JUDGMENT Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Appellants, namely, Manua @ Puran, Ramu, Mathu @ Jagdish, all real brothers, who have been convicted under Section 304/34 IPC by the learned Sessions Judge, Dehradun vide his judgment and order dated 23.9.2002, passed in Sessions Trial No. 86/1997, have preferred this appeal. For the said offence, each one of them has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of rupees two thousand. In default of payment of fine, further six months’ rigorous imprisonment has been imposed. 2. The alleged incident happened in the intervening night of 12/13.2.1997 at about 10.45 pm. Fifteen days prior to the incident, deceased Padam Singh, aged 34 years, had sold a watch to Manua @ Puran for Rs. 500/-. Eventually, the accused Manua did not like the watch. So, he went to the house of Padam Singh, which was in the close vicinity of his own residence, and asked him to take his watch back. Thereafter he went back. Immediately after sometime, Padam Singh came to the house of the accused persons, and this small issue turned into altercations, which ultimately escalated into the scuffle. All three accused persons began to assault Padam Singh and finally pushed him forcibly into an empty canal situated at the back of the deceased. As stated in the FIR, one of the accused Mathu @ Jagdish gave a blow of heavy stone on the head of Padam Singh, who had fallen down in a blank canal, and thus made him mortally wounded. After committing the crime, all the accused persons took to their heels from the spot. Padam Singh became badly injured. On noticing the incident, his father Roop Singh Shahi along with his son-in-law Ramesh Chand Chhetri came there. They shifted the severely injured Padam Singh to the Doon Hospital, but soon after the latter succumbed to his injuries. 3. FIR Ex. A-1 was lodged by Roop Singh Shahi (PW2) in the same intervening night at 1.15 hours. Chick report is Ex. A-5. The inquest report Ex. A-8 was prepared in the mortuary of Doon Hospital. Inquest proceedings commenced at 9 am and continued till 11.30 am. All the witnesses of inquest opined that the cause of death is the injuries suffered by the deceased. Post-mortem was conducted by PW6 Dr. Chick report is Ex. A-5. The inquest report Ex. A-8 was prepared in the mortuary of Doon Hospital. Inquest proceedings commenced at 9 am and continued till 11.30 am. All the witnesses of inquest opined that the cause of death is the injuries suffered by the deceased. Post-mortem was conducted by PW6 Dr. B.L. Verma on the same day i.e. on 13.2.1997 at 3.30 pm and thereafter he prepared the post-mortem report Ex. A-4. He noted following ante mortem injuries on the dead body of the deceased: (i) Lacerated wound 17 cm x 5 cm x brain cavity deep on front & middle of skull & forehead and face between two eyes with compound comminuted fracture of underlying bone. (ii) Lacerated wound 4 cm x 1.5 cm x bone deep on outer side of face, just lateral to left eye. (iii) Lacerated wound 3.5 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on occipital region of skull. In the opinion of the doctor, the patient died almost a day back due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injuries. 4. Police recovered the bloodstained stone from the canal on 13.2.1997 itself. Recovery memo of the same is Ex. A-2, which has been proved by PW5 Ramesh Kumar. Site plan of the place of occurrence has also been proved as Ex. A-14 by the Investigation Officer S.I. K.L. Bharadwaj (PW9), who after completion of the investigation, had submitted the chargesheet Ex. A-16 against all the three named accused for the offence of Section 304 IPC. Learned Sessions Judge, accordingly, framed the charge against the accused persons and proceeded with the trial. 5. PW1 Vijay Singh, an eyewitness, did not name any of the three charged accused persons, rather he named another person Kale @ Kalu as the real assailant. So, on the application moved under Section 319 CrPC, the Court summoned Kale @ Kalu and levelled the charge under Section 304/34 IPC against him. Consequently, PW1 Vijay Singh was again summoned and thereafter his evidence was completed. 6. PW2 Roop Singh Shahi, father of the deceased, is an eyewitness and also the informant of the incident. PW3 Ramesh Chand Chhetri is another eyewitness. PW4 Smt. Neema Shahi is also an eyewitness. PW5 Ramesh Kumar was present at the time of recovery of bloodstained stone. Consequently, PW1 Vijay Singh was again summoned and thereafter his evidence was completed. 