Hon'ble JAIN, J.—Both the aforementioned appeals are directed against the common order dated 24th June, 2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 (Fast Track) Kota in Sessions Case No. 129/2001, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The trial Court, while acquitting the accused Wahid Baig S/o Mazid Baig, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants, as under:- Name of Accused Under Section Imprisonment 1. Yusuf Baig 302, IPC To undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 month's RI 452, IPC To undergo 3 years RI and a fine of Rs. 1000/-; in default, to further undergo 1 month's RI 324, IPC To undergo 1 year's RI 2. Bablu @ Babalia 302, IPC To undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 month's RI 452, IPC To undergo 3 years RI and a fine of Rs. 1000/-; in default, to further undergo 1 month's RI 324, IPC To undergo 1 year's RI 3. Yasin Baig 302, IPC To undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 month's RI 452, IPC To undergo 3 years RI and a fine of Rs. 1000/-; in default, to further undergo 1 month's RI 324, IPC To undergo 1 year's RI 4. Ricky Sardar @ Sukhbindar Singh 302/34, IPC To undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 month's RI 452, IPC To undergo 3 years RI and a fine of Rs. 1000/-; in default, to further undergo 1 month's RI 324/34, IPC To undergo 1 year's RI 3. Ricky Sardar @ Sukhbindar Singh 302/34, IPC To undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 month's RI 452, IPC To undergo 3 years RI and a fine of Rs. 1000/-; in default, to further undergo 1 month's RI 324/34, IPC To undergo 1 year's RI 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 7th August, 2001 at about 11.30 PM a written-report was given by PW.15 Satyendra Singh to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Railway Colony, Koka, at MBS Hospital, Kota, stating therein that today i.e. 7th August, 2001 at about 10.00 PM he, his brother Shanu @ Jitendra and Jagdish were taking meal at the house of Jagdish; the main door of the house was closed; some persons knocked the door; Jagdish went to open the door; and, soon he opened the main gate, Yusuf and Yasin (both brothers), Bablu @ Babalia and Ricky Sardar entered the house; on entering the house, Bablu @ Babalia inflicted a dagger (kataar) blow on the person of Jagdish and thereby caused an injury on his leg; he inflicted another blow on the person of Shanu @ Jitendra and thereby caused an injury on the side of his chest; Yusuf, who was armed with sword, inflicted a sword blow on the person of Shanu @ Jitendra, which caused injury on his head; Yasin also inflicted sword blow on the person of Jagdish, which he was having in his hand. Ricky @ Sukhbinder Singh inflicted lathi blow on the person of Shanu @ Jitendra; Wahid Baig was shouting standing outside the house that why are you behaving like a woman and asked kill them. Thereafter he (Satyendra) raised a hue and cry for help; Shanu @ Jitendra fell down on the earth. Jagdish moved creeping outside the house. Blood was oozing out of their bodies. Thereafter the father of Jagdish also came there; and thereafter, upon raising hue and cry by him (Satyendra), all the five persons fled away towards the temple. This incident was seen by him, Jagdish and father of Jagdish. Thereafter police vehicle came there. Jagdish moved creeping outside the house. Blood was oozing out of their bodies. Thereafter the father of Jagdish also came there; and thereafter, upon raising hue and cry by him (Satyendra), all the five persons fled away towards the temple. This incident was seen by him, Jagdish and father of Jagdish. Thereafter police vehicle came there. Shanu @ Jitendra and Jagdish, both, were taken to the hospital in unconscious condition; and there his brother was declared dead in the hospital, and admitted Jagdish in the hospital for treatment, therefore, necessary action may be taken in the matter. 4. On the basis of the said written-report, a case was registered for the offence under Sections 147, 307, 302, 323, 451, 34, 109 IPC and the same was sent by the S.H.O. through Constable Shri Tejram to the Police Station for registering F.I.R., and thereafter the F.I.R. No. 206/2001 was registered at the Police Station, Railway Colony, Kota. 5. It is relevant to mention that a report was also entered in daily `rojnamcha' on 7th August, 2001 at 10.20 PM that some unknown person informed on telephone about the quarrel taking place at Khari-Bawdi and, on this information, the S.H.O. Ramdeo Singh proceeded in the Government vehicle for Khari-Bawdi alongwith SI Anil Kumar, ASI Ram Lakhan, ASI Ramesh Chand Sen, Constable Tejram, Constable Kundan Kumar and Driver Member Singh. 6. During investigation of the case, the police prepared a site-plan and also collected necessary evidence from the place of occurrence. The accused-persons were arrested. There information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was recorded. Necessary recoveries of articles were made. The post-mortem of deceased Shanu @ Jitendra was conducted. The injured Jagdish was also medically examined and his injury-report was also got prepared. 7. After completion of investigation, the police submitted a challan for the offence under Sections 147, 302, 324, 326, 452 and 149 IPC. 8. The trial Court framed charge against accused Wahid Baig, who has been acquitted by the trial Court, for the offence under Sections 147 or 148, 302 or 302/149, 324, 326 read with Section 324/149, 326/149 and 109 IPC, and against the remaining accused-appellants for the offence under Sections 147 or 148, 302, 324, 326, 452 and in alternative under Sections 326/149, 302/149 IPC. The accused-persons denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 9. The accused-persons denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 9. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW.1 Jai Singh, PW. 2 Ashok Sharma, PW.3 Rajendra Singh, PW.4 Anil Gautam, PW. 5 Dinesh Kashyap, PW.6 Anand Singh, PW. 7 Rameshwar Prasad, PW. 8 Babulal, PW. 9 Harlal, PW. 10 Kundan Kumar, PW. 11 Manoj Singh, PW. 12 Salam Khan, PW. 13 Kalyan Bairwa, PW. 14 Ramesh Sen, PW. 15 Satyendra Singh, PW. 16 Parwati Bairwa, PW. 17 Santosh Bairwa, PW. 18 Jagdish, PW. 19 Dr. Ashok Mundra, PW. 20 Nisar Khan, PW. 21 Ramdeo Singh, PW. 22 Anil Kumar and PW. 23 Dr. Rakesh Sharma; the prosecution also produced and got exhibited documentary evidence Exhibit P-1 to Exhibit P. 58. Thereafter the statements of the accused-persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they stated that the statement of the prosecution witnesses are false and that they have been falsely implicated due the animosity. In defence, no witness was examined on behalf of the accused-persons, however, the statement of Satyendra Singh, recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. was filed on their behalf and got exhibited as Exhibit D. 1. 10. After considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and examining the record, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants, as mentioned above. 11. Shri M.K. