Judgment ( 1. ) THIS is an appeal preferred by State against acquittal of A1 to A3 and A5 for offences under Sections 147, 302 read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code and alternatively against A4 and A5 for offences under Section 302/34, Indian Penal Code. The learned Court of Sessions Judge, Panna in Sessions Trial No. 20 of 1988 acquitted the accused of all the offences vide judgment dated 29th June, 1990. Aggrieved by the order of acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal. ( 2. ) A4 who is the principal accused and against whom overt act has been alleged, died during the pendency of the appeal on 26th June, 1991 and this Court by order dated 4-10-1991 held that the appeal against acquittal of A4 abates. Accordingly, we have before us A1, A2, A3 and A5 as respondents. ( 3. ) PROSECUTION case in brief is that the accused persons, with a common object of murdering the deceased Tauhid son of Naimuddin, formed themselves into unlawful assembly and in pursuance of that common object, all of them committed murder of said Tauhid by shooting him with a double barrel gun on 20th November, 1987 at about 4. 00 - 4. 30 p. m. P. W. Nos. 9 and 15 are the eye-witnesses. The prosecution case further is that at about 3. 00 -3. 30 p. m. on the date of occurrence, P. W. 3, the father of the deceased, left his village on foot to go to the Village Nahri to attend the bazaar. At some distance away when he went near the bridge, he saw his son (deceased) accompanying P. W. 15 and going towards the Village Baroli. After the deceased went further by about two furlongs, he saw a tractor driven in speed by A4 and in the trolley the other accused were sitting. It is also the case of the prosecution that all the accused were armed with guns except A4. Suddenly, P. W. 3 heard gun-shot noise and P. W. 9 came and informed P. W. 3 that P. W. 3s son (deceased) had been shot by A4 and others. ( 4. ) PURSUANT to this, a complaint was lodged with police by P. W. 3, father of the deceased. Suddenly, P. W. 3 heard gun-shot noise and P. W. 9 came and informed P. W. 3 that P. W. 3s son (deceased) had been shot by A4 and others. ( 4. ) PURSUANT to this, a complaint was lodged with police by P. W. 3, father of the deceased. After investigation, the police laid charge-sheet but Trial Court acquitted all the accused on the ground that interested witnesses were examined and independent witnesses were not examined and the FIR did not reach the Magistrate in time. By this it was held that there was time for manipulations and all the accused were related and were falsely implicated. In this case, we have no doubt that P. W. 9 and P. W. 15 are indeed the eye-witnesses and they have spoken the truth. P. W. 15 was admittedly travelling with the deceased in a bicycle and P. W. 9 was a chance-witness. The complaint given by P. W. 3 clearly mentions the names of P. W. 9 and P. W. 15. There was recovery and seizure of gun from A4 on the basis of the admissible portion of the statement of A4. There was also seizure of gun from A2 on the basis of admissible portion of his confession. A 12 bore gun was recovered and seized from A3. P. W. 15s name finds place in the inquest report (Ex. P-5 ). ( 5. ) WE have before us the evidence of the doctor (P. W. 16) who conducted post-mortem. He found following injuries on the body of the deceased: "external injuries: (1) A lacerated wound on the lower right side of the neck, oblique in direction, 4 cms x 2 cms. x neck-deep, perforated across, the neck on the left side. Margins were inverted, blood was present on the wound, there was black tattooing over the margins, with no pellet or round present. (2) A lacerated wound on the left lower side of the neck, oblique, 5. 4 cms x 3 cms x across the neck, communicating, with injury No. 1. Margins were averted and irregular, with blood present. (3) A lacerated wound on the right tip of shoulder, 4 cms x 4. 2 cms x 3 cms, irregular, circular, margins inverted with tattoo marks present. Bones were palpable. (4) An abrasion with burn mark on the right mandibles angle, 5. 9 cms x 3. 8 cms. Margins were averted and irregular, with blood present. (3) A lacerated wound on the right tip of shoulder, 4 cms x 4. 