6. PW2 Roop Singh Shahi, father of the deceased, is an eyewitness and also the informant of the incident. PW3 Ramesh Chand Chhetri is another eyewitness. PW4 Smt. Neema Shahi is also an eyewitness. PW5 Ramesh Kumar was present at the time of recovery of bloodstained stone. PW7 Head Constable Chandra Mohan Singh and PW8 Constable Subhash Chandra are formal witnesses, who respectively recorded the FIR and was a witness of inquest. 7. DW1 Mohan, DW2 Vijendra Kumar and DW3 Moti Lal have been examined at the instance and in the defence of newly added accused Kale. Learned Trial Court, after conclusion of the trial, extended the benefit of doubt to this accused Kale and absolved him from the charge, but convicted rest of the three accused persons (appellants), against whom the chargesheet was submitted by the police, and sentenced each one of them as aforementioned. 8. Learned Counsel for the appellants has argued that the main accused is Kale @ Kalu, who has committed this crime, and at the most, some role (if any) can be assigned to the co-accused Mathu @ Jagdish, who is said to have given a blow of stone on the head of the deceased. Role of other two accused persons, namely, Ramu and Manua @ Puran is limited only to the extent of scuffling with Padam Singh (deceased), which can be widened only to the extent of beating. So, they cannot be held guilty for the offence of Section 304 read with Section 34 IPC. 9. Learned Counsel for the appellants relied upon the following three precedents: (i) Kuldip Singh & Another v. State of Punjab, 1994 CRI. L.J. 2201. (ii) Fulchand Gope & Another v. State of Jharkhand, (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 614. (iii) Ravindra @ Addu & two others v. State of Uttaranchal, decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 28.6.2012 in Criminal Appeal No. 357 of 2003. 10. Having perused all these precedents, relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellants, this Court is of the opinion that none of them is applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. Moreover, in my opinion, facts of any two criminal cases can hardly be squarely identical. 10. Having perused all these precedents, relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellants, this Court is of the opinion that none of them is applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. Moreover, in my opinion, facts of any two criminal cases can hardly be squarely identical. In all these three referred cases, the main assailant, who inflicted the fatal blow on the deceased, was convicted under Section 304 IPC, while his other companions, who had either given blows from lathi on the shoulder or had only pelted some stones, were exonerated by the Hon’ble Apex Court simply for the reason that those co-accused persons did not give any fatal blow to the deceased. If the blow of lathi is made on the shoulder or few small stones are thrown on the victim by such co-accused persons, then their intention cannot be said to be of the same nature which was of the main accused, who gave the deadly blow on the head of the deceased. This was the rationale propounded by the Hon’ble Apex Court and other courts in order to distinguish such type of cases. 11. Here, in the instant case, the facts are somewhat different. Kale @ Kalu, who was summoned later by the trial court under Section 319 CrPC, was not named in the FIR. His name was taken for the first time by PW1 Vijay Singh in his testimony. I completely agree with the finding of acquittal of this accused Kale by the trial court. It is well established on the record that the accused Kale was named by PW1 Vijay Singh on account of his enmity which he nurtured against him due to pendency of some criminal litigation between them. Vijay Singh also happened to be the neighbour of all the three named accused persons, while the deceased used to reside, though in the vicinity but not as close as Vijay Singh. Name of Kale was not adverted by any of the witnesses including PW2 Roop Singh Shahi and PW3 Ramesh Chand Chhetri while making the statements before the Investigation Officer under Section 161 CrPC, which were recorded by the police soon after the incident. So, naming of Kale @ Kalu was totally an afterthought and out of personal grudge and acrimony. Hence, the learned trial court has rightly exonerated Kale @ Kalu from the charge levelled against him. So, naming of Kale @ Kalu was totally an afterthought and out of personal grudge and acrimony. Hence, the learned trial court has rightly exonerated Kale @ Kalu from the charge levelled against him. 12. Now, the question remains whether only Mathu @ Jagdish is responsible for the crime or rest of the accused persons are also accountable for the same? It is a settled