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused Bablu @ Babalia, Yasin and Yusuf, contended that as per the written-report (Exhibit P. 36), submitted by PW. 15 Satyendra Singh, five persons were named as accused; and Satyendra Singh, Jagdish and Kalyan (father of Jagdish) were named as eye witnesses of the occurrence. The prosecution examined all the above three persons as eye witnesses to prove the incident. Out of these three witnesses, PW.13 Kalyan, in his statement, admitted that he came at the place of occurrence after taking place of the incident and from his statement it is clear that he was not the eye witness to the incident. The trial Court also recorded a finding that PW. 13 Kalyan is not an eye-witness. So far as Jagdish PW. 18 is concerned, he was declared hostile, therefore, the entire case depends upon the sole testimony of PW. 15 Satyendra Singh, whose statement is to be examined minutely. The trial Court also recorded a finding that PW. 13 Kalyan is not an eye-witness. So far as Jagdish PW. 18 is concerned, he was declared hostile, therefore, the entire case depends upon the sole testimony of PW. 15 Satyendra Singh, whose statement is to be examined minutely. He further contended that co-accused Wahid has already been acquitted of all the charges levelled against them, by the trial Court and his acquittal has not been challenged. Similarly all the accused-persons have been acquitted from the charges under Sections 147, 148, 149, 326, 326/149 IPC and their acquittal from these charges, has also not been challenged. He contended that so far as the offence under Section 452 IPC is concerned, there is statement of PW.15 Satyendra Singh, and in view of his statement, it is not open to challenge the finding of the trial Court with regard to Section 452, IPC. 12. So far as conviction of accused Bablu @ Babalia is concerned, Shri M.K. Sharma, the learned counsel, contended that it is not safe to base his conviction only on the statement of PW. 15 Satyendra Singh, however, his statement is corroborated by medical evidence i.e. the postmortem-report (Exhibit P. 40) and by the statement of PW.19 Dr. Ashok Mundra and the same may not be subjected to challenge forcefully. So far as the accused-appellants-Yasin and Yusuf are concerned, he contended that their conviction recorded by the trial Court is contrary to law and facts both, and the same is liable to be set-aside. He referred Charge No. 3 framed against accused Yasin and Yusuf for the offence under Section 302 IPC; whereas from the postmortem report (Exhibit P. 40), it is clear that the cause of death was shock as a result of ante-mortem injury to arch of aorta, which was opined to be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He contended that as per the statement of PW. 15 Satyendra Singh, the said injury on the person of deceased was inflicted by Bablu @ Babalia and not by Yasin and Yusuf. He also referred the statement of Dr. Ashok Mundra PW. 19, and contended that PW. 19 Dr. He contended that as per the statement of PW. 15 Satyendra Singh, the said injury on the person of deceased was inflicted by Bablu @ Babalia and not by Yasin and Yusuf. He also referred the statement of Dr. Ashok Mundra PW. 19, and contended that PW. 19 Dr. Ashok Mundra, in his statement, specifically admitted that other injuries except Injury No. 2, were not sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, therefore, the deceased died due to injury No. 2, which was inflicted on the said of chest of the deceased and as per the statement of PW. 15 Satyendra Singh the same was inflicted by accused Bablu @ Babalia and, in these circumstances, the trial court committed a serious illegality in convicting and sentencing the accused-appellants Yasin and Yusuf for the offence punishment under Section 302 IPC simplicter. He contended that so far as Section 34 IPC is concerned, the same is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. He referred the written-report (Exhibit P.36), the statements of PW. 15 Satyendra Singh and PW.18 Jagdish, and contended that from their testimony it is clear that there was no pre-concert of mind of the accused-persons about committing the murder of deceased Shanu @ Jitendra. He contended that so far as common object of accused-persons is concerned, the same has been disbelieved by the trial Court and the accused-persons have been acquitted for the offence under Section 149 IPC, which has also not been challenged and in absence of any specific evidence about premeditation of mind to commit murder of deceased Shanu @ Jitendra, the provisions of Section 34 IPC cannot be made applicable and both the accused-persons Yasin and Yusuf cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 302 with the aid of Section 34 IPC. In support of his submissions, he referred Dharam Pal and others vs. State of Haryana - AIR 1978 SC 1492 and Vencil Pushpraj vs. State of Rajasthan - AIR 1991 SC 536 . 13. In support of his submissions, he referred Dharam Pal and others vs. State of Haryana - AIR 1978 SC 1492 and Vencil Pushpraj vs. State of Rajasthan - AIR 1991 SC 536 . 13. Shri M.K. Sharma, the learned counsel for the accused, also contended that no specific question was asked from the accused-persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in respect of offence under Section 34 IPC and, in these circumstances, they could not get an opportunity to explain about this offence, hence they cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 302 with the aid of Section 34 IPC. In support of his submissions, he referred Ajay Singh vs. State of Maharashtra - AIR 2007 SC 2188 . He further contended that there is no direct evidence about offence under Section 34 IPC and so far as circumstantial evidence in this regard is concerned, the same is also not proved beyond reasonable doubt and, in absence of direct or circumstantial evidence, the accused persons cannot be convicted even with the aid of Section 34 IPC for the offence under Section 302, IPC. In support of his submissions, the learned Counsel referred Harishchandra Ladaku Thange vs. State of Maharashtra - AIR 2007 SC 2957 . 14. Shri Pratap Singh Sirohi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused Ricky @ Sukhbinder, contended that as per the written report (Exhibit P. 36) there are three eye-witnesses, namely, Satyendra Singh, Jagdish and Kalyan (father of Jagdish). The trial Court has recorded a finding that PW. 13 Kalyan is not the eye-witnesses PW. 18 Jagdish, who is injured eye-witness, stated before the court that he does not know Ricky @ Sukhbinder; he refused to identify accused Ricky @ Sukhbinder in the court; he has not taken his name in the statement; he submitted that the only evidence against Ricky @ Sukhbinder is the statement of PW. 15 Satyendra, who is said to be the eye-witnesses, however, the learned counsel submitted that there is no corroboration to the statement of PW.15 Satyendra Singh. He submits that PW.18 Jagdish is the eye-witness who sustained injuries, whereas PW. 15, another eye-witness, eve did not sustain injury and it is doubtful that he was eye-witness or not, therefore, more weightage is required to be given to the testimony of Jagdish PW. 18 and not to Satyendra PW. 15. The facts stated by PW. He submits that PW.18 Jagdish is the eye-witness who sustained injuries, whereas PW. 15, another eye-witness, eve did not sustain injury and it is doubtful that he was