VISHNU SAHAI, J. Through this appeal, appellants Naseer alias Pullu, Naseer alias Bhullan and Aziz have challenged the judgment and order dated 15-5-1981 passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Rae Bareli, in Sessions Trial No. 274 of 1980, whereby they have been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. 2. Shortly stated the prosecution case runs as under : Informant Rasool Ahmad (PW 1) was the real brother of deceased Jamil Ahmad. At the time of the incident the informant and deceased were living in village Ghosi Ka Purwa H/o. Rajapur, situated within the limits of police station Salon, District Rae Bareli. At that time, appellant and co-accused Madari were also living in the said village. They are inter-related. Appellant Nasir Ahmad alias Pullu and Madari are real brothers. Appellant Nasir alias Bhullar is the son of the sister of the father of appellants Nasir Ahmad alias Pullu and Madari. Appellant Aziz is the son of Abdul Bari, the brother of appellants Nasir Ahmad alias Pullu and Madari. There was enmity between informant and the deceased on one hand and appellants and co-accused Madari on the other. About two years before the murder of the deceased co-accused Madari had assaulted the informants brother Sher Mohammed and he was prosecuted in the case arising therefrom. A year before that the informant, deceased Jamil and others were prosecuted for assaulting appellant Naseer alias Pullu and Nasirs brother-in-law (sala) Babban. On 29th April, 1980, at about 7. 30 a. m. informant Rashool Ahmad, deceased Jamil Ahmad and Munna proceeded on cycles to village Salon to sell milk. On the way Mohd. Yusuf (PW 2) met them. He was also on a cycle. Jamil was about 40-50 paces ahead from informant. As soon as informant, Jamil and others reached near a culvert, at the outskirts of village Rajapur, from behind Behaya bushes, appellants Naseer alias Pullu, Naseer alias Bhullan and Aziz and co-accused Madari, all who were armed with lathis, emerged. They were exhorting "jaan Se Maar Dalo". They thereafter, launched an assault with lathis on jamil who fell down as a consequence thereof. When the informant and others tried to rescue Jamil, they told them that they would meet the same fate. After assaulting Jamil, the appellant ran away towards western side. They were exhorting "jaan Se Maar Dalo". They thereafter, launched an assault with lathis on jamil who fell down as a consequence thereof. When the informant and others tried to rescue Jamil, they told them that they would meet the same fate. After assaulting Jamil, the appellant ran away towards western side. As a consequence of assault Jamil died on the spot. Leaving the corpse of Jamil under the care of Munna and Yunus, the informant Rasool Ahmad got his FIR scribed by Sakir Ahmad and proceeded along with it to police station Salon where he lodged it. 3. The evidence of Head Moharrir Uma Shanker Singh (PW 3) shows that on 29-4-1980 while he was working as constable moharrir at police station Salon, at 9. 15 a. m. , informant Rashool Ahmad came to the police station and lodged his FIR, on the basis of which, he registered a case. It is pertinent to mention that the copy of the chik FIR prepared by him shows that the distance between the place of incident and the police station was about 3 Kms. 4. The evidence of S. I. R. K. Pandey (PW 7) shows that the FIR was lodged in his presence and he immediately proceeded for the place of incident, which he reached at 10. 15 a. m. the same day his evidence shows : He prepared the inquest on the corpse of the deceased, the challan lash, photo-lash and thereafter, on the place of incident itself recorded the statements of informant Rashool Ahmad, Munna and Yusuf. He thereafter, on the pointing out of the witnesses prepared site plan Ext. Ka. 12 and took into possession plain and blood stained earth from the place of incident in separate containers, under recovery memos. On the place of incident, he found a lathi, which was said to have been used by co-accused Madari and he recovered it under a recovery memo. He also found that milk had fallen on the place of incident and the cycle of the deceased, on which a milk can was tied was lying there. He also found that on both sides of the road there were Behaya bushes. 5. The evidence of S. O. Chotey Lal Chaudhary (PW 6) shows that from 15-5-1980 onwards he conducted the investigation and on 3-6- 1980, after completing it submitted the charge-sheet against appellants and Madari. 6. He also found that on both sides of the road there were Behaya bushes. 5. The evidence of S. O. Chotey Lal Chaudhary (PW 6) shows that from 15-5-1980 onwards he conducted the investigation and on 3-6- 1980, after completing it submitted the charge-sheet against appellants and Madari. 6. Going backwards, the autopsy on the corpse of the deceased was conducted on 30-4-1980, at about 11. 