Judgment N.N. Mathur, J.-These four appeals arise from the Judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Jodhpur dated 30.05.2000. While the appellant Inderjit alias Inder Singh has been convicted of the offence under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months imprisonment, other three appellants viz; Harendra Singh, Yogesh and Chandan Dan have been convicted of the offence under Section 302/34, IPC and each of them has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months imprisonment. 2. The occurrence giving rise to the instant appeal is that on 30.04.1998 at about 7.30 PM, PW. 2 Nimba Ram and DW. 3 Manoj moving on a vicky motrobike were stopped by the appellants Inder Singh and Harendra Singh alongwith three other boys on the corner of C Road near Shakti Nagar, Jodhpur and took up quarrel with them. On intervention by deceased Nirbhay Singh, appellants shifted the quarrel to him PW. 1 Naresh and PW. 9 Dhiraj rushed to the spot for rescue of Nirbhay Singh. Seeing them, appellants Inder Singh, Harendra Singh and their associates disappeared in the street. After their departure, PW. 1 Naresh and his deceased brother Nirbhay Singh proceeded towards their house. As they reached near their house, appellant Inder Singh appeared in front of Nirbhay Singh from behind and dealt knife blow on his chest, as a result of which he fell down. Seeing Nimba Ram and Dhiraj, the appellants ran away. Nirbhay Singh was rushed to the Suncity Hospital on a Scooter. As per the medical advice, he was immediately shifted to M.G. Hospital where he succumbed to the injuries. The incident was narrated by PW. 1 Naresh to his father PW. 13 Kamal Prakash Joshi on his arrival at the hospital. PW. 13 Kamal Prakash Joshi submitted a written FIR at the Police Station, Mahamandir at about 10.15 PM. The police prepared the inquest report, inspected the site and sent the dead body for autopsy. PW. 16 Dr. N.S. Kothari performed the autopsy on the dead body of Nirbhay Singh vide Exhibit P-25 and noticed the following injuries:- “1. PW. 13 Kamal Prakash Joshi submitted a written FIR at the Police Station, Mahamandir at about 10.15 PM. The police prepared the inquest report, inspected the site and sent the dead body for autopsy. PW. 16 Dr. N.S. Kothari performed the autopsy on the dead body of Nirbhay Singh vide Exhibit P-25 and noticed the following injuries:- “1. Incised wound (stab wound) 2.0 x 1.0 on the left lower chest about 7.0 cm away from mid line (stratum) and about 9.0 cm below nipple in oblique direction. On opening the chest, there is cutting of subcutaneous tissue and muscles underneath the wound. The wound lying in 5th inter costal space i.e., space between 5th and 6th ribs, oblique 2.0 x 1.0 cm in size with cutting of pleura and left lung 1.5 cm x 1.0 cm, full thickness with cutting of pericardium and Heart left ventricle (Apex) 1.5 x 0.5 cm in size and pericardial cavity is full of blood about 250 ml and the pleural cavity is full of blood about 600 ml on the left side; 2. Abrasion 1.0 cm x 1.0 cm, back of Rt. chest near mid line; 3. Abrasions (two) each 1.0 cm x 0.5 cm, back of chest dorso-lumber region just Rt. side to mid line.” In his opinion, the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to perforation of hear and lung (Left) as a result of stab injury on chest. 3. During investigation, the accused appellants were arrested. In pursuance of the information given by the appellant Inder Singh, a blood stained knife was recovered. The police after usual investigation, laid charge-sheet against the appellants for the offence under Sections 302, 302/34, IPC. 4. The appellants denied the charges levelled against them and claimed trial. The prosecution adduced oral and documentary evidence to prove its case. The appellants in their statements under Section 313, CrPC denied the correctness of the prosecution evidence appearing against them. Appellant Inder Singh, taking the plea of alibi, stated that on 30.04.1998, he was in the Examination Hall from 3 PM to 6 PM for the second paper of Philosophy of B.A. II year. Thereafter, he jointed “barat party” of his brother Pashupati Pal from Jodhpur in a jeep and reached his village Barath at 9.00 PM. Appellant Inder Singh, taking the plea of alibi, stated that on 30.04.1998, he