Honble Shiv Kumar SHARMA, J.–These appeals owe, its origin in the judgment dated September 15, 1999 of the learned Sessions Judge Baran rendered in Sessions Case No. 132/1998, whereby the appellants, three in number, were convicted and sentenced as under:– U/s. 302/34 IPC: Each to suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2 lakhs, in default to further suffer five years rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 307/34 IPC: Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 1 lakh, in default to further suffer two years rigorous imprisonment. Substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. (2). The prosecution story runs as under:– Champa Lal, ASI, Police Station Baran (Pw.16) on receiving telephonic message at 10.15 PM on September 14, 1998 from the Hospital that Madhusudan, Hemant (now deceased) and Hitesh (Pw.2) were admitted in injured condition, rushed to the Hospital where he found Madhusudan and Hemant dead and Hitesh admitted at Bed No. 1 in the Medical Ward. Champa Lal recorded the Parcha Bayan of Hitesh wherein he stated that around 9 PM on the said day when he along with Hemant, Madhusudan and Maharaj were sitting in Hanuman Temple, the appellants came over there, opened knives and on account of previous enmity inflicted knife blows on them. Hitesh sustained knife blows on the right side of the abdomen and armpit. Case under sections 307 and 302/34 IPC was registered against the appellants and investigation commenced. Autopsy on dead bodies was performed, statements of witnesses were recorded, appellants were arrested, necessary memos were drawn and on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Sessions Judge Baran. Charges under section 307/34 and 302/34 IPC were framed against the appellants who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 24 witnesses. In the explanation under section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellants claimed innocence and stated that they have been implicated falsely. No witness in defence was however examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above. (3). We have heard the rival submissions and submitted the record. (4). Death of deceased Hemant and Madhusudan was unquestionably homicidal in nature. As per post mortem report (Ex.P-25) deceased Hemant received following antemortem injuries:– 1. No witness in defence was however examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above. (3). We have heard the rival submissions and submitted the record. (4). Death of deceased Hemant and Madhusudan was unquestionably homicidal in nature. As per post mortem report (Ex.P-25) deceased Hemant received following antemortem injuries:– 1. Stab wound just right to mid line chest at 4th inter costal space elliptical 3 x 1 cm deep to chest cavity. 2. Two stab wound one on ant. & one on post aspect of left shoulder 2 x 1 x 1cm. 3. Incised wound 5 x 2 x 1/2cm dorsum of left hand on 3rd & 4th inter metacorpal space. 4. Stab wound 3 x 1 x 1cm left thigh lower and outer part. 5. Incised wound 3 x 1 x 1/4cm below left ear. Deceased Madhusudan sustained following antemortem injuries vide postmortem report (Ex.P-26):– 1. Stab wound 4 x 2cm x deep to chest cavity, Trans, Elliptical, direction medially & upwards on left side of left chest wall 3 lat. To breast nipple. 2. Two stab wounds 2 x 1 x 1cm on left side of left arm. According to Dr. P. Jhanwar (Pw.14) the cause of death of Hemant was traumatic & haemorrhegic shock due to extensive injury to chest (Right lung) whereas death of Madhusudan was haemorrhegic shock due to extensive injury to left lung. As per Injury report (Ex.P-24) Hitesh received following injuries:– 1. Incised wound 3 x 2 x 1cm Rt. hand. 2. Stab wound 3 x 2 x 5cm Rt. lumber area. 3. Incised wound (two) 4 x 2 each 2 inch apart Lt. Forearm. 4. Stab wound 3 x 2cm x 2cm Rt. chest. (5). At this juncture it will be appropriate to consider the injuries sustained by appellants. Manjit Singh as per injury report (Ex.P-38) received following injury:– Incised wound, Elliptical, Transverse on dorsum of lower 1/3 left forearm. 3 x 1cm x skin deep. With Loose scab on one side containing pus. Pradhuman Singh as per injury report (Ex.P-39) received following injury thus:– Incised wound, Trans. Elliptical on mid of medial border of left hand from volar to dorsal aspect. 8 x 3cm x bone deep. Loose scab on Dorsal side with pus and Serum third. 3 x 1cm x skin deep. With Loose scab on one side containing pus. Pradhuman Singh as per injury report (Ex.P-39) received following injury thus:– Incised wound, Trans. Elliptical on mid of medial border of left hand from volar to dorsal aspect. 8 x 3cm x bone deep. Loose scab on Dorsal side with pus and Serum third. Injury received by Kamlesh Kumar as per injury report (Ex.P-40) was as under:– Incised wound with infutures scab & pus. Outer side of lower part of rt. thigh. 