Judgment V.K. Bali, J.-By this common order we propose to dispose of Criminal Appeals bearing No. 487/1997 filed by Ramu @ Ramavtar, Parasram, Ratan @ Ramratan and Randish as also the appeals filed by the State bearing No. 928/2002 challenging the order of the learned trial Judge in so far as it relates to acquittal of Maksood and Jagdish and Criminal Appeal No. 218/2000 challenging the same order in so far it relates to acquittal of Mahaveer. The appellants named above in Criminal Appeal No. 487/1997 were tried with their co-accused Mahaveer, Beniram, Dinesh, Madanlal, Ganesh and Om Prakash. 2. The appellant Parasram alongwith Ramu & Ramavatar have since been held guilty for the offences under Sections 302, 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life as also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months. These appellants have also been held guilty under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years as also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months. These appellants have also been held guilty for offences under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years as also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months. They have also been held guilty for an offence under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year. Appellant Ratan @ Ramratan & Randish have been held guilty for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life as also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months. They have also been held guilty under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years as also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months. They have also been held guilty under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years as also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months. They have also been held guilty under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three months. They have also been held guilty for the offence under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year. The substantive sentence imposed upon all the convicts, as mentioned above, have however, been ordered to run concurrently. 3. The other six persons named above have since been acquitted. Accused-Maksood and Jagdish were tried separately with regard to the same incident and have since been acquitted and the State being aggrieved has filed Criminal Appeal No. 928/2002. The State has also filed Criminal Appeal No. 218/2000 challenging acquittal of Mahaveer who was tried alongwith Ramu and others named above. The learned Counsel for the parties are also ad-idem that all these matters need to be disposed of by a common order. 4. In the occurrence that took place on 15.07.1994 at about 5:30 PM whereas Nawalkishore and Pappu @ Pratapnarain lost their lives. Krishan Sahay, Chetan Sahay and Mohanlal were injured. The first information report of the incident came to be lodged on 15.07.1994 at 9:50 PM and special report reached the concerned Magistrate on 17.07.1994 at 11:00 AM at Sangod stated to be 60 Kilometers away from the police station. 5. The prosecution version was unfolded by Parsottam. His statement made to Satyanarain translated into English reads as follows:-"It is submitted that on 15.07.1994 after being released from Sangod Jail we 7 persons reached Sangod Bus Stand from there we departed for Kanwas and in between Sangod & Kanwas there is river Kali Sindh and because of the flood we boarded a boat and came on the other side on the bank where village Agadpur is situated. As soon as we reached at the check post of forest department and were thinking to go to Kanwas through any mode of transport suddenly a truck No. RRO 7786 came over there and four persons armed with weapons namely Paras Ram son of Madan Lal Khatik R/o Ranwas, Ramavtar @ Ramu son of Radhakishan, Randish and Ratanlal sons of Madan Lal alighted from the truck, Paras Ram was having gun, Ramavatar having Revolver and sword Randish and Ratanlal were holding sharp edged weapon and these persons surrounded me, my brother Nawal Kishore and my Nephew Pratap Narain and Rajkumar and Chetan Sharma attacked with the fire arms and other weapons. Paras Ram Khattik fired upon my Nephew Pratap Narain and other accused attacked my brother, nephew and my brother-in-law Kishan Sahay and also attacked upon me with fire arms and weapons. I ran away in order to save my life and from some near distance, I have seen the entire incident and at that time Kurban Ali S/o Ismail Shah, Surendra Singh son of Shri Vikram Singh and Izraul Haq were present over there who have witnessed the incident and soon after the incident the accused persons in the same truck left the place towards Kanwas and after their departure, I was scared and could build some courage and came to the place of incident where my brothers Nawal Kishore and Nephew Pratap Narain were found dead and Chetan Sharma and my brother-in-law Krishan Sahay were lying in injured condition to whom I lifted for treatment to Kota by bus. My nephew Raju was also hiding somewhere because of the terror." .6. From narration of the events given in the FIR as mentioned above, it is apparent that the first informant