was in the Examination Hall from 3 PM to 6 PM for the second paper of Philosophy of B.A. II year. Thereafter, he jointed “barat party” of his brother Pashupati Pal from Jodhpur in a jeep and reached his village Barath at 9.00 PM. Appellant Harendra Singh stated that on the date of incident, on way of his house at Shakti Nagar, he found some boys quarrelling, which included Nimba Ram, Naresh and deceased Nirbhay. On his intervention, Naresh abused him. He gave a slap to Naresh. While leaving, Naresh gave them a threat. He returned to the house and was not aware as to what happened thereafter. He pleaded innocence. Appellant Yogesh stated that on 30.04.1998, he was in the Examination Hall from 3 PM to 6 PM appearing for Second Paper of Philosophy of B.A. II year. He also pleaded innocence. Similarly, appellant Chandan Dan also pleaded innocence. Appellant Inderjit examined himself as DW. 1. He also examined Pashupati Pal as DW. 2 and Manoj Kumar as DW. 3. The trial Court found the prosecution case proved, as such, convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner indicated above. 5. We have heard Mr. P.N. Mohanani learned Counsel for the appellant Inderjit; Mr. B.S. Rathore for appellant Harendra Singh; Mr. Sandeep Mehta for appellant Yogesh; and Mr. Doongar Singh for appellant Chandan Dan; and Mr. V.R. Mehta Public Prosecutor and Mr. N.K. Bohra for complainant. 6. The prosecution has examined PW. 1 Naresh, PW. 2 Nimba Ram, PW. 9 Dhiraj, PW. 10 Prithvi Singh and PW. 12 Bhawani Singh as the witnesses of the occurrence. PW. 9 Dhiraj, PW. 10 Prithvi Singh and PW. 12 Bhawani Singh did not support the prosecution case, as such, they were declared hostile. The prosecution did not examine one of the eye witnesses viz; Manoj who was examined by the defence as DW. 3. 7. Before we advert to the rival contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties, it would be convenient to briefly survey the evidence of the material witnesses. 8. PW. 1 Naresh is the brother of deceased Nirbhay. He stated that on 30.04.1998 at about 7.30 PM, he alongwith his deceased brother Nirbhay were standing in front of their house. At that time, PW. 8. PW. 1 Naresh is the brother of deceased Nirbhay. He stated that on 30.04.1998 at about 7.30 PM, he alongwith his deceased brother Nirbhay were standing in front of their house. At that time, PW. 2 Nimba Ram and Manoj riding of a Vicky Motorbike arrived on the corner of Paota C Road, where appellants Harendra Singh and Inder Singh alias Inderjit Singh alongwith their three friends, were also standing. He had known Inderjit Singh and Harendra Singh by name and face. However, their three friends were not known to him by name but he knew them by face. The witness identified Harendra Singh and Inderjit Singh in the Court. He further stated that the accused persons stopped Nimba Ram and Manoj on the corner of C Road and took up quarrel with them. On intervention by his deceased brother Nirbhay, appellants shifted the quarrel to him. He alongwith PW. 9 Dhiraj rushed to the spot to rescue his brother. Seeing them, the appellants disappeared in the nearby street. At some distance, they were seen talking and planning something. While he alongwith Nirbhay proceeded towards the house, Nimba Ram and Dhiraj stayed back on the road. Appellant Inderjit Singh alongwith Harendra Singh came in front of them from the back side. Harendra caught hold of his brother Nirbhay by arms and the appellant Inder Singh dealt a knife blow on his chest. Nirbhay fell down on the ground. The accused appellants took their heels and ran away. He got the Scooter of one Bunty Dadhich stopped and took Nirbhay to the nearby Suncity Hospital. As per the advice of the doctor, Nirbhay was rushed to the M.G. Hospital. After sometime, his father also arrived at the hospital. The doctor declared Nirbhay dead. The site was inspected by the police on the next day. It is also stated that he had identified Yogesh and Chandan Dan in the identification parade vide Exhibit P-6 and Exhibit P-7 respectively. 9. PW. 2 Nimba Ram stated that accused Inderjit Singh, Harendra Singh, Yogesh and Chandan Dam were known to him. He had also known deceased Nirbhay. On 30.04.1998, he alongwith his friend DW. 3 Manoj on a Vicky Motorbike were on way to Paota B Road. On reaching the corner of the C Road, they were stopped and assaulted by the appellants. 