( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. ( 2 ) THE appellant and six other accused persons were tried and by judgment rendered by the trial court, other six persons were acquitted of all the charges whereas the appellant was convicted under S. 302 as well as Sections 302/149 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000. 00, in default, to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years. He was further convicted under S. 147 and S. 148 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and one year respectively. All the sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently. ( 3 ) THE appellant preferred an appeal against his convictions whereas the State preferred an appeal against the acquittal of accused Dinesh and no appeal challenging the order of acquittal of other accused persons was preferred in the High Court. The High Court of Bombay upheld convictions of the appellant as well as acquittal of accused Dinesh. Hence this appeal by special leave by the appellant challenging the judgment of the High Court whereby his convictions have been upheld. ( 4 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution case and the evidence, there were seven accused persons and there was no eighth accused person either known or unknown who could have complicity with the crime. Out of seven accused persons, six have been already acquitted and their order of acquittal attained finality, the same having not been challenged before this Court. Thus, the question which remains to be examined in this appeal is as to whether conviction of the appellant under S. 302 of the Penal Code can be upheld and as to whether the appellant can be said to be author of the fatal injuries. The deceased is said to have received 14 injuries in all, out of which Injuries 1 and 2 which were on the chest were fatal. So far as the appellant is concerned, in the first information report it was simply stated that he inflicted injury with knife but it was nowhere stated as to on which part of the body, the appellant inflicted injury. So far as PWs 2 and 6 who are eyewitnesses in the case are concerned, they have made categorical statement in court that the appellant assaulted the deceased with knife on the shoulder. So far as PWs 2 and 6 who are eyewitnesses in the case are concerned, they have made categorical statement in court that the appellant assaulted the deceased with knife on the shoulder. They have nowhere stated that the appellant assaulted the deceased on the chest. Injuries on the shoulder are Injuries 7 and 8 which in the opinion of the doctor were not fatal. ( 5 ) FROM these facts, it becomes plain that the appellant cannot be held responsible for causing the fatal injury, as such, his conviction under S. 302 of the Penal Code becomes unwarranted. Question now arises as to whether, he could be convicted under S. 302 with the aid of either S. 34 or S. 149 of the IPC. In view of the fact that other six accused persons have been already acquitted, the appellant cannot be convicted under S. 302 read with S. 34 of the IPC as there was no other accused person with whom the appellant could share the common intention to murder the victim. He also cannot be convicted under S. 302/149, 147 and 148 of the IPC as in view of acquittal of all other accused persons, it cannot be said that the appellant was member of any unlawful assembly, the common object of which could be to commit murder of the victim. This being the position, we are of the opinion that the High Court was not justified in upholding convictions of the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, convictions and sentences of the appellant are set aside and he is acquitted of all the charges. The appellant who is in custody is directed to be released forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case.