JUDGMENT H.S. Bhalla, J.:- This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29/30.3.1994 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, whereby he convicted the appellant under sections 307/325 read with Section 34 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and he was ordered to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-; in default thereof, he was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. Appellant was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code and he was ordered to pay a fine of Rs.500/-; in default thereof, he was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Appellant was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months. However, it is worth mentioning that another accused Gurmail Singh, who was also convicted and sentenced in the manner indicated above, has not filed any appeal before this Court. 2. The facts required to be noticed for the disposal of this appeal are that on 4.10.1990 on receipt of ruqa, Ex. PF, that Darshan Singh son of Sadhu Singh and Gurbachan Singh son of Gajjan Singh, residents of village Shinder Kalan are admitted in Civil Hospital, Zira, Head Constable Joginder Singh along with other police officials reached Civil Hospital, Zira and collected the medico­ legal reports Nos. 55/90 and 56/90 in respect of the injured Darshan Singh and Gurbachan Singh respectively. Head Constable Joginder Singh enquired from the medical officer as to whether the injured were fit to make their statements or not, but the Medical Officer opined that they are not fit to make their statements. Head Constable Joginder Singh came back. On 5.12.1990 Assistant Sub Inspector Shamsher Singh visited Civil Hospital, Zira and after getting opinion Ex. PHI, from the Medical Officer that Darshan Singh injured is fit to make his statement, Assistant Sub inspector Shamsher Singh recorded the statement of Darshan Singh son of Sadhu Singh Ex. PA disclosing therein that he is a labourer of village Bhinder Kalan and his brother-in-law Gurbachan Singh, resident of village Saideka, Police Station Nihal Singh Wala has come to do labour work with him for the last 10 days. PA disclosing therein that he is a labourer of village Bhinder Kalan and his brother-in-law Gurbachan Singh, resident of village Saideka, Police Station Nihal Singh Wala has come to do labour work with him for the last 10 days. On 3.12.1990 Darshan Singh and Gurbachan Singh had gone to village Bahadurke for manufacturing baskets of the branches of Toot trees and his brother Jit Singh had gone to village Kishan Pura Kalan for the said purpose and when Darshan Singh and Gurbachan Singh were returning back on their respective cycles after finishing the work at about 5.00 P.M. and they were just behind village Kishanpura Kalan towards village Bahadurke, Nirmal Singh alias Kaku son of Lal Singh and Gurmail Singh alias Gehli son of Bant Singh, residents of village Kishanpura Kalan met them in a drunkard condition. They had one cycle. Nirmal Singh asked Darshan Singh that he should carry his companion on his cycle but Darshan Singh refused; whereupon Nirmal Singh and Gurmail Singh started abusing them and stated that they will teach them a lesson for not carrying his companion on cycle. Paying no heed to their abuses, Darshan Singh and Gurbachan Singh kept on going on their cycles towards village Kishanpura Kalan and at the Bus Stand of Kishanpura Kalan, Jit Singh brother of Darshan Singh also met them. Darshan Singh, Gurbachan Singh and Jit Singh started on their cycles towards village Bhinder Kalan on the canal bank. Jit Singh was 10-15 karms ahead of them. At about 5.45 P.M, when they reached new bridge situated in the area of village Kishanpura Kalan, Nirmal Singh @. Kaku armed with a dang and Gurmail Singh alias Gehli armed with a gandasi came on a cycle and asked Darshan Singh that they will teach them a lesson for not. carrying his companion on the cycle and Gurmail Singh gave a gandasi blow from its sharp side on the head of Gurbachan Singh, while he was lying on the ground. Darshan Singh tried to rescue him, whereupon Nirmal Singh gave a dang blow on the head of Darshan Singh and he gave another dang blow on the head of Darshan Singh, who fell down on the ground and the accusedinfIicted other injuries to Darshan Singh, while he was lying on the ground. Darshan Singh tried to rescue him, whereupon Nirmal Singh gave a dang blow on the head of Darshan Singh and he gave another dang blow on the head of Darshan Singh, who fell down on the ground and the accusedinfIicted other injuries to Darshan Singh, while he was lying on the ground. Darshan Singh raised an alarm and on hearing a raula, Jit Singh, brother of Darshan Singh, left on his cycle to the village under fear and the accused ran away with their respective weapons and went to village Kishanpura Kalan. The injured remained lying there unconscious. Jit Singh narrated the occurrence in the village and Dalip Singh, brother of Darshan Singh, took the injured to Kishanpura Dispensary for treatment after making an arrangement of a vehicle, where Medical Officer gave them first aid and sent them to Civil Hospital, Zira. They were medico-legally examined. Statement, Ex. PA, was read over to Darshan Singh, who thumb marked the same, after admitting its contents to be correct. Assistant Sub Inspector Shamsher Singh sent it to the Police Station vide his endorsement, Ex. PA/1, for registration of a case against the accused on the basis of which formal FIR, Ex. PA/2, was recorded by Thakar Dass, Moharrir Head Constable. Assistant Sub Inspector Shamsher Singh visited the spot and prepared rough site plan Ex. PL of the place of occurrence. He also took into possession blood stained earth vide memo Ex. PM, which was attested by Head Constable Joginder Singh and Jit Singh. He also took into possession blood stained earth vide memo Ex. PN, which was also attested by the above named witnesses. On 22.12.1990 Assistant Sub Inspector Shamsher Singh again enquired from the Medical Officer as to whether Gurbachan Singh was fit to make statement and Medical Officer, vide his report Ex. PJ/1, opined that Gurbachan Singh was still unfit to make statement. During investigation accused were arrested and gandasi was recovered from Gurmail Singh accused on 17.12.1990, who prepared rough sketch of the gandasi, Ex. PQ and took into possession vide memo Ex. PO, which was also attested by Head Constable Joginder Singh and Nirbhai Singh. After completion of the investigation, accused were sent up for trial. 