2 Nimba Ram stated that accused Inderjit Singh, Harendra Singh, Yogesh and Chandan Dam were known to him. He had also known deceased Nirbhay. On 30.04.1998, he alongwith his friend DW. 3 Manoj on a Vicky Motorbike were on way to Paota B Road. On reaching the corner of the C Road, they were stopped and assaulted by the appellants. Deceased Nirbhay Joshi who was standing in front of his house, intervened. The appellants shifted the assault to Nirbhay. The appellants proceeded towards the street and after consultation, they returned and followed deceased Nirbhay and Naresh. Harendra Singh caught hold of Nirbhay Joshi and appellant Inderjit Singh gave a knife blow on his chest. There was a profuse bleeding. As a result thereof , he fell down. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he did not disclose the names of the assailants on enquiry by the mother of Nirbhay. He also admitted that he had witnessed the incident from a distance of about 50 to 70 ft. He also admitted that in statement Exhibit D-2, he did not state the fact of Nirbhay being caught hold by Harendra Singh. PW. 9 Dhiraj, PW. 10 Prithvi Singh and PW. 12 Bhawani Singh did not support the prosecution case, as such, they were declared hostile. 10. PW. 13 Kamal Prakash Joshi is the father of deceased Nirbhay. He stated that on 30.04.1998 when he reached at the house at about 8.30 PM, he was told that Nirbhay has been taken to the hospital having sustained knife injuries. He rushed to the hospital. His other son Naresh narrated the incident to him. The doctors declared his son dead. On the basis of the narration given by his son PW. 1 Naresh, he lodged the FIR at the Police Station, Mahamandir. PW. 19 Chhug Singh is the investigating officer. He has given the details of the investigation. PW. 22 Ms. Blajeet Kaur, ACJM No. 2, Jodhpur state that on the request of SHO, Police Station, Mahamandir, an identification parade was arranged in the Central Jail, Jodhpur. She has given complete details of the formalities adopted in arranging the identification parade. PW. 1 Naresh identified Yogesh vide identification proceedings Exhibit P-6, so as Chandan Dan vide identification proceedings Exhibit P-7. 11. DW. 1 Inderjit Singh stated that he was a student of B.A. II year at the time of incident. She has given complete details of the formalities adopted in arranging the identification parade. PW. 1 Naresh identified Yogesh vide identification proceedings Exhibit P-6, so as Chandan Dan vide identification proceedings Exhibit P-7. 11. DW. 1 Inderjit Singh stated that he was a student of B.A. II year at the time of incident. He was a regular student of JNV University, Jodhpur. On the date of incident, he had appeared in the Second Paper of Philosophy. After the paper was over, he had gone to the village Barath in the “Barat” of his brother Pashupatipal. 12. DW. 2 Pashupatipal stated that he was married to Kanchan Kanwar on 28.04.1998. After marriage on 30.04.1998, he had returned to the village. They proceeded from village Napudara at about 3.30 PM. He further stated that on 30.04.1998, his brother Inderjit Singh joined them at about 6.30 PM for going to the village. In the cross-examination, when he was enquired as to the place of residence of Inderjit Singh, he pleaded ignorance. He also pleaded ignorance as to when and in which jeep, Inderjit Singh had gone to the village. 13. DW. 3 Manoj stated that he had known Nimba Ram. He further stated that deceased Nirbhay was also known to him. He pleaded ignorance as to the incident which took place on 30.04.1998 when he was on Vicky Motorbike alongwith Nimba Ram. 14. Mr. P.N. Mohanani learned Counsel appearing for the appellant Inder Singh has criticized the evidence of the eye-witnesses PW. 1 Naresh and PW. 2 Nimba Ram. It is also submitted that the prosecution is guilty of not producing the most important witness of the occurrence namely Manoj. The defence has examined him as DW. 3. The principal criticism against this witness is that irrespective of the fact that he had not known to the appellant Inder Singh, identification parade was not arranged. We are unable to agree with the submission of the learned Counsel. He has stated