50 a. m. , by Dr. K. N. Mehrotra (PW 5) who found on it the following ante-mortem injuries : (1) Lacerated wound of 10 cm. x 2 cm. x bone deep (with fracture of underlying bone), one left side, 12 cm. above left ear. (2) Lacerated wound of 2 cm. x 1/2 cm. bone deep on left side of head, 8 cm. above left ear. (3) Lacerated wound 4 cm. x 1/2 cm. x bone deep on left side head, 3 cm. above left ear. (4) Lacerated wound of 1. 5 x 1/2 cm. on tragus of left ear. (5) Lacerated wound of 2 cm. x 1/2 cm. x bone deep on right side head back, 10 cm. above right ear. (6) Lacerated wound of 1. 5 cm. x 1/2 cm. x scalp deep on left back of head, 7 cm. above right ear. (7) Abrasion of 1 cm. x 1 cm. on a back side of left elbow. (8) Abrasion of 1 cm. x 1 cm. on back side of right elbow. (9) Abrasion of 4 cm. 1 cm. on left knee front. (10) Abrasion of 1 cm. x 1 cm. on joint left knee. (11) Contusion of 4 cm. x 2 cm. on left side of left thigh lateral aspect in upper 1/3. (12) Contusion of 4 cm. x 10 cm. on the back of chest in middle on lower costak margin. (13) Contusion of 6 cm. x 2 cm. on back of lower lumbro-sacral region. On internal examination Dr. Mehrotra found fracture of parietal and occipital bones and brain matter protruding out beneath injury No. 1. In the opinion of Dr. Mehrotra, deceased died on account of shock and haemorrhage, as a result of ante- mortem injuries and ante- mortem injury No. 1 was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death. On internal examination Dr. Mehrotra found fracture of parietal and occipital bones and brain matter protruding out beneath injury No. 1. In the opinion of Dr. Mehrotra, deceased died on account of shock and haemorrhage, as a result of ante- mortem injuries and ante- mortem injury No. 1 was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death. He was also of the opinion that the deceased could have died on 29-4-1980, at 8 a. m. and the injuries suffered by him, were attributable to a blunt object, like lathi. 7. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions in the usual manner, where appellants and co- accused Madari were charged for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC, to which charge they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During trial, in all, the prosecution examined seven witnesses. Two of them, namely, Rashool Ahmad (PW 1) and Yusuf (PW 2) were examined as eye-witnesses. The trial Judge believed the ocular account furnished by the prosecution and convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner stated in paragraph 1. Hence this appeal. 8. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire record. After the utmost circumspection we are of the judgment that this appeal is devoid of substance. 9. As mentioned earlier, the conviction of the appellants is founded on the ocular account furnished by Rashool Ahmad (PW 1) and Mohd. Yusuf (PW 2 ). We now propose examining the said account and furnishing our reasons for accepting it. 10. We being with the account furnished by informant Rashool Ahmad (PW 1 ). Since in para 2 we have set out the prosecution story on the basis of the recitals, contained in his examination- in-chief and brevity is the order of the day, we do not want to burden our judgment by reiterating all the details. In short, the evidence of Rashool Ahmad (PW 1) shows: The deceased Jamil Ahmad was his real brother. There was enmity between him and Jamil Ahmad on one hand and the appellants and co-accused Madari on the other (in paragraph 2 we have detailed the said enmity ). On the date of incident at about 7. 30 a. m. , he and deceased Jamil Ahmad along with Munna on separate cycles proceeded for village Salon to sell milk. On the way Mohd. Yusuf met them. On the date of incident at about 7. 30 a. m. , he and deceased Jamil Ahmad along with Munna on separate cycles proceeded for village Salon to sell milk. On the way Mohd. Yusuf met them. He was also on a cycle. Jamil was about 40-45 paces ahead of him (informant ). When they reached a culvert at the outskirts of village Rajapur from Behaya bushes, appellants and co-accused Madari, all of whom were armed with lathis emerged. They were exhorting "jaan Se Maar Dalo" and thereafter, launched an assault with lathis on Jamil who fell down as a consequence thereof and died. Thereafter they ran away. Then he (informant) leaving the corpse of Jamil under the care of Munna and Yunus got his FIR scribed by Sakir Ahmad and the same day at about 9. 15 a. m. , he came to police station Salon and lodged the FIR. 11. We have gone through the ocular account furnished by Rashool Ahmad and make no bones in observing that we find him to be a reliable witness. In the first place he has explained his presence on the place of the incident. He has stated that on the date of the incident, at about 7. 