had named only four persons, namely; Ramu @ Ramvatar, Parasram, Ratan @ Ramratan and Randish. The others who were tried alongwith four accused were named for the first time on 16.07.1994 when the statement .of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of CrPC. .7. In its endeavour, to bring home the offence against the appellants and others the prosecution examined Dr. Banshilal Choursiya as PW.22. He was one of the doctors of the medical board which had conducted post mortem on the dead body of deceased Pratap Nartain and Nawal Kishore. The medical board found following injuries on the person of deceased Nawal Kishore:- 1. Banshilal Choursiya as PW.22. He was one of the doctors of the medical board which had conducted post mortem on the dead body of deceased Pratap Nartain and Nawal Kishore. The medical board found following injuries on the person of deceased Nawal Kishore:- 1. Incised wound 3" x ½" x BD longitudinally on left fronto parietal scalp. 2. Incised wound 1" x ¼" x sk Deep Tr. on sternum u 1/3. 3. Incised wound 3" x 1 x BD obliquely left forearm m 1/3 laterally. 4. Incised wound 4" x 1" x Bonecut left arm M 1/3 obliquely posterio lateral aspect. 5. Incised would 3-1/2" x 1" x Bonecut obliquely left wrist posterio lateral aspect. 6. Incised wound 1" x ¼" x Bonedeep Tr. Forearm L 1/3 left back. 7. Incised wound 3" x ½" x BD Medical aspect of left ankle obliquely. 8. Incised wound 3" x 1 x BD Tr, back of right forearm M 1/3. 9. Incised wound 2" x ½" x MD Tr. just above right iliac crest. 10. Incised wound 1" x ¼" x MD Tr. back of right forearm M 1/3. 11. Multiple linear abrasions (6 in No.) size varying from 2" x 1/8" to 5" x ¼" lying all over back scattered and placed in different directions. 12. Multiple pea sized abrasions ( 27 in No.) c blackish dark, red clotted blood and surrounded with blackening and tattooing over lateral aspect of left buttock scattered. 8. In the opinion of the Doctors, injuries No. 1 to 10 were caused by sharp edged weapon, injury No. 11 was caused by blunt weapon and injury No. 12 in the opinion of the doctors was caused by fire-arm. 9. The death in the opinion o doctor was due to haemorrhagic shock as a result of ante-mortem multiple injuries No. 1 to 10. 10. The Board of Doctors found following injuries on the dead body of Pappu @ Pratap Narain. 1. Incised wound 3" x ½" x BD long left parietal scalp. 2. Incised wound 2" x ½" x BD obliquely left mastoid region. 3. Incised wound ½" x ¼" x MD vertically lateral end of left eye brow. 4. Incised wound 1" x ½" x MD Tr. inferior fold of left buttock on thigh back. 5. Incised wound 1" x ½" x MD vertically right thigh M 1/3 anteriorily. 6. 2. Incised wound 2" x ½" x BD obliquely left mastoid region. 3. Incised wound ½" x ¼" x MD vertically lateral end of left eye brow. 4. Incised wound 1" x ½" x MD Tr. inferior fold of left buttock on thigh back. 5. Incised wound 1" x ½" x MD vertically right thigh M 1/3 anteriorily. 6. Incised wound 3" x ¼" x SK Deep left leg L 1/3 antero laterally obliquely placed. 7. Incised wound 1" x 1/8" x SK Deep back of left ankle. 8. Incised wound 3" ½" x 1 x bonecut obliquely postero lateral aspect of left wrist. 9. Incised wound 1" x ¼" & MD obliquely back of left forearm L 1/3. 10. Multiple linear abrasion ( 8 in No.) size varying from 3" x 1/8" to 6"x ¼" on all over back scattered, placed in different directions. 11.Penetrating wound ¾" x ¾" x CD c irregular margins, inverted, surrounded by blackening, tattooing c satellite pellet pattern of diameter 5" (i.e penetrating wound surrounded by multiple abrasions of size varying 1/6" x 1/6" to ¼" x ¼" c Dark blackish blood clot blackening and tattooing firearms wounds over upper ½ part of chest anteriorly. 11. Whereas injuries No. 1 to 9 were caused by sharp edged weapon, injury No. 10 was caused by blunt weapon and injury No. 11 was caused by fire-arm. In the opinion of the doctors the death was due to haemorrhagic as a result of ante-morten injuries to the heart with other associate injuries on the body. 12. Krishan Sahay as per medical evidence was found to have two injuries out of which one was grievous, Chetan Sharma as per medico legal report was found to have 14 injuries on his person, out of which injuries Nos. 6,8,9 and 13 were grievous, Mohanlal the third injured person was found to have one injury which was caused by fire-arm and was simple in nature. 13. The prosecution besides examining Chetan Kumar and Krishan Sahay Sharma, who were examined as PW. 1 and PW. 3 respectively also examined Pawan Kumar as PW.2, Ram Charan as PW. 4, Hem Raj as PW. 5, Raj Kumar as PW. 6, Izraul Haq @ Gotu as PW.7, Champalal as PW.8, Purshottam as PW. 9, Radha Kishan as PW. 10, Govind as PW. 11, Laxman Singh as PW.12, Satyanarain as PW. 13, Mannalal as PW. 1 and PW. 3 respectively also examined Pawan Kumar as PW.2, Ram Charan as PW. 4, Hem Raj as PW. 5, Raj Kumar as PW. 6, Izraul Haq @ Gotu as PW.7, Champalal as PW.8, Purshottam as PW. 9, Radha Kishan as PW. 10, Govind as PW. 11, Laxman Singh as PW.12, Satyanarain as PW. 13, Mannalal as PW. 14, Gauri Lal as PW.15, Babulal as PW. 16, Mohanlal as PW. 17, Kurban Ali as PW. 18, Birdhi Lal as PW. 19, Roop Chand as PW. 20, Jai Ram as PW. 21, Sadhu Singh as PW. 23, Dr. G.S. Viswanath as PW. 24, Dr. Dhanshwar Tripathi as PW. 25, Narendra Karath as PW. 26, Rajendra Singh Gogawat as PW. 27, Mohanlal Yogi as PW. 28 and Surendra Singh as PW. 29. 