11/2 x 1 cm x skin deep. (6). The prosecution case primary rests on the testimony of Hitesh Galav (Pw.2), who is an injured eye witness. In his deposition Hitesh Galav stated that on September 14, 1998 around 9.00 PM while he along with Hemant, Madhusudan, Maharaj Nandu Baba and Naresh Galav were sitting in a temple of Balaji, Manjit, Paddu @ Pradhuman Singh and Kamlesh (appellants) came over there. After some altercations Paddu Singh gave a below with bottle on the head of Hemant, thereafter, all the three appellants belaboured them and inflicted blows with knives as a result of which he sustained injuries on his abdomen, armpit and both the hands. Knife blows on the chest, left side of shoulder, hand and cheek of Hemant were respectively attributed to Kamlesh, Paddu and Manjeet, whereas injuries on the left side of chest and hands were respectively attributed to Manjeet Singh and Pradhuman Singh. On raising alarm by Hariom Soni, the appellants fled away. In the cross examination Hitesh pleaded ignorance about the injuries received by the appellants. (7). It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that four hours delay in lodging the report was not explained by the prosecution. The incident did occur around 9.00 PM on September 14, 1998 whereas the report was registered at 1.15 AM on September 15, 1998. This delay according to learned counsel in lodging the report is fatal to the prosecution case. We see no merit in the submission. Admittedly Parcha bayan of Hitesh Galav was recorded in the Hospital at 11.30 PM and after parcha bayan was sent to police station Kotwali Baran formal FIR was registered at 1.15 AM on September 15, 1998. (8). This delay according to learned counsel in lodging the report is fatal to the prosecution case. We see no merit in the submission. Admittedly Parcha bayan of Hitesh Galav was recorded in the Hospital at 11.30 PM and after parcha bayan was sent to police station Kotwali Baran formal FIR was registered at 1.15 AM on September 15, 1998. (8). It is next contended by learned counsel for the appellants that injuries sustained by the appellants were not explained by the prosecution and thus origin and genesis of occurrence has been deliberately concealed. Question of non consideration of injuries received by the accused was considered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Mohar Rais case ( AIR 1968 SC 1281 ) wherein it was laid down that in a murder case, the non explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of occurrence is a very important circumstance from which the court can draw the following inferences:– (a) that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has not presented the true version; (b) that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and therefore their evidence is unreliable. (c) that in case there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the accused it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case. (9). However in Laxmi Singhs case (1976) 4 SCC 394 , it was propounded that the non-explanation of the injuries by the prosecution will not affect the prosecution case where the injuries sustained by the accused are minor and superficial or where the evidence is so clear and cogent, so independent and disintended so probable, consistent and creditworthy, that it far outweighs the effect of the omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries. (10). Upon a conspectus of many other decisions rendered by the Apex Court we find that the question as to the obligation of the prosecution to explain the injuries sustained by the accused in the same occurrence may not arise in each and every case. (10). Upon a conspectus of many other decisions rendered by the Apex Court we find that the question as to the obligation of the prosecution to explain the injuries sustained by the accused in the same occurrence may not arise in each and every case. If the prosecution witnesses are believed by the court in proof of the guilt of the accused, the question as to obligation of the prosecution to explain injuries of the accused will not arise. In the instant case on examining the testimony of Hitesh Galav from the point of view of trustworthiness we find it cogent and credible. Even after searching cross examination the evidence of Hitesh Galav could not be shattered. Thus the obligation of the prosecution to explain injuries sustained by the appellants will not arise. (11). It is next contended by the learned counsel that common intention of the appellants cannot be gathered since it was a sudden fight and the appellants could not have been convicted with the aid of section 34 IPC. This submission is also devoid of merit in view of testimony of Jammu Lal (Pw.6) who categorically deposed that around 8.30 PM while he was sitting in his shop Kamlesh, Manjeet and Paddu came together and Manjeet asked him about the whereabouts of Hemant and Madhu. We see no reason to disbelieve the statement of Jammu Lal who had stated about the pre-arranged plan of the appellants who prior to the incident, were in search of Hemant and Madhu. It is settled position of law to invoke section 34 IPC the prosecution must establish common intention and prove that the criminal act was done in concert pursuant to a prearranged plan. The expression ``in furtherance of the common intention of all was not in the original section, but was inserted in the section by Section 1 of Act XXVII of 1870. The Judicial Committee in Barendra Kumar Ghose vs. Empror (AIR 1925 PC 1) defined the ``criminal act in the said section thus:– ``A criminal act means that united (unity of) criminal behaviour which results in something which an individual would be punishable if it were all done by himself alone, that is, in a criminal offence. From the statements of Hitesh Galav and Jamna Lal we find that the appellants had pre arranged plan and the criminal act was done pursuant to pre arranged plan. From the statements of Hitesh Galav and Jamna Lal we find that the appellants had pre arranged plan and the criminal act was done pursuant to pre arranged plan. In our opinion the charges under sections 302/34 and 307/34 IPC are established beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants and we find no infirmity in the impugned judgment of learned trial Judge. (12). For these reasons, we do not find any merit in the appeals of appellants and the same stand dismissed. Conviction and sentence awarded to appellants under sections 302/34 and 307/34 IPC are confirmed.