30 a. m. , while he, Jamil and Munna were proceeding to Salon to sell milk on cycles, having been joined on the way by Mohd. Yusuf (PW 2), the incident took place. Secondly, the manner of assault as furnished by him is corroborated by medical evidence. He stated that the appellants and co-accused Madari assaulted the deceased Jamil with lathis and a perusal of the post- mortem report corroborates this claim of his. In the earlier part of the judgment we have extracted in entirety the ante-mortem injuries suffered by the deceased and their perusal would show that the deceased suffered six lacerated wounds, three contusions and four abrasions. It is common knowledge, as is also the medical evidence that such injuries could be attributable to lathis. 12. Assurance is also forthcoming to the ocular account furnished by Rashool Ahmad by the circumstance that the FIR of the incident was lodged by him within one hour and fifteen minutes of the incident taking place and his statement under Section 161 Cr. PC was also recorded very promptly. 12. Assurance is also forthcoming to the ocular account furnished by Rashool Ahmad by the circumstance that the FIR of the incident was lodged by him within one hour and fifteen minutes of the incident taking place and his statement under Section 161 Cr. PC was also recorded very promptly. According to the prosecution, the incident took place on 29-4-1980, at about 8 a. m. and the FIR was lodged on the same day at 9. 15 a. m. at police station salon, which was situated at a distance of three kilometers from the place of the incident. It is significant to mention that the evidence of Head Moharrir Uma Shanker Singh (PW 3), who registered the case on the basis of the FIR, shows that on same day at 10. 40 a. m. , the special report was sent through Constable Ram Bahadur Shukla, who after handing it over returned to the police station the same day at 9. 10 p. m. It is true that a suggestion was given to the Head Moharrir Uma Shanker Singh that the FIR was not lodged at the purported time, but some times after 12 noon on the date of incident when the Investigating Officer returned from the place of incident but he emphatically denied the said suggestion. However, on the basis of evidence on record we are not prepared to conclude that the FIR is ante-timed. As mentioned earlier, the special report of the case was sent the same day at 10. 40 a. m. It is pertinent to mention that the defence has not challenged this claim of Head Moharrir and once we accept it, which we have to the defence suggestion that the FIR was lodged after 12 noon, is rendered false. It is significant to point out that the evidence of the investigating officer S. I. R. K. Pandey, PW 7 also shows that on the date of the incident itself, he reached the place of incident at 10. 15 a. m. and after preparing the inquest report, challan lash and sending the corpse for autopsy, recorded the statement of Rasool Ahmad under Section 161 Cr. PC. 12-A. Criminal Courts attach great importance to the prompt lodging of the FIR, and interrogation of a witness under Section 161 Cr. PC because the same substantially eliminate the vice of concoction and embellishment creeping in, in the prosecution case. PC. 12-A. Criminal Courts attach great importance to the prompt lodging of the FIR, and interrogation of a witness under Section 161 Cr. PC because the same substantially eliminate the vice of concoction and embellishment creeping in, in the prosecution case. In our view, the prompt FIR of the incident and interrogation of the informant under Section 161 Cr. PC lends a seal of assurance to the claim of the informant of having seen the incident. It is significant to mention that in the FIR the essential features of the prosecution case, including the names of the appellants and the victim, the weapons of assault, the names of the eye-witnesses, the time and place of incident have been mentioned. 13. For the aforesaid reasons, in our view, the testimony of the informant Rashool Ahmad inspires implicit confidence and by itself is sufficient to hold the involvement of the appellants established in the incident. 14. Fortunately, we have plurality of ocular account in the instant case, which is forthcoming in the form of the evidence of Mohd. Yusuf PW 2, who also met the informant Rasool Ahmad and the deceased Jamil Ahmad on the way, while they were going to sell milk. The evidence of Mohd. Yusuf (PW 2) shows thus : He is a resident of village Ghosi Ka Purwa (the same village in which, the deceased and informant lived ). He knew the appellants and co-accused Madari from before the incident. Apart from agriculture, he did the business of selling milk. On the date of the incident Khalil son of deceased Jamil, came to his place to collect milk. He told him that Jamil had to make payment to him whereupon Khalil told him that his father had said that he should come to Salon where payment would be made to him. Consequently, on the date of the incident, at about 8. a. m. he proceeded for Salon to collect money. On the