eye-witness or not, therefore, more weightage is required to be given to the testimony of Jagdish PW. 18 and not to Satyendra PW. 15. The facts stated by PW. 15 which have not been corroborated with the statement of injured eye-witness, Jagdish, PW. 18 should not be believed. He submits that Satyendra (PW. 15), in his written-report (Exhibit P. 36), stated that Wahid Baig was also present at the place of occurrence along-with four accused-appellants but in the Court he did not take the name of Wahid Baig; PW. 18 Jagdish also did not take the name of accused Wahid Baig and the trial Court has acquitted the co-accused Wahid Baig and his acquittal order has not been challenged. In his submissions, the statement of PW. 15 Satyendra, in the circumstances of the case, to the extent it relates to accused Ricky @ Sukhbinder is also liable to be disbelieved. He further contended that in the written-report, (Exhibit P. 36) lodged by PW. 15 Satyendra, it was alleged that Ricky @ Sukhbinder inflicted `lathi' blows on the back of deceased Shanu @ Jitendra whereas from the postmortem-report (Exhibit P. 40) as well as the statement of PW. 19 Dr. Ashok Mundra it is clear that there is no such injury on the back of the deceased caused by `lathi' i.e. blunt object, thus the statement of PW.15 Satyendra is neither corroborated by the injured eye-witness PW. 18 Jagdish nor it is corroborated by medical evidence i.e. postmortem-report (Exhibit P. 40) and the statement of PW. 19 Dr. Ashok Mundra. He referred the postmortem-report (Exhibit P. 40) and also the statement of PW. 19 Dr. Ashok Mundra, who specifically admitted that injury on the person of deceased which would have caused by blunt object. He also contended that the statement of PW. 15 Satyendra is also not corroborated by the statement of PW. 18 Parwati and PW. 17 Smt. Santosh. He contended that there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of the injured eye-witness Jagdish (PW. 18), who did not take the name of accused Ricky @ Sukhbinder. In support of his submission, he referred Bhagwan Bahadure vs. State of Maharashtra - 2007 AIR (Criminal) 837. 18 Parwati and PW. 17 Smt. Santosh. He contended that there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of the injured eye-witness Jagdish (PW. 18), who did not take the name of accused Ricky @ Sukhbinder. In support of his submission, he referred Bhagwan Bahadure vs. State of Maharashtra - 2007 AIR (Criminal) 837. He also contended that there is no premeditation of mind of the accused-persons and the trial Court has wrongly convicted the accused with the aid of Section 34 of the IPC whereas in the facts and circumstances of the case Section 34 IPC was not attracted at all. In support of his submission he referred Jarnail Singh vs. State of Punjab - AIR 1982 SC 70 and State of U.P. vs. Iftikhar Khan and Others- AIR 1973 SC 863 . 15. Shri Pratap Singh Sirohi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused Ricky @ Sukhbinder, also contended that although he has challenged the conviction of accused Ricky @ Sukhbinder on merits yet, in alternative, his conviction order passed by the trial Court is also liable to be quashed and set-aside being without jurisdiction as the accused Ricky @ Sukhbinder Singh was below 18 years of age on the date of occurrence. He contended. He contended that he has also filed an application before this Court under Section 6(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter shall be referred to as `the Act of 2000') along-with the certificate of date of birth of accused Ricky @ Sukhbinder wherein his date of birth has been mentioned as 25th August, 1984, whereas the incident took place on 7th August, 2001, therefore, on the date of occurrence he was below 17 years of age and he was to be tried under the provisions of the Act of 2000. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel referred to Gurpreet Singh vs. State of Punjab - (2005) 12 SCC 615 , and contended that even if this point was not raised before the trial Court then also it is well settled that in such eventuality this Court should first consider the legality or otherwise of conviction and in case the conviction is upheld, a report should be called for from the trial Court on the point as to whether the accused was juvenile on the date of occurrence and upon receipt of the report if it is found that the accused was juvenile on such date and continues to be so, he shall be sent to Juvenile Hone. He further submits that the respondent State has not filed any reply to the application, therefore, without calling any report from the trial Court this Court can also record a finding on the basis of certificate of the school showing his date of birth, on the basis whereof it is clear that he was below 18 years of age on the date of occurrence. In this regard he also referred Bhoop Ram vs. State of U.P. - (1989) 3 SCC 1 . 16. The learned counsel for the State defended the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court and contended that there is no force in any of the submissions of the learned counsel for the accused appellants. The finding of the learned trial Court is based on the evidence available on the record. He referred the statement of PW.15 Satyendra and contended that he is an eye-witness of the occurrence. His name has been mentioned in the written-report also. He has been cross-examined by accused party in detail. He also referred the information given by accused -persons voluntarily, during their custody with the police, under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and the recovery of articles at their instance, which has been proved by the respective witnesses, who have not been declared hostile. He also referred the FSL Report (Exhibit P. 58). He further contended that even if the statement of PW. 18 Jagdish is not corroborated with the statement of PW. 15 Satyendra in respect of accused Yasin and Ricky @ Sukhbinder, their conviction can be upheld on the basis of statement of PW. 15 Satyendra alone. He also referred the FSL Report (Exhibit P. 58). He further contended that even if the statement of PW. 18 Jagdish is not corroborated with the statement of PW. 15 Satyendra in respect of accused Yasin and Ricky @ Sukhbinder, their conviction can be upheld on the basis of statement of PW. 15 Satyendra alone. He further contended that so far as common intention is concerned, the same is proved and the same is to be gathered from the facts and circumstances of the present case. He also contended that the men do not act wholly without motive. In circumstantial evidence also when facts are clear it is immaterial that no motive has been proved in the case. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel referred Ganeshlal vs. State of Maharashtra - (1992) 3 SCC 106 . 17. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and minutely scanned the impugned judgment as well as the record of the trial Court. 