a doubt in the truthfulness of the witnesses by making submission that their ocular testimony is in conflict with, the medical evidence. It was pointed out that according to P.W.2 Megh Singh, when firing was made, accused persons were placed at a distance of about three steps in north west and at that time, Gopal deceased was to his west at a distance of four paces. Similarly Smt. Angoori P.W.4 stated that firing was made from a distance of about 3-4 paces. On the basis of these statements, it was argued that according to the witnesses, firing was made upon the deceased at least from a distance of four paces which comes to more than 6-7 feet where as per the opinion expressed by Dr. P.K. Jain P.W.5 who conducted autopsy, the firing must have been made from a distance of about four feet. From the evidence on record, it is apparent that Megh Singh and Smt. Angoori were illiterate persons. Megh Singh dictated F.I.R. orally at the police station and he put his thumb mark thereon after the same was read over to him. This shows that Megh Singh was not even able to sign. He was a rustic and illiterate villager so is the case with Smt. Angoori. It has also come in the evidence that all the three appellants abruptly arrived at the scene of occurrence and started firing from their respective weapons. In such a situation with which witnesses were confronted and the firing was made suddenly by as many as three persons, it was difficult for the witnesses to remember with absolute precision and accuracy the distance between accused and the deceased at the time of firing particularly when Megh Singh himself sustained a number of firearm injuries. Presence of Megh Singh at the time of incident cannot be doubted and his evidence substantially tallies with the medical evidence inasmuch as the injuries found on the deceased were of firearm. Presence of Megh Singh at the time of incident cannot be doubted and his evidence substantially tallies with the medical evidence inasmuch as the injuries found on the deceased were of firearm. Some inconsistency relating to the distance from which firing was made in the circumstances of the case will be of no consequence. We are, therefore, not prepared to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants. In the circumstances, to discard the evidence of the eye-witnesses including an injured on this supposedly discrepancy would be travesty of justice. (13) The evidence of Megh Singh P.W.2 is further corroborated by first information report Ex. Ka-1 which was promptly lodged at the police station at 1.30 p.m. i.e. within two hours of the incident. The distance of police station from the place of occurrence was seven miles. Megh Singh had himself sustained firearm injuries and he was sent for medical examination from the police station and the same was held on the same day at 3 p.m. (14) On a careful examination of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in the light of circumstances appearing in the case and the medical evidence, we have no hesitation in holding that it were the appellants who caused the death of Gopal by firearms and also caused injuries to Megh Singh at the time and place alleged by the prosecution. Once we have found the evidence of the prosecution witnesses reliable and trustworthy, it is not possible to countenance the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that they have been falsely implicated. The evidence on record leaves no room for doubt that the incident occurred in broad day light. Therefore, it does not seem reasonable that Megh Singh P.W.2 who himself was a victim and two other witnesses being close relations of the deceased, would have falsely named the appellants, their khandani, as assailants of the deceased by shielding real culprits. It was next submitted by the learned amicus curiae that looking to the nature of injuries of injured Megh Singh and injury No. 4 of deceased Gopal, it cannot be inferred conclusively that all accused shared common intention to commit the murder of Gopal deceased. It was pointed out that injuries of Megh Singh were all skin deep while injury No. 4 of deceased Gopal was also a skin deep injury. It was pointed out that injuries of Megh Singh were all skin deep while injury No. 4 of deceased Gopal was also a skin deep injury. Injury No. 1 of deceased Gopal was an entry wound on the back of skull through and through. Injury No. 2 was its exit wound on the top and front of the skull. Injury No. 3 was a cavity deep injury on the upper part of right scapula. As per the opinion of Dr. Jain cause of death was injury No. 1 with its exit wound and it has not been made clear from the evidence as to who out of the three appellants caused injury No. 1 of the deceased, therefore, all the appellants cannot be held guilty for the offence of murder with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. We do not find any force in this submission. (15) The essence of liability under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code 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 common intention, in other words, essence of Section 34 is simultaneous consensus of the mind of persons participating in the criminal action to bring about a particular result. It is true that for invoking Section 34 against an accused, prior concert or a pre-arranged plan has to be established, but it is difficult in most cases for the prosecution to establish common intention by direct evidence. It has to be inferred from the attending circumstances of the case and conduct of the parties. This inference can be gathered by the manner in which accused persons arrived on the scene of occurrence and mounted the attack, the determination and concert with which injuries were inflicted by one or some of them, the concerted conduct subsequent to the commission of the offence, etc. In other words, the totality of the circumstances must be judged in order to determine whether accused persons had a common intention to commit an offence with which they could be connected. In the present case, accused persons had a motive against the deceased and his brother Megh Singh. On the day of occurrence, all the accused persons had come together armed with firearms. Appellant Kehari and Shyam were armed with guns while appellant Jia Lal with rifle. In the present case, accused persons had a motive against the deceased and his brother Megh Singh. On the day of occurrence, all the accused persons had come together armed with firearms. Appellant Kehari and Shyam were armed with guns while appellant Jia Lal with rifle. They all challenged the deceased and Megh Singh and all of them opened fire simultaneously with their respective weapons. After committing murder of deceased and causing injuries to Megh Singh, all the accused persons left the place of occurrence together and ran away in the same direction with their respective firearms. These circumstances and their conduct do not leave any room for doubt that the appellants shared common intention and committed murder of Gopal in furtherance of their common intention. They are thus, found guilty under Section 302, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C. for committing the murder of Gopal and under Section 307/34, I.P.C. for causing firearm injuries to Megh Singh with an intention to kill him. Therefore, the conviction and sentence of the appellants recorded by the trial court under both these counts are maintained. (16) For the reasons assigned above, we find no force in this appeal and accordingly, it is dismissed. The order of conviction and sentence of the trial court is upheld. Appellant Shyam is reported to be in jail as his bail application was rejected by this Court by the order dated 17.2.2000. He shall be kept there to serve out the sentence awarded by the trial court and if, in the meantime, he has been released on bail, he shall be arrested and sent to jail to serve out his respective sentences. Appellant Kehari is on bail. He shall be arrested forthwith and sent to jail to serve out the sentences as awarded by the trial court and upheld by this Court. A copy of the order be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah, for compliance. (17) Sri Apul Mishra, who appeared as amicus curiae for the appellants, shall be paid Rs. 2,100 as fee.