14. The accused while making their statements under Section 313 CrPC denied the incident and also their implication in the commission of crime. They pleaded that a false case had been foisted upon them. In their defence, they examined Manoharlal as DW. 1, Abdul Shakur as DW. 2, Mahaveer as DW. 3, Jagannath as DW 4, Ram Kishan as DW.5, Mohanlal as DW.6, Naimuddin as DW. 7 and Ramdev Chandel as DW. 8. 15. Before we might proceed any further in the case, we would like to mention that nothing based upon the statements made by the defence witnesses has been urged before this Court, and, therefore, it shall not be necessary to give details of the statements made by the defence witnesses. 16. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants contends that the report of the FSL was not tendered in evidence. The crime articles too were not tendered in evidence and so was the position, with regard to blood-stained clothes of the deceased and the injured. He further contends that PW. 3 namely; Krishan Sahay Sharma, had not even properly identified two of the accused persons, namely; Randish and Ratan @ Ram Ratan. It is also urged by him that the site-plan prepared by the Investigating Officer is hit by Section 162 CrPC and thus, is not admissible in evidence. It is further argued by him that the injured witness Mohanlal examined as PW. 17, who had received one injury on his person, has not implicated any accused. It is also urged by him that the site-plan prepared by the Investigating Officer is hit by Section 162 CrPC and thus, is not admissible in evidence. It is further argued by him that the injured witness Mohanlal examined as PW. 17, who had received one injury on his person, has not implicated any accused. The attesting witnesses of recovery were declared hostile and that the appellant had since been acquitted on a charge framed against them under the Arms Act. The appellants had no motive to commit the crime, further contends the learned Counsel. He further contends that the appellants were acquitted on a charge framed against them under Section 149 IPC and, therefore, they could not be convicted with the aid of Section 34 of the said Code particularly when the prosecution failed in its endeavour to show that there was any pre-concert by the appellants before commission of the crime. The last contention of the learned Counsel is that three named eye-witnesses in the FIR Kurban Ali, Surendra Singh and Izraul Haq, were either not examined or were declared hostile, and , therefore, the whole prosecution case requires to be rejected being based upon testimony of interested eye-witnesses. 17. We have given our anxious thoughts to the various contentions of the Counsel as noted above and with assistance of the Counsel for the parties, carefully examined the records of the case. In our considered opinion, none of the contentions raised by the learned Counsel have any merit any further that in so far as implication of the convicted accused is concerned, the prosecution has been able to prove their guilt beyond shadow of a reasonable doubt. 18. The first contention of the learned Counsel that FIR was not tendered in evidence, is factually incorrect. The same was indeed tendered in evidence as Exhibit P73 available at page 259 of the paper book. Under Section 293 CrPC, report such as FSL report, could well be tendered in evidence as formal proof of the same by the person who prepared the same was not necessary. Non-tendering of crime articles or for that matter blood-stained clothes of the deceased and the injured, in the facts and circumstances cannot be fatal to the prosecution case. Under Section 293 CrPC, report such as FSL report, could well be tendered in evidence as formal proof of the same by the person who prepared the same was not necessary. Non-tendering of crime articles or for that matter blood-stained clothes of the deceased and the injured, in the facts and circumstances cannot be fatal to the prosecution case. It may be recalled that Krishan Sahay and Chetan Sharma were injured in the same incident leading to death of Naval Kishore and Pappu @ Pratap Narain. Their presence is proved at the seen of occurrence. It is fully established that they received injuries at the same time when Naval Kishore & Pappu @ Pratap Narain were done to death. Once, their statements are consistent and worthy of evidence, it would not make any difference if crime articles and blood-stained clothes of the deceased and injured were not tendred into evidence. In so far as the contention of the learned Counsel that Krishan Sahay Sharma PW. 3 had not properly identified two of the accused namely Randish and Ratan @ Ram Ratan is concerned, all that needs to be said is that the evidence of a witness requires to be read as a whole. A reading of statement made, both in examination-in-chief and cross-examination certainly involves Randish and Ramratan as well. That apart, once, the witness was able to identify