18. Before discussing the material evidence available on the record in the light of submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, we would like to discuss the case law cited at the bar. 19. In Dharam Pal and others vs. State of Haryana - AIR 1978 SC 1492 the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that a criminal court fastening vicarious liability must satisfy itself as to the prior meeting of the 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. The Existence or otherwise of the common intention depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Para 14 and 15 of the judgment are reproduced as under:- "14. It may be that when some persons start with a prearranged plan to commit a minor offence, they may in the course of their committing the minor offence come to an understanding to commit the major offence as well. Such an understanding may appear from the conduct of the persons sought to be made vicariously liable for the act of the principal culprit or from some other incriminatory evidence but the conduct or other evidence must be such as not to leave any room for doubt in that behalf. 15. Such an understanding may appear from the conduct of the persons sought to be made vicariously liable for the act of the principal culprit or from some other incriminatory evidence but the conduct or other evidence must be such as not to leave any room for doubt in that behalf. 15. A criminal Court fastening vicarious liability must satisfy itself as to the prior meeting of the 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. There is no law to our knowledge which lays down that a person accompanying the principal culprit shares his intention in respect of every act which the latter might eventually commit. The existence or otherwise of the common intention depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The intention of the principal offender and his companies to deal with any person who might intervene to stop the quarrel must be apparent from the conduct of the persons accompanying the principal culprit or some other clear and cogent incriminating piece of evidence. In the absence of such material, the companies or companions cannot justifiably be held guilty for every offence committed by the principal offender. As already stated, there is no evidence to justify the conclusion that Surta and Samme Singh, appellants shared the common intention with Dharam Pal to commit the murder of Sardara Singh or to make an attempt on the life of Singh Ram and that the said acts were committed by Dharam Pal in furtherance of the common intention of all the appellants. The common intention denotes action in concert and necessarily postulates a pre-arranged plan or prior meeting of minds and an element of participation in action. As pointed out above, the common intention to commit an offence graver than the one originally designed may develop during the execution of the original plan e.g. during the progress of an attack on the person who is intended to be beaten but the evidence in that behalf should be clear and cogent for suspicion, however strong, cannot take place of the proof which is essential to bring home the offence to the accused." 20. In Vencil Pushpraj vs. State of Rajasthan - AIR 1991 SC 536 , the Hon'ble Apex Court, while considering the facts and circumstances of that particular case and the evidence available in respect of Section 34 IPC observed as under:- "6. Further a scrutiny of the materials placed before us does not spell out that the appellant had shared the intention of Kannu in murdering the deceased and that he held the deceased in order to facilitate Kannu to stab the deceased. There is no material worth-mentioning even to draw an inference that the appellant and Kannu had acted in concert and/or there was existence of a prearranged plan to commit the murder of the deceased. Therefore, we are unable to infer the common intention on the part of this appellant with Kannu." 21. In Ajay Singh vs. State of Maharashtra - AIR 2007 SC 2188 , the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the object of Section 313 Cr.P.C. and held that the whole object of this Section is to afford the accused a fair and proper opportunity of explaining circumstances which appear against him and that the question mut be fair and must be couched in a form which an ignorant or illiterate person will be able to appreciate and understand. In Para 11 and 12 of the judgment are as under:- "11. The object of examination under this Section is to give the accused an opportunity to explain the case made against him. This statement can be taken into consideration in judging his innocence or guilt. Where there is an onus on the accused to discharge, it depends on the facts and circumstances of the case if such statement discharges the onus. 12. The word `generally' in sub-section (1)(b) does not limit the nature of the questioning to one or more questions of a general nature relating to the case, but it means that the question should relate to the whole case generally and should also be limited to any particular part or parts of it. The question must be framed in such a way as to enable the accused to know what he is to explain, what are the circumstances which are against him and for which an explanation is needed. The question must be framed in such a way as to enable the accused to know what he is to explain, what are the circumstances which are against him and for which an explanation is needed. The whole object of the section is to afford the accused a fair and proper opportunity of explaining circumstances which appear against him and that the questions must be fair and must be couched in a form which an ignorant or illiterate person will be able to appreciate and understand. A conviction based on the accused's failure to explain what he was never asked to explain is bad in law. The whole object of enacting Section 313 of the Code was that the attention of the accused should be drawn to the specific points in the charge and in the evidence on which the prosecution claims that the case is made out against the accused so that he may be able to give such explanation as he desires to give." 22. In Harishchandra Ladaku Thange vs. State of Maharashtra - AIR 2007 SC 2957 , the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the principles regarding circumstantial evidence and held that] "8. It has been consistently laid down by this Court that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when the all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person...." 23. In Bhagwan Bahadure vs. State of Maharashtra - 2007 AIAR (Criminal) 837, the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the principles relating to credibility of relative witnesses and held as under:- "7. We shall first deal with the contention regarding interestedness of the witnesses for furthering prosecution version. Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible. 8. In Dalip Singh and Ors. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible. 8. In Dalip Singh and Ors. vs. The State of Punjab ( AIR 1953 SC 364 ) it has been laid down as under:- "A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily a close relation would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity, that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth. However, we are not attempting any sweeping generalization. Each case must be judged on its own facts. Our observations are only made to combat what is so often put forward in cases before us as a general rule of prudence. There is no such general rule. Each case must be limited to and be governed by its own facts." 