Judgment S.K. Sharma, J.-The appellants (hereinafter described as “accused”) were indicted before the learned Judge Special Court (Communal Riots Cases) Tonk in Sessions Case No. 24/1998. Learned Judge vide Judgment dated 30.06.2000 convicted and sentenced the accused as under:- Guddu:- Under Section 302, IPC:-To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. Under Section 307/34, IPC:-To suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 300/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days. Under Section 324/34, IPC:-To suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven days. Mohd. Aslam:- Under Section 302/34, IPC:-To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. Under Section 307, IPC:-To suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 300/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days. Under Section 324, IPC:-To suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.200/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven days. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. It is the prosecution case that on 19.02.1998 Dinesh Sharma (PW. 14). SHO Police Station Purani Tonk recorded Parcha Bayan (Exhibit-P-1) of Shakil Ahmed (PW. 1), wherein it was stated that on the same day at about 4.30 PM when he was rolling Bidis at his house his younger son Salim came rushing and told that at Babron ka Chowk Guddu and Aslam, were quarreling with Mohammad (now deceased).On such information Shakil Ahmed.Shahjad and Salim reached at Babron ka Chowk and found Guddu and Aslam beating Mohammad by legs and fists. On alarm raised by informant Shakil Ahmed Aslam exhorted Guddu to kill Mohammad. Guddu then caused injury with Churra on the chest of Mohammad, as a result of which Mohammad fell down. Aslam and Guddu respectively inflicted Churra blows on the back and left shoulder of Shahjad (PW. 2). When informant attempted to intervene Aslam gave sword-blow on the back side of his head and Guddu inflicted injury on his chest. Mohammad was removed to the hospital where he died. Autopsy on the dead body of Mohammad was performed. Statements of witnesses under Section 161 were recorded and necessary memos were drawn. 2). When informant attempted to intervene Aslam gave sword-blow on the back side of his head and Guddu inflicted injury on his chest. Mohammad was removed to the hospital where he died. Autopsy on the dead body of Mohammad was performed. Statements of witnesses under Section 161 were recorded and necessary memos were drawn. The accused were arrested and on completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Judge, Special Court, (Communal Riots) Tonk. Charge under Sections 302, 307, 326, 326/34 and 324, IPC was framed against Guddu and against Aslam 302/34, 307, 326 and 324, IPC. The accused denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as may as 17 witnesses and exhibited the documents In the explanation under Section 313, CrPC, the accused claimed innocence and stated that about 4.00 PM no incident took place at Babron ka Chowk. The accused further stated that about 6.00 PM the injured Shahjad and Shakil, alongwith 25-30 persons came to the house and made assault on them during that incident Shahjad and Shakil sustained injuries. Two witnesses in defence were examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the accused as indicated herein above. 3. Before proceeding further we deem it appropriate to refer to the post-mortem report (Exhibit-P/25) of the deceased Mohammad according to which the deceased had sustained following ante-mortem injury:- “Stab wound (penetrating wound) Horizontally placed with tapering of both ends. 1”X1/3rd in its middle 2/3rd and 1/8” at both corners X thorasic cavity deep cutting muscles and chondral part of 7th rib (Lt) The cause of death, according to Dr. V.K. Nigam (PW. 17), was haemorrhage shock caused by injury to vital organs i.e. Heart with facture of rib leading to excessive bleeding. Dr. V.K. Nigam (PW. 17) has also examined the injuries sustained by Shakil Ahmad (PW. 1), vide injury report (Exhibit-P/26) he sustained following injuries:- “(1) Incised Wound vertically placed with tapering of both ends. 3”x1/4” in its middle 2/3rd and 1/8” to 1/10th at both ends X bone deep at Left tempero parietal region. .(2) Abrasion, ½”x ½” back of lt. elbow. .(3) Incised wound Horizontally placed directing from inner to outer side, ½" x 1/8" x skin deep at Dorsum of rt. hand. .(4) Abrasion ½”x 1/8”at upper and outer part of lt. 3”x1/4” in its middle 2/3rd and 1/8” to 1/10th at both ends X bone deep at Left tempero parietal region. .(2) Abrasion, ½”x ½” back of lt. elbow. .(3) Incised wound Horizontally placed directing from inner to outer side, ½" x 1/8" x skin deep at Dorsum of rt. hand. .(4) Abrasion ½”x 1/8”at upper and outer part of lt. amkle region just above. Lateral malleous of lt. Leg. .(5) Abrasion ¾”x ½” outer part of lt. Knee.” 5. Vide injury report (Exh-P-28) Shahjad sustained injuries thus:- “(1) Abrasion 1,1/4”x 1/10th outer part of Lt. Shoulder. .(2) Incised wound, obliquely placed directing from above downwards and outwards. 2,1/2” x 1/10th in its upper 2/3rd and 1/20th in its lower 1/3rd skin deep. Outer part of lt. shoulder region, 1/8th outer to inj. No.1. . (3) Abrasion (two in No.) size of each is varying from 1/8" x ½" x 1/8" Dorsum of Lt. hand. .(4) Incised wound obliquelyplaced with tapering of both ends S. bleeding. 6” X 2.1/2” in its middle ¾th and ¾" to 1/8th of both corners X bone deep left scapular region. .(5) Incised wound, Horizontaling placed S. bleeding 2,1/2”X1/2” bone deep (bone dhips are lying in the wound attached with muscles mass, removed by surgeon, preserved and sealed (five in no.) Lt. mid occipital region medial end is touching mid line.” 6. We have heard the submissions and weighed the record. 