in the examination in chief itself that he had known Inderjit Singh and Harendra Singh by name and face. In the cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he came to know about Inderjit Singh only from the moment of incident of stopping the Moped. He also stated that Inderjit Singh lived in the same locality but he was not aware as to the exact location of his house. In the cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he came to know about Inderjit Singh only from the moment of incident of stopping the Moped. He also stated that Inderjit Singh lived in the same locality but he was not aware as to the exact location of his house. He also stated that the name of Inderjit Singh was disclosed by his deceased brother just after the incident of stopping the Moped. There is a lengthy cross-examination but nothing has been elicited to discredit the testimony of this witness. 15. Another eye-witness is Nimba Ram. The criticism against this witness is two fold. Firstly, his presence has not been shown in the FIR Exhibit D-2 and secondly, he did not disclose the name of Inder Singh when mother of deceased Nirbhay enquired about the name of the assailant. As far as the first criticism is concerned, it is to be noticed that the FIR has not been lodged by a witness of the occurrence. It was lodged by PW. 13 Kamal Prakash Joshi, father of PW. 1 Naresh. He lodged the FIR as per the narration given by PW. 1 Naresh. It cannot be expected that he would have given the narration exactly as narrated by PW. 1 Naresh. Even otherwise, a perusal of the FIR Exhibit D-2 shows the presence of Nimba Ram. There is nothing substantial to discredit the testimony of this witness. As regards non-disclosure of the name of assailant to the mother of deceased Nirbhay, it must be noticed that there was profuse bleeding from the injuries of the deceased Nirbhay. He was advised by the doctor of the Suncity Hospital to shift him immediately to M.G. Hospital. Accordingly, he was rushed to the hospital at that time, he alone had gone to the house of the deceased for a shortwhile for informing and collecting the clothes. In such a situation, it may not have been possible for him to disclose the name of the assailant to the mother of deceased. On this count alone, the testimony of this witness cannot be discredited. There is a lengthy cross-examination but nothing has been elicited to discredit the testimony of this witness. The statement of this witness is natural and, there is no reason to discredit his evidence. 16. There is another incriminating circumstance of recovery of blood stained knife. On this count alone, the testimony of this witness cannot be discredited. There is a lengthy cross-examination but nothing has been elicited to discredit the testimony of this witness. The statement of this witness is natural and, there is no reason to discredit his evidence. 16. There is another incriminating circumstance of recovery of blood stained knife. Appellant Inder Singh was arrested on 17.05.1998 and on the same day, in pursuance of the information given by him vide Exhibit P-27, a blood stained knife was recovered. The knife was sealed and packed on the spot vide Exhibit-20. It was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. As per the FSL Report Exhibit P-28, the knife has been found to be stained with human blood. Thus, there is overwhelming evidence of the witnesses of the occurrence PW. 1 Naresh and PW. 2 Nimba Ram corroborated by the medical evidence and the recovery of blood stained knife to hold that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing beyond any manner of doubt that appellant Inder Singh committed the murder of deceased Nirbhay. 17. In alternate, it is submitted that even if the evidence of PW. 1 Naresh and PW. 2 Nimba Ram is relied upon, taking into account the fact and scenario under which the alleged assault was made by the appellant, the offence could not travel beyond Section 304 Part II, IPC. It is emphasized that it is a case of single injury. Thus, it can be safely concluded that the appellant had no intention to commit the murder of Nirbhay. In support of the contention, learned Counsel has placed reliance on the case of Bhera vs. State, reported in 2000 (10) SCC 225 . We have carefully gone through the decision of the Supreme Court in Bheras case (Supra). In the said case, it was found that on the road, a quarrel had taken place between the parties in which the accused brought out a knife and gave blow which struck to the chest of the deceased. On this fact, it was held that it was difficult to hold that the accused gave a blow with the requisite intention of committing murder of the deceased. The case is clearly distinguishable from the facts of the instant case. At the first stage, the accused persons and his associates took up the quarrel with PW . 