24. In Jarnail Singh vs. State of Punjab - AIR 1982 SC 70 , the Hon'ble Apex Court, while considering the principles relating to Section 34 of the IPC, passed the following judgments in the facts and circumstances of that case:- "We are of the view that having regard to the circumstances which the offence took place it is not possible to convict the appellant Jarnail Singh of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. since there was no pre-concert between Sarwan Singh and the appellant nor a meeting of minds between them before the offence took place. We, therefore, set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC., and since he merely gave a takwa blow on the ear and caused simple injuries, we alter his conviction to one under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. We, therefore, set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC., and since he merely gave a takwa blow on the ear and caused simple injuries, we alter his conviction to one under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. We are told that the appellant has already been in jail for about 2-1/2 years and we, therefore, reduce the sentence imposed upon him to that already undergone by him and direct that he may be set at liberty forthwith." 25. In State of U.P. vs. Iftikhar Khan and Others - AIR 1973 SC 863 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held that in order to invoke Section 34 IPC against the accused, prior concert or a prearranged plan has to be established and though common intention has to be inferred from his act or conduct and other relevant circumstances, it is not necessary that any overt-act must have been done by any particular accused. It is enough if the criminal act has been done by one of the accused in furtherance of the common intention. Relevant portion of Para 35 of the judgment reads as under:- "35.....It is true that for invoking Section 34 against the accused, prior concert or a prearranged plan has to be established. But as it is difficult to prove the intention of an individual, it has to be inferred from his act, or conduct and other relevant circumstances... It is not necessary to attract Section 34, that any overt act must be done by the particular accused. The section will be attracted if it is established that the criminal act has been done by any one of the accused persons in furtherance of the common intention. If this is shown-and in this case we are satisfied that it has been so shown - the liability for the crime may be imposed on anyone of the persons in the same manner as if the act were done by him alone....." 26. If this is shown-and in this case we are satisfied that it has been so shown - the liability for the crime may be imposed on anyone of the persons in the same manner as if the act were done by him alone....." 26. In Gurpreet Singh vs. State of Punjab- (2005) 12 SCC 615 , the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that even if the contention with regard to Section 2(h) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, was not raised either before the trial Court or the High Court, the same can be raised at any stage and it is well settled that in such an eventuality the concerned court should first consider the legality or otherwise of conviction of the accused and in case the conviction is upheld, a report should be called for from the trial Court on the point as to whether the accused was juvenile on the date of occurrence and upon receipt of the report if it is found that the accused was juvenile on such date and continues to be so he shall be sent to juvenile home. Para 18 of the judgment is reproduced as under:- "18. Shri Prabha Shanker Misra, learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of Criminal Appeal No. 710 of 1995 apart from challenging conviction of appellant Mohinder Pal Singh on merits, which we have already dealt with, submitted that on the date of the alleged occurrence, he was a juvenile within the meaning of Section 2 (h) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') as on that date he had not attained the age of 16 years. It appears that this point was not raised either before the trial Court or the High Court. But it is well settled that in such an eventuality, this Court should first consider the legality or otherwise of conviction of the accused and in case the conviction is upheld, a report should be called for from the trial courts on the points as to whether the accused was juvenile on the date of occurrence and upon receipt of the report, if it is found that the accused was juvenile on such date and continues to be so, he shall be sent to juvenile home. But in case it finds that on the date of the occurrence, he was juvenile but on the date this Court is passing final order upon the report received from the trial Court, he no longer continues to be juvenile, the sentence imposed against him would be liable to be set aside. Reference in this connection may be made to decision of this Court in the case of Bhoop Ram vs. State of U.P. (1989) 3 Supreme Court Cases 1 in which case at the time of grant of special leave to appeal, report was called for from the trial Court as to whether the accused was juvenile or not which reported that the accused was not a juvenile on the date of the occurrence but this Court, differing with the report of trial Court, came to the conclusion that accused was juvenile on the date the offence was committed and as he was no longer a juvenile on the day of judgment of this Court, sentence awarded against him was set aside, though conviction was upheld. In the present case, we have already upheld conviction of appellant- Mohinder Pal Singh as well but it would be just and expedient to call for a report from the trial Court in relation to his age on the date of the occurrence." 27. In Bhoop Ram vs. State of U.P. (1989) 3 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the school certificate showing the date of birth of accused as a proof and held that in absence of anything showing that the entries in the certificate did not relate to the accused or were incorrect, the same cannot be rejected. Para 7 of the judgment is reproduced as under:- "7. On a consideration of the matter, we are of the opinion that the appellant could not have completed 16 years of age on October 3, 1975 when the occurrence took place and as such he ought to have been treated as a "child" within the meaning of Section 2(4) of the U.P. Children Act, 1951 and dealt with under Section 29 of the Act. We are persuaded to take this view because of three factors. The first is that the appellant has produced a school certificate which carries the date June 24, 1960 against the column date of birth. We are persuaded to take this view because of three factors. The first is that the appellant has produced a school certificate which carries the date June 24, 1960 against the column date of birth. There is no material before us to hold that the school certificate does not relate to the appellant or that the entries therein are not correct in their particulars. The Sessions Judge has failed to notice this aspect of the matter and appears to have been carried