7. Super structure of the prosecution case is founded on the testimony of injured eye- witnesses Shakil Ahmed (PW. 1) and Shahjad (PW. 2). Then comes the evidence of autopsy surgeon Dr. V.K. Nigam (PW. 17) and Dinesh Sharma (PW. 14) who conducted investigation of the case. 8. It is contended on behalf of the accused that first information report was not lodged at the time as has been shown by the prosecution. The prosecution has suppressed the genesis of the occurrence. It is next contended that from the site-plan (Exhibit-P/11) it is evident that the occurrence did not take place at the place shown by the prosecution. Learned trial Court did not take into consideration the statements of the accused under Section 313 CrPC, as well as the testimony of defence witnesses. It is lastly canvassed that even if the prosecution case is believed, no case under Section 302, IPC is ex facie made out. Learned trial Court did not take into consideration the statements of the accused under Section 313 CrPC, as well as the testimony of defence witnesses. It is lastly canvassed that even if the prosecution case is believed, no case under Section 302, IPC is ex facie made out. Reliance is placed on Bablu @ Mukesh vs. State of Raj., 2004 (4) WLC (Raj.) 79, Sikandar @ Pappu & Anr. vs. The State of Rajasthan, 2004 (2) CrLR (Raj.) 1539 and Bhojraj & Ors. vs State of Rajasthan, 2004 (2) CrLR (Raj.) 1525. 9. In order to appreciate the submissions when the testimony of injured witnesses Shakil (PW . 1) and Shahjad (PW . 2) is considered it appears that Shakil Ahmad in his deposition stated that Guddu inflicted Chhurra blow on the chest of Mohammad, as a result of which Mohammad fell down . When Shahjad intervened Aslam inflicted sword blow on his back. He also gave sword blow on his head. Thereafter, Guddu inflicted Chhurra blow on shoulder of Shahjad. Aslam thereafter inflicted sword blow on the head of informant. Thereafter, Guddu caused injury on the palm of his right hand. Shahjad also repeated the version narrated by Shakil Ahmad. Presence of Shakil Ahmad and Shahjad at the place of occurrence has been established by Dinesh Sharma I.O. (PW . 14) who deposed that when he reached at the site he found Mohammad unconscious whereas Shakil and Shahjad were lying injured. He then removed all the three injured to the hospital. He further stated that he did not lift blood from the place of occurrence, since there were only dots of blood which could not be lifted. On examination the evidence of Shakil Ahmad and Shahjad from the point of view of trustworthiness we find them wholly reliable witnesses and in view of their testimony the defence of the accused could not be believed . Having closely scanned the statements of the accused as well as the statements of Guddu (DW. 1) and Ratan Lal (DW. 2) we find it difficult to believe that group of 50 persons made assault and no accused would sustain injury. 10. Turning on to the nature of offence. We find that there is nothing on record to show that the incident occurred all of sudden. 1) and Ratan Lal (DW. 2) we find it difficult to believe that group of 50 persons made assault and no accused would sustain injury. 10. Turning on to the nature of offence. We find that there is nothing on record to show that the incident occurred all of sudden. The injury was inflicted by the accused Guddu on the left side of the chest of the deceased that laid on the heart causing fracture of rib reading to excessive bleeding. The wound was horizontally placed with tapering of both ends measuring 1” X 1/3rd in the middle 2/3rd and 1/8” at both corners X thorasic cavity deep cutting muscles and chondral part of 7th rib left. In the facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be said that the accused Guddu had no intention to kill the deceased. In addition to inflicting Chhurra blow on the heart of Mohammad the accused Guddu also inflicted Chhurra blows on the person of Shakil Ahmad and Shahjad and both these witnesses sustained incised wounds. 11. From the evidence of Shakil Ahmad and Shahjad it is established that Mohammad Aslam not only exhorted Guddu to kill Mohammad, he himself inflicted sword blows on the person of Mohammad, Shakil Ahmad and Shahjad. It is well settled that to attract the provisions of Section 34, IPC, the prosecution is to prove two points, namely (1) common intention and (2) participation of the accused in commission of the offence if these two points are satisfied, even the act on the part of the accused sharing the common intention is not necessary. In Sikandar @ Pappu vs. State of Rajasthan (Supra), relied on by the accused, what was proved was that the accused was present on the spot at the time when fatal injury was caused to the deceased. In those circumstances, it was held that merely because accused accompanied the principal accused when he inflicted the fatal injury to the deceased, would not by itself prove the existence of common intention. In Bablu @ Mukesh vs. State of Raj. (Supra), the deceased after sustaining injury remained unconscious and was able to speak . The incident occurred all of sudden and the accused inflicted a single blow and did not repeat it. In Bablu @ Mukesh vs. State of Raj. (Supra), the deceased after sustaining injury remained unconscious and was able to speak . The incident occurred all of sudden and the accused inflicted a single blow and did not repeat it. Therefore, it was held that the element of intention was missing and it could be inferred that the accused had knowledge that the injury which he was going to inflict could likely to cause heath. Ratio indicated in Sikandar @ Pappu vs State of Rajasthan and Bablu @ Mukesh vs. State of Rajasthan, is not applicable to the facts of the instant case. We see no good reason to interfere with the finding arrived at by the learned trial Judge. 12. For these reasons we find no merit in the appeal and the same stands dismissed. The accused Mohd. Aslam who is on bail shall forthwith surrender to serve out the sentence.