all the accused who had committed the crime, mistake on the part of the said witness to identify A as B and B as A, would not make the least difference in accepting the version of the said witness with regard to involvement of all the accused. The site-plan of the place of occurrence prepared by the Investigating Officer by his own observations or on the pointing out of a witness is of no consequence in a case of the kind in hand which is supported by an eye-witnesses. It is no doubt true that one of the injured, Mohanlal examined as PW.17, has not supported the prosecution version but the other two witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case. Once the testimony of said witnesses inspires confidence and is worthy of credence, the statement of PW.17 Mohanlal, who, as it appears, had been won-over by the accused, has to be ignored. Once the testimony of said witnesses inspires confidence and is worthy of credence, the statement of PW.17 Mohanlal, who, as it appears, had been won-over by the accused, has to be ignored. Once again, the attesting witnesses of recovery turning hostile in the face of a case which is supported by the injured witnesses, would be of no meaning and consequence. Acquittal of the appellants under the Arms Act, once again would not detract, from the evidence of the eye-witnesses in so far as implication of the accused in the commission of crime of murder is concerned. It may be true that Kurban Ali, Surendra Singh and Izraul Haq, have been mentioned in the FIR as eye-witnesses and have either been declared hostile or not examined by the prosecution but once again, if the testimony of injured eye-witnesses is truthful, and, therefore, acceptable, non-examination of named eye-witnesses in the FIR or they having been declared hostile, would not make any dent in the prosecution case. The prosecution indeed has not attributed any motive for the appellant to commit crime. Motive is always imbedded in the heart of a criminal. That apart, lack of motive is no ground per se to acquit the accused. 9.19. In so far as the last contention of the learned Counsel that once the accused had been acquitted of the charge framed against them under Section 149 IPC and thus they could not be convicted with the aid of Section 34 IPC, and there being no evidence of pre-concert is concerned, we may mention that the appellants had come together in a truck bearing No. RRO 7786. They got down from the truck together armed with deadly weapons, caused death of two and injured three persons and decamped alongwith the weapons together. The circumstances as mentioned above, speak volumes of the preparation of the commission of crime by all the accused together which they executed to precision. They came together, committed the crime and went away together. These facts pre-suppose planning before commission of the crime. The very fact that they have not been held guilty of a charge framed against them under Section 149 IPC would not ipso-facto exclude applicability of Section 34 IPC. The principal element in Section 34 IPC is the common intention to commit a crime. These facts pre-suppose planning before commission of the crime. The very fact that they have not been held guilty of a charge framed against them under Section 149 IPC would not ipso-facto exclude applicability of Section 34 IPC. The principal element in Section 34 IPC is the common intention to commit a crime. All that Section 34 IPC provides is that each of the culprits would be liable for the crime committed by all of them in the same manner as if all the acts resulting in crime, had been done by him alone. If the prosecution may fail to bring applicability of Section 149 IPC which comes into being if the act is committed by 5 persons or more of them, it cannot be said that the prosecution cannot bank-upon the provisions contained in Section 34 IPC. The prosecution, as mentioned above, has proved its case beyond shadow of reasonable doubt in so far as the convicted accused named above are concerned. There is no merit in appeal bearing No. 487/1997 filed by them. The same is accordingly dismissed. 10.20. The State Counsel in support of the Criminal Appeals No. 928/2002 and 218/2000, half-heartedly contends that once the statement of injured eye-witness was believed, there was no question to reject a part it involving the acquitted accused. We find no merit in the aforesaid contention of the learned Public Prosecutor. It is too well known that when ghastly crime like one in the present case is committed there is a tendency to involve as many persons as may be possible. It may be recalled that in the first version only convicted accused were named. Involvement of other appears to be an attempt on the part of the prosecution as such in the anxiety to involve as many people as may be possible. That apart, no definite evidence is forthcoming as to which of the accused caused injuries with what weapon and to whom. The evidence on that account is not only discrepant but contradictory as well. 121. We find no merit whatsoever in the appeals preferred by the State as well. Consequently, both the appeals bearing No. 928/2002 and 218/2000 are also dismissed.