2 cms x 3 cms, irregular, circular, margins inverted with tattoo marks present. Bones were palpable. (4) An abrasion with burn mark on the right mandibles angle, 5. 9 cms x 3. 8 cms. , transverse, black in colour. (5) An abrasion with burn mark, just above the injury No. 1 on the right side of the neck, oblique, 2. 5 cms. x 1. 5 cms. , black in colour. (6) An abrasion with burn mark, just below the right ear, lobule oblique, 1/2 cm. x 1/4 cm. , black in colour. (7) A lacerated wound on the right deltoid region, near the tip of the spine of the scapula, 0. 5 cm. x 0. 4 cm. x 0. 4 cm. , vertical, margins clear and that burn and tattoo marks were present over the margins. Internal injuries : (on dissection) (1) In the neck, the neck-vertebrae C-5 and C-6 were fractured, the spinal-cord was lacerated with blood-clots present and that both the cartoid arteries were ruptured, along with tra-arteries were ruptured, along with tracheal tear. No pellets or bullet was found. (2) There was black colouration of the right shoulder muscles but no pellets or bullet was found. (3) On the opening of the Thoreau and viscera, the abdomen and pelvis with viscera, no pellets or pellet were found. (4) The other internal organs, like the lungs, kidney, spleen, brain etc. were found normal and healthy. The opinion of the doctor was that the deceased died of single gun-shot injury. The entire finger of suspicion points towards A4 and there can be no dispute if the evidence of P. W. 15 is perused that it was A4 who took the gun and shot at the deceased as a result of which he succumbed to injuries. Even the doctor speaks of single gun-shot. The only question, which looms large in this case is whether the other accused could be convicted either under Section 302/34, IPC or Section 302/149, IPC . ( 6. ) THE FIR clearly indicates that it was only A4 who shot at the deceased. The other accused persons no doubt were armed with guns and were travelling in the tractor. ( 7. ( 6. ) THE FIR clearly indicates that it was only A4 who shot at the deceased. The other accused persons no doubt were armed with guns and were travelling in the tractor. ( 7. ) IT is also brought out in evidence that A4s father was murdered by the uncle of the deceased. There was an apprehension in the mind of the accused that there may be threat to their lives. The guns in possession of the accused would not by itself mean common object. ( 8. ) IT is not the case of the prosecution that all the accused together came down to kill the deceased. All other co-accused were sitting in the tractor when A4 got down and shot at the deceased. In fact, there is evidence that the other accused fled away after the occurrence and did not in any way help A4 to shot the deceased. In fact, they were surprised by the conduct of A4 in shooting the deceased. Therefore, no case is made out for an offence either under Section 149 read with Section 302, Indian Penal Code or Section 34 read with Section 302, Indian Penal Code. ( 9. ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant State submitted that there is some material to show that A5 also used the gun immediately after A4. ( 10. ) WE have closely perused the complaint. The complaint does not contain the fact that A5 shot the deceased. Medical evidence also indicates that there was only one gun shot injury and that can only be attributed to A4. ( 11. ) IF A5 had really shot at the deceased, then there would have been corresponding injuries on the person of the deceased. ( 12. ) THUS, the evidence of P. W. Nos. 9 and 15 clearly implicates only A4 and this is corroborated by medical evidence. Apart from this, there is no other material to hold that there was common object. It is settled law that Courts will not interfere in appeal against acquittal unless for compelling reason and if there is doubt, the benefit of doubt should go to the accused. ( 13. ) IN that view of the matter, we hold that it was A4 who committed the murder of the deceased. It is settled law that Courts will not interfere in appeal against acquittal unless for compelling reason and if there is doubt, the benefit of doubt should go to the accused. ( 13. ) IN that view of the matter, we hold that it was A4 who committed the murder of the deceased. However, since the appeal against A4 abates, there is no merit in the appeal with regard to acquittal and the same stands dismissed.