may, near Mahmoodabad, he met informant Rasool Ahmad, Jameel and Munna and proceeded along with them. They were on cycles. He was also on a cycle. When they had reached the place of incident, appellants Naseer alias Pullu, Naseer alias Bhullan and Aziz and co-accused Madari emerged from behind Behaya bushes where they were hiding. They were armed with lathis and assaulted Jamil, who fell down as a result thereof. They were on cycles. He was also on a cycle. When they had reached the place of incident, appellants Naseer alias Pullu, Naseer alias Bhullan and Aziz and co-accused Madari emerged from behind Behaya bushes where they were hiding. They were armed with lathis and assaulted Jamil, who fell down as a result thereof. When he, Rashool and Munna asked the appellants to refrain from assaulting Jamil they threatened them saying that if they came forward, they would meet the same fate. Thereafter, appellants and Madari ran away. Then the informant Rashool asked him and Munna to look after the corpse of Jamil and proceeded to police station Salon to lodge the FIR. 15. We have gone through the evidence of yusuf (PW 2) and have no reservations in observing that he is a credible witness. Like informant Rashool Ahmad, he has also explained his presence on the place of the incident. He has stated that he did business of selling milk and on the date of the incident Khalil, son of deceased Jamil, came to his place to collect milk and when he told him that Jamil had to make payment to him, he replied that his father Khalil had told him that he should come to Salon where payment would be made to him. It was in these circumstances that on the date of the incident, at about 8 a. m. he proceeded for Salon to collect the money and on the way met informant Rashool and the deceased Jamil, joined them and saw the incident. It is significant to point out that although he was subjected to extensive cross-examination but his claim for proceeding to Salon to collect money, which the deceased owed him, could not be discredited. Secondly; like informant Rashool, his evidence is corroborated by medical evidence. He stated that the three appellants and co- accused Madari with lathi launched an assault on the deceased and as we have mentioned earlier Dr. K. N. Mehrotra, the autopsy surgeon, found six lacerated wounds, three contusions and four abrasions on the corpse of the deceased. It is common knowledge, as is also the medical evidence, that such injuries could be caused by blunt weapon, like lathi. Again like the informant Rashool Ahmad, he was also promptly interrogated by the Investigating Officer. K. N. Mehrotra, the autopsy surgeon, found six lacerated wounds, three contusions and four abrasions on the corpse of the deceased. It is common knowledge, as is also the medical evidence, that such injuries could be caused by blunt weapon, like lathi. Again like the informant Rashool Ahmad, he was also promptly interrogated by the Investigating Officer. As we have mentioned earlier immediately after lodging of the FIR, the Investigating Officer S. I. R. K. Pandey proceeded to the place of the incident, which he reached at 10. 15 a. m. on the date of the incident itself and after completing the inquest, and sending the corpse of the deceased for autopsy interrogated him (Yusuf), the informant and Munna. As mentioned earlier, criminal Courts attach great importance to the prompt interrogation of a witness under Section 161 Cr. PC because the same substantially excludes the possibility of ornamentation and improvement creeping in, in the statement of a witness; which vices creep in on account of delayed interrogation of a witness. 16. For the said reasons, in our view, the evidence of Yusuf also inspires implicit confidence. 17. For the said reasons, in our view, the prosecution has established the involvement of the appellants in the incident. We do not even have an iota of doubt in our minds that the learned trial Judge acted correctly in convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC. We say this because the act of the appellants is squarely covered by Clause thirdly of Section 300 IPC, the breach of which is punishable under Section 302 IPC. Clause thirdly of Section 300 IPC reads thus : "murder-Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide in murder, 2ndly. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3rdly-If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or - 4thly. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3rdly-If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or - 4thly. . . . . . . . . . . " A perusal of the said clause would show that for its application two pre-requisites have to be satisfied : (a) there should be intention to inflict the injuries inflicted in contradistinction to their being accidental; and (b) the injuries inflicted should be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. In the instant case, both the pre-requisites are satisfied. The evidence of eye-witnesses, which we have accepted, shows that the three appellants along with co-accused Madari were hiding behind Behaya bushes and on seeing the deceased Jamil exhorted "jaan Se Maar Dalo" and with lathies launched an assault on Jamil, killing him on the spot. There is nothing in the evidence of the eye-witnesses to show that they did not intentionally cause injuries on the person of the deceased, which the deceased suffered at their hands. Again, the evidence of autopsy surgeon Dr. K. N. Mehrotra makes it manifest that the injuries suffered by the deceased were cumulatively sufficient to cause his death and injury No. 1 was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. We see no reason for not accepting his evidence. As mentioned earlier, his evidence shows that he found fractures of the left parietal and temporal bones beneath injury No. 1 and also found brain matter protruding out thereunder. It is also elementary common sense that the type of injuries suffered by the deceased are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In such a factual matrix, both the components necessary for invoking Clause thirdly of Section 300 IPC exist in the instant case and since the appellants alongwith Madari inflicted injuries on the person of the deceased in furtherance of their common intention the learned Trial Judge acted correctly in convicting them for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC. 18. We would be failing in our fairness if before proceeding to the operative part of our judgment we do not consider the principle submissions canvassed by Mr. Rishad Murtaza, learned Counsel for the appellants. 18. We would be failing in our fairness if before proceeding to the operative part of our judgment we do not consider the principle submissions canvassed by Mr. Rishad Murtaza, learned Counsel for the appellants. He firstly vehemently contended that both informant Rasool Ahmad and Yusuf are inimical and interested witnesses and consequently prudence demands that their evidence be not accepted. We are loathe to accept this submissions of his. Way back in the year 1965, in the oft-quoted case of Masalti v. State of U. P. , reported in AIR 1965 Supreme Court page 202, it has been laid down that the circumstance that a witness is interested would not result in the mechanical rejection of his evidence, but would only make the Court evaluate it with caution. We have exercised the said caution and find the evidence of both the informant and Yusuf to be credible. 19. Secondly Mr. Murtaza urged that the prosecution case that the deceased was done to death while he was on way to Salon to sell milk, has not been established beyond reasonable doubt. He contended that the ocular account shows that milk had fallen on the place of the incident and the Can in which the deceased was carrying milk was also left on the place of the incident, but the Investigating Officer neither recovered milk nor Can from the place of the incident. In our view, the Investigating Officer should have recovered the said articles and we strongly disapprove the causal manner in which he conducted the investigation. However, it is well settled that credible ocular account cannot be a casualty at the hands of defective investigation. Way back in the year 1974 in the case of Chandrakant Luxman v. State of Maharashtra", reported in AIR 1974 Supreme Court page 220, the Supreme Court in para 10 observed thus : "the learned trial Judge disbelieved the evidence of the eye- witnesses Kana Bhika and Sunder Govind almost wholly on the ground that the version of the incident given by them was not consistent with the earliest version recorded at the Bandra police station, on the evening of the 11th. In coming to this conclusion, the learned Judge overlooked that the office in charge of the police station adopted an unduly light hearted attitude to the complaint which Arjun wanted to make and in fact, in a departmental proceeding on him for semissness in the discharge of his official functions. Counsel for the appellant is right that the benefit of what the High Court terms a "highly defective" investigation cannot go to the prosecution. If it were to appear that the story narrated by Arjun immediately after the incident was in material particulars different from the evidence of the eye-witnesses, the benefit of such an infirmity would have gone to the accused. But, if an a proper evaluation of the various facts and circumstances it transpires that the apparent inconsistencies in the case of the prosecution are solely the result of remissness on the part of the investigating officer and not of any improvement or prevarication on the part of the prosecution witnesses, there would be no justification for discarding the accusation. " In the instant case we have already given our reasons as to why we find the ocular account furnished by the eye-witnesses to be credible. 