2 Nimba Ram and DW . 3 Manoj. The case is clearly distinguishable from the facts of the instant case. At the first stage, the accused persons and his associates took up the quarrel with PW . 2 Nimba Ram and DW . 3 Manoj. On intervention by deceased Nirbhay, they shifted to him. On arrival of PW . 1 Naresh and his friend Dhiraj, appellant Inderjit Singh and his associates disappeared in the street. Appellant Inderjit Singh followed deceased Nirbhay and made an assault on him by stabbing knife in the chest. Thus, it cannot be said to be a case of sudden quarrel. From the facts, there can be no difficulty in saying that the deceased intended to cause particular injury on the chest, which necessarily proved fatal. Therefore, Clause III of Section 300, IPC is clearly attracted. Learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302, IPC. 18. As far as the second appellant Harendra Singh is concerned, there is no evidence on record to show that he participated in the assault of deceased Nirbhay. PW. 1 Naresh stated that the Moped of Nimba Ram and Manoj was stopped by appellant Inderjit Singh, Harendra and three other persons and they picked up the quarrel with them. On intervention by deceased Nirbhay, appellants Inderjit Singh and Harendra Singh shifted quarrel to him. He also disappeared in the street alongwith appellant Inderjit Singh. After consultation, all the accused persons including Harendra Singh returned. Appellant Inderjit Singh was armed with a knife. Appellant Harendra Singh caught hold of Nirbhay from behind by arms and appellant Inder Singh dealt knife blow to him. Similar is the evidence of PW. 2 Nimba Ram. However, it is submitted that there is a clear improvement made by the witness, as far as appellant Harendra Singh is concerned. Our attention has been invited to the FIR Exhibit D-2. In the FIR, the fact of deceased being caught hold by appellant Harendra Singh is missing. When PW. 1 Naresh was confronted with his police statement vide Exhibit D-1, he admitted that the said fact does not find place in Exhibit D-1. He pleaded ignorance as to why the police did not record his statement to the effect that Harendra had caught hold of his brother deceased Nirbhay. PW. When PW. 1 Naresh was confronted with his police statement vide Exhibit D-1, he admitted that the said fact does not find place in Exhibit D-1. He pleaded ignorance as to why the police did not record his statement to the effect that Harendra had caught hold of his brother deceased Nirbhay. PW. 2 Nimba Ram also admitted in the cross-examination that in his police statement Exhibit D-2, the fact that appellant Harendra had caught hold of deceased Nirbhay, does not find place. He also stated that he had given such statement but he was not aware why the said statement was not recorded by the police. PW. 19 Chhug Singh has stated that he recorded the police statement of PW. 1 Naresh and PW. 2 Nimba Ram truly and faithfully. 19. On careful consideration of statements of both the witnesses, as far as participation of appellant Harendra is concerned, keeping in view the fact that both of them have admitted that the part attributed to appellant Harendra, does not find place in their police statement, in absence of any independent corroborative evidence, it cannot be held that appellant shared common intention with Inder Singh to commit murder of Nirbhay Singh. Hence, we do not consider it safe to uphold the conviction of appellant Harendra Singh for the offence under Section 302, IPC with the add of Section 34, IPC and, as such, he deserves to be acquitted of the charge under Section 302/34, IPC. 20. As far as other two appellant viz; Yogesh and Chandan Dan are concerned, it is vehemently, argued that there is