3. Accused were charge-sheeted under Section 307/326/324 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. PQ and took into possession vide memo Ex. PO, which was also attested by Head Constable Joginder Singh and Nirbhai Singh. After completion of the investigation, accused were sent up for trial. 3. Accused were charge-sheeted under Section 307/326/324 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. Prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as five witnesses, namely, Darshan Singh (PW-1), Gurbachan Singh (PW-2), Dr. Hartirath Singh (PW-3), ASI Harcharan Singh (PW-4) and Shamsher Singh (PW-5) and closed its evidence. 5. In their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, they denied all the prosecution allegations levelled against them and pleaded that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. However, they got examined Naresh Mittal, Ahlmad as DW-1 and Resham Singh, Constable as DW-2 and thereafter closed their evidence in defence. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case minutely. 7. Learned counsel at the very outset has submitted that the main accused Gurmail Singh has not preferred any appeal, who was convicted under Sections 307/325 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas Nirmal Singh, the present appellant, was convicted and sentenced for his own role under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months, but with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, he was also convicted under Sections 307/325 of the Indian Penal Code. Case of the appellant does not fall under the ambit of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, question of common intention does not arise. 8. I have considered the contention raised by the learned counsel which has been examined by me here in the light of the evidence available on the record. At this stage, I would like to discuss the point of common intention. 8. I have considered the contention raised by the learned counsel which has been examined by me here in the light of the evidence available on the record. At this stage, I would like to discuss the point of common intention. It is crystal clear that the present appellant has been convicted under Section 307 with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, but to my mind to invoke the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, it is to be shown that the criminal act complained against was done by one of the accused persons in furtherance of the common intention of all of them. This being the principle, it is clear that common intention within the meaning of this Section implies a pre-arranged plan and to convict the accused of an offence applying the section it should be proved that the criminal act was done in concert pursuant to the pre­arranged plan. The criminal act mentioned in Section 34 is the result of the concerned action of more than one person and if the said result was eached in furtherance of the common intention, each person is liable for the act as if he had done it himself. It is true that it is not necessary that to attract Section 34, every person must have caused hurt to the victim, but every case is to be decided as per its own facts. Now reverting back to the facts of the case in hand, it is, ipso facto clear that the present appellant was armed with a dang and he caused injury only to Darshan Singh with his dang and no injury was caused by him to Gurbachan Singh and as per the statement of Dr. Hartirath Singh (PW-3), he medico-legally examined Darshan Singh and found four injuries on his person and the weapon used was blunt and after x-ray examination of the injuries, they were declared simple in nature and common intention cannot be imputed to the present appellant merely because he went along with other accused to the place of occurrence. Since before fastening vicarious liability, the prosecution has to prove prior meeting of minds of the principal culprit and his companions who are sought to be constructively made liable in respect of every act committed by the former. Mere, accompanying cannot infer common intention. Since before fastening vicarious liability, the prosecution has to prove prior meeting of minds of the principal culprit and his companions who are sought to be constructively made liable in respect of every act committed by the former. Mere, accompanying cannot infer common intention. Keeping in view the circumstances under which the present occurrence has taken place, each accused person is liable to be held guilty for his own individual act and common intention could not be attributed attracting Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. The learned defence counsel has vehemently argued that occurrence, as per the prosecution version, took .place at 5.00 P.M. on 3.12.1990 and the formal FIR was registered on 5.12.1990 at 11.30 A.M. and as such, injured-complainant took two days in lodging the formal FIR and the entire case has been made up against the accused and the present FIR has been lodged with due consultations and confabulations to rope in innocent persons. Learned counsel further submitted that in the month of December, the sun generally sets at 5. 