away by the opinion of the Chief Medical Officer that the appellant appeared to be about 30 years of age as on April 30, 1987. Even in the absence of any material to throw doubts about the entries in the school certificate the Sessions Judge has brushed it aside merely on the surmise that it is not unusual for parents to understate the age of their children by one or two years at the time of their admission in schools for securing benefits to the children in their future years. The second factor is that the Sessions Judge has failed to bear in mind that even the trial Judge had thought it fit to award the lesser sentence of imprisonment for life to the appellant instead of capital punishment when he delivered judgment on September 12, 1977 on the ground the appellant was a boy of 17 years of age. The observation of the trial Judge would lend credence to the appellant's case that he was less than 10 (sic 16) years of age on October 3, 1975 when the offences were committed. The third factor is that though the doctor has certified that the appellant appeared to be 30 years of age as on April 30, 1987, his opinion is based only on an estimate and the possibility of an error of estimate creeping into the opinion cannot be ruled out. As regards the opinion of the Sessions Judge, it is mainly based upon the report of the Chief Medical Officer and not on any independent material. On account of all these factors, we are of the view that the appellant would not have completed 16 years of age on the date the offences were committed. As regards the opinion of the Sessions Judge, it is mainly based upon the report of the Chief Medical Officer and not on any independent material. On account of all these factors, we are of the view that the appellant would not have completed 16 years of age on the date the offences were committed. It therefore follows that the appellant should have been dealt with under the U.P. Children Act instead of being sentenced to imprisonment when he was convicted by the Sessions Judge under various counts." 28. In Ganeshlal vs. State of Maharashtra - (1992) 3 SCC 106 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held that men do not act wholly without motive; failure to discover the motive of the offence does not signify the non-offence of the crime. In circumstantial evidence also when the facts are clear it is immaterial that no motive has been proved. The relevant portion of Para 9 of the judgment is reproduced as under:- "....It is true as contended for the appellant that the evidence on record is not sufficient to arrive at an immediate motive to commit the crime and the case depends on circumstantial evidence. But in circumstantial evidence also when the facts are clear it is immaterial that no motive has been proved. Men do not act wholly without motive. Failure to discover the motive of the offence does not signify the non-existence of the crime. The failure to discover motive by appropriate clinching evidence may be a weakness in the proof of the prosecution case, but it is not necessarily fatal as a matter of law. Proof of motive is never an indispensable factor for conviction. In Atley vs. State of U.P. AIR 1955 SC 807 , this Court held that where there is clear evidence that the person has committed the offence, it is immaterial where no motive for commission of the crime has been shown. Therefore, even in the case of circumstantial evidence, absence of motive which may be one of the strongest links to connect the chain would not necessarily become fatal provided the other circumstances would complete the chain and connect the accused with the commission of the offence, leaving no room for reasonable doubt, even from the proved circumstances..." 29. Therefore, even in the case of circumstantial evidence, absence of motive which may be one of the strongest links to connect the chain would not necessarily become fatal provided the other circumstances would complete the chain and connect the accused with the commission of the offence, leaving no room for reasonable doubt, even from the proved circumstances..." 29. Looking to the facts of the present case that on 7th August, 2001 at 10.20 PM a telephonic information was received at the Police Station, Railway Colony, Kota, regarding taking place of quarrel at Khari-Bawdi and, on the basis of that information, the SHO Ramdeo Singh along-with SI Anil Kumar, ASI Ram Lakhan, ASI Ramesh Chand Sen, Constable Tejram, Constable Kundan Kumar and Driver Member Singh, proceeded for Khari Bawdi in the Government vehicle. The police reached at the spot and thereafter deceased Shanu @ Jitendra and injured Jagdish, both, were taken to the Hospital in the police vehicle. PW. 15 Satyendra Singh gave a written-report on 7th August, 2001 at 11.30 PM in MBS Hospital, Kota, to the S.H.O., Police Station, Railway Colony, Kota, who sent the same for its registration to the Police Station where F.I.R. No. 206/2001 was registered for the offence under Sections 147, 307, 302, 323, 451, 34 and 109 IPC. In the written-report (Exhibit P. 36) PW. 15 Satyendra Singh, the brother of deceased Shanu @ Jitendra, alleged that on 7th August, 2001 at 10.00 PM he, his brother Shanu @ Jitendra and Jagdish were taking meal at the house of Jagdish. The main door of the house was closed. The door was knocked. Jagdish went to open the main door and, soon he opened it, Yusuf and Yasin, both brothers, Bablu @ Babalia and Ricky Sardar entered the house. Bablu @ Babalia inflicted a dagger blow on the person of Jagdish and thereby he sustained injury on his leg; he gave another blow on the person of Shanu @ Jitendra which was inflicted in the side of his chest; Yusuf inflicted sword blow on the person of Shanu @ Jitendra on his head; Yasin inflicted a sword blow on the person of Jagdish and Shanu @ Jitendra. Ricky @ Sukhbinder inflicted a lathi blow on the person of Shanu @ Jitendra. Ricky @ Sukhbinder inflicted a lathi blow on the person of Shanu @ Jitendra. Wahid Baig was shouting standing outside the house provoking them not to behave like a woman and to kill them; he (Satyendra) shouted for help; thereafter Shanu @ Jitendra fell down on the earth. Jagdish moved creeping outside the house; blood was oozing out of their bodies. Father of Jagdish also came there. Thereafter all the five persons fled away towards the temple. The incident is stated to have been seen by him (Satyendra-PW.15), Jagdish PW. 18 and his father Kalyan (PW. 13); thereafter the police vehicle also came there and both the persons were taken to the Hospital in the police jeep; and at the hospital the Doctor declared his brother i.e. Shanu @ Jitendra dead; Jagdish was admitted in the Hospital for treatment. 30. From the above report it is clear that five persons were named as accused, namely, Yusuf, Yasin, Bablu @ Babalia, Ricky Sardar @ Sukhbinder and Wahid Baig; three persons i.e. Satyendra Singh (PW. 15), Jagdish (PW. 18) and Kalyan (PW. 13) were named as the eye-witnesses. There is no other eye-witness to the incident. 