20. Mr. Rishad Murtaza thirdly urged that eye-witness Rashool Ahmad (PW 1) is the real brother of the deceased and eye-witness Yusuf is a close relation of the deceased and had they been present on the place of the incident they would have made efforts to rescue the deceased and suffered injuries in the transaction. He contended that their conduct shows that they did not see the incident. We are constrained to observed that we do not find any merit in this submission. The evidence of both these witnesses show that when the appellants and co-accused Madari Launched an assault on deceased, they tried to save him but gave up their endeavour because appellants and Madari told them that if they proceeded further they would meet the same fate. We find their explanation to be credible because the instinct of self presentation is stronger than the instinct to save others; be it ones relation or brother. 21. Finally, Mr. Rishad Murtaza urged that the learned trial Judge erred in convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 IPC and at the highest an offence punishable under Section 304 (ii)/34 IPC would be made out against them. 21. Finally, Mr. Rishad Murtaza urged that the learned trial Judge erred in convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 IPC and at the highest an offence punishable under Section 304 (ii)/34 IPC would be made out against them. He contended that the evidence of the autopsy surgeon shows that the fatal injury was injury No. 1, beneath which the autopsy surgeon found fracture of parietal and occipital bones and brain matter protruding out. He contended that since eye-witnesses did not specify as to which of the four persons (three appellants and one co- accused Madari), all of whom assaulted the deceased with lathis, was responsible for inflicting injury No. 1 suffered by the deceased, the safer course would be to hold that when the appellants and Madari chose to assault the deceased Jamil Ahmad with lathis, they committed an act with the knowledge that they were likely to cause his death in terms of Clause thirdly of Section 299 IPC, the breach of which is punishable under Section 304 IPC part II. We have examined this submission and in our view the trial Judge was justified in convicting and sentencing appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. 22. Section 34 IPC reads thus : "when a Criminal Act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone. " A perusal of the said section would show that for its application, the following pre-requisites have to be satisfied : (a) A Criminal Act should be committed by several persons i. e. by persons more one; and (b) The said Criminal Act should be committed by several persons in furtherance of their common intention. It is only that a and b co-exist that the criminal act committed by several persons would be deemed to have been committed by them in furtherance of their common intention. 23. It is only that a and b co-exist that the criminal act committed by several persons would be deemed to have been committed by them in furtherance of their common intention. 23. In the instant case the evidence of the eye-witnesses shows that appellants and co-accused Madari, were hiding behind Baheya bushes waiting for the deceased to come and on seeing him all of them who were armed with lathis exhorted "jaan Se Maar Dalo" and thereafter, launched a brutal assault on him, resulting in six lacerated wounds, three contusions and four abrasions on his person and his instantaneous death. It is significant to point out that all the six lacerated wounds were situated on the head region. These facts coupled with the fact that there was enmity between the informant and the deceased, real brothers inter se, on one hand and the appellants and co-accused Madari on the other, make it crystal clear that the appellants and co-accused Madari assaulted the deceased in furtherance of their common intention. It is pertinent to mention that the evidence of autopsy surgeon shows that death was the result of shock as a result of ante-mortem injuries and injury No. 1 was separately sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death but since the said injury and the injuries of the deceased which were cumulatively sufficient to cause his death were inflicted by the appellants and co- accused Madari in furtherance of their common intention, the appellants would be liable for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC. 24. No other submission was pressed before us by learned Counsel for the appellants. 25. In the result, we uphold the conviction and sentence of the appellants Naseer @ Pullu, Naseer @ Bhullar and Aziz for the offence punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 IPC and dismiss the appeal. They are on bail and shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out their sentence. Appeal dismissed. .