ORDER : B.N. Agrawal, J. The appellant Shyam Babu Maurya and his co-accused Lavlesh @ Pappu and Ram Bahadur were convicted by the trial court for an offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860 (for short "Indian Penal Code") and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of rupees ten thousand each and in default to undergo further imprisonment for a period of one year. On appeal, the High Court altered the conviction of the appellant and his co-accused from one under Section 302 Indian Penal Code to Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. Hence, this appeal. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The case of the prosecution, as disclosed in the first information report, was that the appellant and his co-accused killed Inder Dev Singh on 9-11-1999 near the culvert of minor canal of Village Moran by firing shots from their pistols. 4. The trial court relied upon the testimony of Om Dev Singh (PW 1) (brother of the deceased), Devender Singh (PW 2), a resident of Village Moran and Dr. R.K. Mishra (PW 6), who conducted the post-mortem and found that almost all the injuries were caused by firearms and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course and held that the charge is proved against the accused. Accordingly, it convicted all the accused under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. 5. The High Court independently analysed the entire evidence and affirmed the finding of guilt recorded by the trial court. However, conviction of the appellant and his co-accused was altered from one under Section 302 Indian Penal Code to Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant extensively referred to the testimony of PW 1 and PW 2, but could not point out any contradiction on the material aspects. Therefore, we do not find any ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the courts below. 7. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant extensively referred to the testimony of PW 1 and PW 2, but could not point out any contradiction on the material aspects. Therefore, we do not find any ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the courts below. 7. The learned counsel then argued that the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside because the appellant and his co-accused had not been charged with the allegation of having committed the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and in the absence of any specific charge, their conviction could not have been altered from Section 302 Indian Penal Code to Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. In support of his submission, the learned counsel placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Shamnsaheb M. Multtani v. State of Karnataka, (2001) 1 SCC 577 . We have carefully gone through that judgment and are of the view that the same is clearly distinguishable. In that case, the appellant-accused had been charged with the allegation of having committed the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, but he was convicted under Section 304B Indian Penal Code. 8. This Court (in Multtani case1) noted that for recording a conviction under Section 304-B, a presumption could be raised against the accused, which he was entitled to rebut by leading evidence, but, as no charge was framed under Section 304B Indian Penal Code, he was deprived of an opportunity to defend himself. Therefore, the case was remitted to the trial court with a direction to frame charge under Section 304B Indian Penal Code and decide the matter afresh after giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. 9. The fact situation in this case is entirely different. The appellant and his co-accused were charged and were convicted by the trial court under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. The High Court, as mentioned above, altered the conviction to one under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant could not show as to how his client was prejudiced on account of non-framing of specific charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. The High Court, as mentioned above, altered the conviction to one under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant could not show as to how his client was prejudiced on account of non-framing of specific charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. Even otherwise, we are convinced that no prejudice was caused to the appellant because the prosecution had come up with the case that the accused persons armed with firearms came together, all of them fired on the deceased and then fled from the place of occurrence. The appellant knew of the nature of charge and got ample opportunity to defend himself. The element of common intention could be inferred from the allegation made in the first information report and the statements of PWs 1 and 2. Therefore, it is not possible to hold that the High Court committed any error in altering the conviction of the appellant from Section 302 Indian Penal Code to Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. 11. The learned counsel lastly submitted that in any case, this Court should alter the conviction from Section 302 Indian Penal Code to Section 304 Indian Penal Code and reduce the sentence to the period already undergone. In our view, this is an argument of desperation and without any basis. If three persons fired at the deceased and many injuries were caused by firearms, as would appear from the post-mortem report, the case cannot be treated as covered by any of the exceptions enumerated under Section 300 Indian Penal Code. Therefore, we do not find any justification to alter the conviction of the appellants and reduce the sentence to the period already undergone. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.