31. We have examined the statements of all the three witnesses minutely. PW. 13 Kalyan, in his statement, before the court specifically stated that he did not see any quarrel of accused with Jagdish. He saw Jagdish as injured. From his statement, it is clear that he did not see the incident and he is not the eye-witness of the incident. In written-report (Ex.P.36) also it was mentioned that Kalyan, father of Jagdish, came subsequently. The trial Court has also observed that PW. 13 is not the eye-witness. Now two witnesses, namely, Satyendra Singh and Jagdish remained as the eye-witnesses of the incident. It is an admitted fact that Jagdish sustained injuries in this incident whereas Satyendra Singh did not sustain any injury, therefore, Jagdish is an injured eye witness. So far as PW.15 Satyendra Singh is concerned, he stated before the Court that on 7th August, 2001 at about 10.30 PM, he and his brother Shanu @ Jitendra were taking meal at the house of Jagdish; the door was knocked; Jagdish went to open the door and soon he opened the door accused Yusuf, Yasin, Bablu @ Babalia and Ricky Sardar entered the house; they were armed with swords, daggar and lathi. Bablu was armed with dag-ger, Yusuf and Yasin were armed with sword and Ricky was armed with 'lathi'. He also stated that Bablu @ Babalia inflicted a blow by dagger on the person of deceased, which caused an injury on the side of his chest. Yusuf inflicted a blow on the person of deceased which was landed on his head. Yasin also inflicted injury by sword on the person of deceased. Ricky @ Sukhbinder also inflicted `lathi' blow on the person of the deceased at his back. 32. So far as fifth accused i.e. Wahid Baig is concerned, PW. 15 Satyendra Singh, who is the informant and brother of the deceased and who gave the written-report (Exhibit P. 36) wherein the name of Wahid Baig was also mentioned by him, did not take his name in the statement recorded before the court; he identified only four accused persons except Wahid. The trial Court acquitted the accused Wahid in absence of any evidence. 33. So far as statement of PW. 18 Jagdish is concerned, he is a person who sustained injury in the occurrence. It was his house where the incident took place and he was also present there. The deceased Shanu @ Jitendra and PW. 15 Satyendra Singh were taking meal at his house. He stated before the Court that soon he opened the door he saw Bablu @ Babalia and Yusuf and two other persons to whom he did not recognize. He identified the accused Bablu and Yusuf in the Court, but so far as remaining two accused-persons Yasin and Ricky @ Sukhbinder are concerned, he did not identify them in the Court. After stating this fact by him that he does not know other remaining two persons except Bablu and Yusuf, he was declared hostile at the request of the Public Prosecutor. In his cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor, he stated that the names of Ricky and Yasin were told by him to police in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. at the instance of Satyendra Singh (PW. 15). He also stated that he took the name of two persons only before the police. In view of the above scrutiny of statement of two eye witnesses, namely, PW. 15 Satyendra Singh and PW. 18 Jagdish, it reveals that PW. 15). He also stated that he took the name of two persons only before the police. In view of the above scrutiny of statement of two eye witnesses, namely, PW. 15 Satyendra Singh and PW. 18 Jagdish, it reveals that PW. 15 Satyendra Singh earlier, in his written-report (Exhibit P. 36), took the name of five persons as accused but before the Court he took the name of four persons, who are appellants here in the present appeals and so far as PW. 18 Jagdish is concerned he took the name of only two accused persons, namely, Bablu @ Babalia and Yusuf and he refused to identify the remaining two accused-persons, namely, Yasin and Ricky, before the Court. 34. In these circumstances, now the question remains as to whether all the four accused-persons were present at the place of occurrence and participated in the crime in furtherance of common intention of all or only two accused-persons-Yusif and Bablu were present and they committed the crime and further who is responsible for Injury No. 2, which became fatal and whether another person can be held responsible for the offence under Section 34 of the IPC. 35. To decide the above question, we have examined the other evidence available on the record. Exhibit P. 40 is the postmortem-report of the deceased Shanu @ Jitendra. He sustained ten injuries. The external examination as well as injuries sustained by him are reproduced as under:- "EXTERNAL EXAMINATION 1. condition of body as regards muscularity, stoutness, emaciation, rigor mortis and decomposition:- Subject is averagely built and nourished. Rigor mortis present all over body P.M. Lividity present on back dependent parts. 2. Marks of identification, especially in the case of the body of an unknown persons:- Known body. 3. eyes:-Semi open, pupils dialated and fixed. 4. State of natural orifices, ears, nostrils, mouth, anus urethra, vagina:- Mouth semi open, tongue inside mouth. 5. Injuries. - natural exact position and measurements including direction especially in incised wounds:- Ante-mortem Injuries:- (1) Incised wound 3 x 1/2 cm x scalp deep on occipital scalp. (2) Stab wound 6 x 2 cm x cavity deep on Rt. Side of chest upper part. (3) Incised would 6 x 2 cm x muscle deep on Rt. Forearm L/3 antly. (4). Incised wounds (2 in No) 3 x 1 cm x muscle deep on medial side of Rt. Knee. (2) Stab wound 6 x 2 cm x cavity deep on Rt. Side of chest upper part. (3) Incised would 6 x 2 cm x muscle deep on Rt. Forearm L/3 antly. (4). Incised wounds (2 in No) 3 x 1 cm x muscle deep on medial side of Rt. Knee. (5) Incised wound 3 x 1/2 cm x muscle deep on Lt. Hand postly. (6) Incised wound 6 x 1/2 cm x muscle deep on Lt. Thenar eminence (7) Incised wound 1 x 1/4 cm x skin deep Lt. Knee medially. (8) Incised would 5 x 1/2 cm x skin deep Lt. Leg medially. (9) Scratch 12 cm long Rt. scapular region. (10) Scratch 15 cm long brow of Abdomen." 36. PW. 19 Dr. Ashok Mundra, who examined the body of deceased, specifically admitted that cause of death is shock a result of ante-mortem injury to arch of aorta, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He further admitted that except Injury No. 2, the other injuries were not sufficient to cause death. As per the statement of PW.15 Satydendra Singh as well as PW. 18 Jagdish, both eye witnesses, the Injury No. 2 on the person of the deceased was inflicted by accused Bablu @ Babalia. As per the contents of written-report (Exhibit P. 36) as well as the statement of PW. 15 Satyendra Singh before the Court, the allegation Satyendra Singh before the Court, the allegation against Ricky @ Sukhbinder is that he inflicted `lathi' blow on the person of deceased. The postmortem-report reveals that there was no injury inflicted on the person of deceased by `lathi' i.e. blunt object. PW. 19 Dr. Ashok Mundra has also stated that `lathi' is a blunt object and there was no injury found on the person of the deceased to have been caused by blunt object. Name of Ricky @ Sukhbinder as well as Yasin have also not been taken by the injured eye witness i.e. PW. 18 Jagdish. The statement of PW.15 Satyendra Singh in respect of involvement of accused Yusuf and Bablu @ Babalia, is corroborated by the statement of PW.18 Jagdish, the injured eye witness. So far as statement of PW.15 