00 P.M. and it was dark night and it was not possible for the injured complainant to identify the accused and that is why, the complainant party took about two days to connect the accused with the commission of the crime. The contention of the learned defence counsel has to be scrutinized in the light of the evidence available on the record and for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter, present appeal is not liable to be accepted and there is nothing to be set right. 10. Record clearly spells out that Darshan Singh injured­ complainant in his statement, Ex. PA, has categorically stated that accused were known to him, but the accused met the injured at 4.00 P.M. when it was a broad day light and since they were known to each other, therefore the question of identity of the accused persons does not arise. 11. So far as the delay of two days in lodging the First information Report is concerned, the same stands fully explained, inasmuch as occurrence took place at about 5.00 P.M. and thereafter, Jit Singh, who was accompanying the injured and was present at the time of the alleged occurrence ran away towards the village on account of fear and narrated the occurrence in the village and Dalip Singh son of Sadhu. Singh, brother of Darshan Singh, came to the spot after arranging for the vehicle and took the injured firstly to Civil Dispensary, Kishanpura Kalan, where the injured were given first aid and thereafter, they were taken to Civil Hospital, Zira. The report of the Senior Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Zira shows that the Medical Officer had sent report to the Police Station, Zira at 10.30 P.M. on 3.12.1990. Even the medico-legal report Ex. PB of Darshan Singh injured shows that the injured arrived in the Civil Hospital, Zira at 10.30 P.M. on 3.12.1990. Therefore, in such like circumstances, it does not lie in the mouth of the defence counsel to submit that the injured complainant waited for two days to connect their version as they could not identify the accused. Delay stands fully proved and then again as per the medico-legal report Ex. PC, Gurbachan Singh suffered injuries on his head and in normal circumstances, the endeavor of the relations of the injured was not to waste time for medical aid and they would not think of lodging the First Information Report before attending to the injured persons. It is in the statement of Darshan Singh, Ex. PA, that Jit Singh, out of fear, ran away to the village. Even if he did not lodge the report about the occurrence, it does not cause any dent in the prosecutor version since the entire version has been put forward through the mouth of the injured witnesses. Moreover, there is nothing on the record to show that the injured had any previous enmity with the accused, therefore, the question of their false implication does not arise. When such serious injuries have been suffered, the injured would always like to book the real culprits. 12. The learned defence counsel has further submitted that the injured were discharged from hospital on 22.12.1992, but the prosecution has sought opinion about the injuries of Gurbachan Singh to be dangerous to life on 19.3.1991. Therefore, on this account, the learned defence counsel has maintained that it was necessary to seek opinion of the Medical Officer after medical examination as to whether injuries on the person of Gurbachan Singh were dangerous to life and the said opinion, Ex. Therefore, on this account, the learned defence counsel has maintained that it was necessary to seek opinion of the Medical Officer after medical examination as to whether injuries on the person of Gurbachan Singh were dangerous to life and the said opinion, Ex. PK/1, has not been given by the Medical officer’ at the time when he medico-Iegally examined the injured and in such like circumstances, case against the appellant is not covered under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. This contention of the learned defence counsel does not cut any ice with me because as per report, Ex. PJ/1 of the Medical Officer, Gurbachan Singh remained unfit to make statement and he was not fully normal on 22.12.1990 and as per statement of Dr. Hartirath Singh (PW-3), Darshan Singh and Gurbachan Singh were discharged from hospital on 22.12.1990. Gurbachan Singh was not fully normal on 22.12.1990 and advised to come after seven days for further assessment of the deformity and residue weakness. On account of the negligence of the Medical Officer in not declaring the injuries on the person of Gurbachan Singh to be dangerous to life, the prosecution is not to suffer particularly when the injured have stuck to their stand and searching cross-examination conducted on them could not cause any dent in the prosecution version and nothing of importance could be elicited in favour of the defence during their cross-examination. 13. In view of what has been discussed above, I find that the learned Additional Sessions Judge fell in error by convicting the present appellant under Sections 307/325 on the strength of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, it is proved beyond doubt that the present appellant caused injuries to Darshan Singh, therefore, for his own act, he is liable to be convicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, conviction against the appellant under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is maintained. Accused has already undergone about three months imprisonment so far. The incident took place about 17 years ago and now sending the appellant again to jail, would be unjust. In these circumstances, I sentence the accused for the period which he has already undergone. Appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. ————————————