principle of law that FIR is not the embodiment of all minute details. So, scribing the role of Mathu @ Jagdish of giving the blow by a stone in FIR, which was lodged promptly, is not sufficient to prove the innocence of rest of the accused persons. The incident was of night (about 10.45 pm) and the evidence discloses the presence of light of an electric bulb only. So, in these circumstances, it was not possible to notice each and every minute details from a distance of about 50-60 paces. The site map Ex. A-14 manifests that house of the deceased is at about 60 paces from the place of occurrence, and hearing the noise of quarrel when Smt. Neema Shahi informed her father-in-law Roop Singh Shahi, he along with his son-in-law Ramesh Chand Chhetri came out from his residence and witnessed the incident that all these three accused persons were quarrelling and assaulting the deceased. Consequently, they rushed to the spot while watching this crime. Meanwhile, the deceased was forcibly pushed into an empty canal, which was situated at his back. So, it was quite natural on the part of PW2 Roop Singh Shahi, PW3 Ramesh Chand Chhetri and PW4 Smt. Neema Shahi in their failure to notice each and every minute action performed by the three accused while committing this crime. All they could notice is that accused/appellants pushed the deceased into the canal and then gave blow from a heavy stone. 13. Furthermore, all the three injuries could not be caused by one stone. Injury no. (2), mentioned supra, can be caused by a blow of stone, which could have been inflicted by rest of the two accused persons i.e. Ramu or Manua @ Puran. At the most, injury no. (3), which was on the occipital region of the head, could be presumed to have caused on account of falling down of the deceased on the hard substance present inside the canal. At the most, injury no. (3), which was on the occipital region of the head, could be presumed to have caused on account of falling down of the deceased on the hard substance present inside the canal. It is a settled principle of law that when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all and it is not explicit as to which of the accused has caused a particular injury (injury no. 2), then each of such accused persons is liable for that criminal act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone. 14. The fact that only one bloodstained stone was recovered from the spot by the Investigation Officer is not enough to absolve rest of the two accused persons from the crime because it might be just possible that by the time the Investigation Officer reached at the spot to recover the bloodstained stones and soil, the stone by which the 2nd injury was inflicted might have been removed by the accused persons or it could have inadvertently escaped the notice of the police. It can also be possible that the Investigation Officer was not so meticulous as to recover all the stones present inside the canal after taking into account the number of injuries suffered by the victim. So, this is quite a shallow argument, and only for this reason, this Court is not inclined to absolve the other co-accused persons. 15. Ocular version of PW2 Roop Singh Shahi, PW3 Ramesh Chand Chhetri and PW4 Smt. Neema Shahi is enough to prove that these accused persons, with common intention to commit this crime, assaulted the deceased Padam Singh and pushed him forcibly in an empty canal and lateron gave blows of stone as to cause severe injuries on the vital parts of the deceased which proved fatal to him. Undoubtedly, they did not have common intention to commit the culpable homicide amounting to murder. But at the same time, the act done by them is covered by the definition of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and they all had a common intention to commit this crime. So, the trial court has rightly punished the accused/appellants for the said offence. 16. I do not find any merit in this appeal. Consequently, it is hereby dismissed. So, the trial court has rightly punished the accused/appellants for the said offence. 16. I do not find any merit in this appeal. Consequently, it is hereby dismissed. Conviction and sentence awarded to the accused appellants are hereby affirmed. Impugned judgment and order dated 23.9.2002, passed by the Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Sessions Trial No. 86/1997 is upheld. Appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled. They shall be forthwith taken into custody to serve out the sentence. 17. Let a copy of this judgment and order be sent to the trial court for its compliance. Lower court record be also sent back.