no evidence worth the name that both the appellants shared a common intention with appellant Inderjit Singh in committing murder of deceased Nirbhay. It is also submitted that there is no creditable evidence on record as to their identity. We have again carefully scrutinized the prosecution evidence with reference to both the accused appellants. Both the accused appellants have not been named in the FIR. The categorical case of the prosecution is that in addition to appellants Inderjit Singh and Harendra Singh, there were three or more unknown persons. Both the appellants were put to identification. PW. 22 Ms Baljeet Kaur, ACJM No. 2, Jodhpur stated that she conducted the identification parade of the accused Yogesh and Chandan Dan in the Central Jail, Jodhpur. The categorical case of the prosecution is that in addition to appellants Inderjit Singh and Harendra Singh, there were three or more unknown persons. Both the appellants were put to identification. PW. 22 Ms Baljeet Kaur, ACJM No. 2, Jodhpur stated that she conducted the identification parade of the accused Yogesh and Chandan Dan in the Central Jail, Jodhpur. It is also stated that all the requisite formalities were performed. She has proved the identification proceedings Exhibit P-6 pertaining to Yogesh. While PW. 1 Naresh identified appellant Yogesh correctly but he also identified a wrong person named Dalip Singh. The identification of appellant Chandan Dan was arranged vide Exhibit P-7. She has proved the identification proceedings of Chandan Dan Exhibit P-7. PW. 1 Naresh correctly identified appellant Chandan Dan. However, it may be noticed that the definite case of the prosecution as set out in the FIR is that on intervention by PW. 1 Naresh and Dhiraj, appellants Inder Singh, Harendra Singh and their associates disappeared in the street. When they proceeded towards their house, it was appellant Inder Singh and Harendra, who came from behind. There is no mention of three other unknown persons. In other words, it was only appellants Inder Singh and Harendra, who returned. The relevant part of the FIR may be extracted as follows:- 21. Both the witnesses in the cross-examination have admitted that in their statements Exhibit D-1 and Exhibit D-2, they have not uttered as to the participation of appellants Yogesh and Chandan Dan. Even otherwise in their statements, there is nothing to show that these two appellants in any way participated in the crime. Thus, it cannot be said that appellants Yogesh and Chandan Dan in any way shared a common intention with appellant Inder Singh in committing murder of Nirbhay. Thus, the conviction of appellants Yogesh and Chandan Dan is not sustainable for the offence under Section 302/34, IPC. The learned trial Judge has committed serious error of law and fact in convicting both the appellants of offence under Section 302/34, IPC. 22. Consequently, all the four Criminal Appeals are disposed-of as follows:- .(i) D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 335/2000 “Inderjit Singh alias Inder Singh vs. State of Rajasthan” stands dismissed. The appellant is in jail. He will serve-out the remaining part of the sentence; .(ii) D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 383/2000 “Harendra Singh vs. State of Rajasthan” is allowed. 22. Consequently, all the four Criminal Appeals are disposed-of as follows:- .(i) D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 335/2000 “Inderjit Singh alias Inder Singh vs. State of Rajasthan” stands dismissed. The appellant is in jail. He will serve-out the remaining part of the sentence; .(ii) D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 383/2000 “Harendra Singh vs. State of Rajasthan” is allowed. Appellant Harendra is acquitted of the charge under Sections 302/34. He is on bail. His bail bounds stand discharged; (iii) D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 306/3000 “Yogesh vs. State of Rajasthan” is allowed. Appellant Yogesh is acquitted of the charge under Section 302/34. He is on bail. His bail bonds stand discharged; and (iv) D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 384/2000 “Chandan Dan vs. State of Rajasthan” is allowed. Appellant Chandan Dan is acquitted of the charge under Section 302/34. He is on bail. His bail bonds stand discharged.