Satyendra Singh in respect of accused Yasin and Ricky @ Sukhbinder is concerned, the same is not corroborated by the statement of PW. 18 Jagdish. The statement of PW.15 Satyendra Singh in respect of involvement of accused Yusuf and Bablu @ Babalia, is corroborated by the statement of PW.18 Jagdish, the injured eye witness. So far as statement of PW.15 Satyendra Singh in respect of accused Yasin and Ricky @ Sukhbinder is concerned, the same is not corroborated by the statement of PW. 18 Jagdish and also by the medical-report as well as the statement of PW.19 Dr. Ashok Mundra. The statement of PW.15 Satyendra Singh is also not corroborated on the point of telephonic message by the statements of PW.16 Parwati and PW. 17 Smt. Santosh. In these circumstances, the statement of PW. 15 Satyendra is believable to the extent, it is corroborated with other evidence, but his sole testimony which is not corroborated with other witness and evidence can not be believed. Hence it is unsafe to convict accused Yasin and Ricky @ Sukhbinder on the basis of statement of PW.15 Satyendra along. The allegation regarding causing injury by accused Yusuf is proved from the statement of PW. 15 Satyendra Singh, PW. 18 Jagdish, PW. 19 Dr. Ashok Mundra, the medical-report etc. The accused Bablu gave information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act about weapon i.e. dagger used by him in the incident vide Exhibit P. 55, which was recovered at his instance and information, and the same was seized and sealed vide Exhibit P. 30 in presence of PW. 7 Rameshwar and PW. 8 Babulal, who have proved the same in the Court. Similarly, the accused Yusuf gave the information in respect of weapon i.e. sword used by him in the incident, under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, to PW. 22 ASI Anil Kumar and, in pursuance thereof, the sword was recovered, seized and sealed vide Exhibit P. 32 in presence of PW. 9 Harlal and PW. 10 Kundan, who have stated before the Court that in their presence the same was recovered. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that there is overwhelming evidence in the present case so far as accused-persons, namely, Bablu @ Babalia and Yusuf are concerned. 37. Now the question remains as to who inflicted the fatal blow and whether another person can be held responsible for the offence under Section 34 of the IPC. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that there is overwhelming evidence in the present case so far as accused-persons, namely, Bablu @ Babalia and Yusuf are concerned. 37. Now the question remains as to who inflicted the fatal blow and whether another person can be held responsible for the offence under Section 34 of the IPC. As discussed above, it is clear beyond reasonable doubt that the Injury No. 2, which was proved fatal, was inflicted by accused Bablu and his conviction under Section 302 IPC appears to be justified. So far as another accused Yusuf is concerned, it is clear that fatal injury was not inflicted by him, therefore, his conviction under Section 302 IPC simplicter is bad in law and cannot be allowed to be sustained. So far as evidence in respect of Section 34 IPC is concerned, from the above referred case laws it is clear that common intention has to be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case. It is proved beyond doubt that the incident took place at 10.00 PM in the night at the residence of Jagdish where informant injured and deceased were taking meal. The door was also closed. The accused persons knocked the door; Jagdish went to open the same; the accused-persons were armed with deadly weapon; soon the door was opened by Jagdish, accused Bablu inflicted injury on his body by dagger and thereby he sustained injury on his leg; accused Bablu @ Babalia inflicted another injury on the person of the deceased Shanu @ litendra; thereafter the accused Yusuf also inflicted sword blow on the person of deceased. In these circumstances, the common intention of both the accused-persons was there to commit the present crime. In these circumstances, the accused Yusuf is also liable to be convicted under Section 302 with the aid of Section 34 IPC. 38. So far as submission of the learned counsel for the accused regarding statement under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. is concerned, it is sufficient to mention that object of Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. is to give an opportunity to the accused to explain in respect of evidence came on the record against him. It is not necessary that a specific Section is required to be mentioned in the statement. It is not necessary that a specific Section is required to be mentioned in the statement. If facts narrating the ingredients of the offence have been mentioned in any manner then it fulfills the condition and the appellant cannot get any benefit out of it. 39. So far as offence under Section 452 IPC is concerned, the above discussion makes it clear that the same is fully proved beyond any reasonable doubt against both the accused-persons Bablu @ Babalia and Yusuf and the order passed by the trial Court in this regard is perfectly justified and no interference in it is called for. 40. In view of the above discussions, it is clear that the presence of accused-appellants Yasin and Ricky Sardar @ Sukhbinder becomes doubtful and the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against them beyond all reasonable doubts and, as such, they are entitled to be acquitted from the charges levelled against them. The trial Court committed an illegality in convicting and sentencing them as stated above. 41. So far as offence under Section 324 IPC is concerned, the same is proved to have been committed by accused Bablu and, as such, he is also liable to be convicted for the said offence. 42. In view of the above discussions, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court against accused-appellants Yasin and Ricky @ Sukhbinder u/Secs. 302, 302/34, 452, 324 and 324/34 IPC are set-aside. The conviction and sentence passed against accused-appellants Bablu @ Babalia under Sections 302, 452 and 324 IPC are maintained. The conviction against accused Yusuf under Section 302 IPC is set-aside and he is convicted under Section 302 with the aid of Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo the imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1000/-; in default, to further undergo one month's additional RI. The conviction of accused Yusuf under Section 324 IPC is set-aside, but his conviction and sentence under Section 452 IPC are maintained. 43. Consequent upon acquittal of Ricky @ Sukhbinder from all the charges, the application moved on his behalf by the learned counsel, under Section 6(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 has become in fructuous and the same is also dismissed as such. 44. Accused Ricky @ Sukhbinder is on bail and, as such, his bail bonds stand discharged. 45. 44. Accused Ricky @ Sukhbinder is on bail and, as such, his bail bonds stand discharged. 45. The accused appellant Yasin is in custody, therefore, it is directed that he be set at liberty forthwith, if his custody is not required in any other case. 46. Both the appeals stand disposed of in the manner indicated above.