Dharnidhar Jha, Pankaj Naqvi, J.;— 1. We have heard Sri Sunil Kumar on the admission of the present appeal, filed by the informant against judgment dated 13.8.2013 passed in Session Trials No. 464, 482 and 481, all of year 2012, by which the two respondents were acquitted of the charge under Section 302/34 IPC. 2. The prosecution case in short was that, while the deceased and his son were going to attend the court proceedings on 20.12.2011 and when they had reached near the culvert on the road, he found the four accused persons including the two respondents standing there. As soon as the informant and his son Ram Tomar reached near the accused persons, convicted accused Yogesh fired a shot at Ravi, the son of the informant, which hit him in his temple and he fell down, upon which the other convicted accused Mukesh fired a shot upon his head and that also hit and injured Ravi. 3. The learned trial Judge has considered many aspects of the case under different heads, which are spread over the pages of the impugned judgment and as regards the two respondents, it has been held that the respondent Hanuman was helping Mahesh in the case going on in a court against the informant and his son for the murder of the son of respondent Mahesh and this was the reason for his implication. So far as respondent Naresh is concerned, the admitted position is that he had deposed against injured Ravi Tomar in the same proceedings, which he and his father were going to attend and, as such, it was a false implication of respondent Naresh. 4. We have considered the evidence of the informant and the injured, which have been discussed by the learned trial Judge and what we find is that the two witnesses, the injured and his father, were contradicting to each other. While injured Ravi Tomar did not state that any overt act was done by anyone except that the shot was fired, firstly, by Yogesh and then by Mahesh, his father, the informant, was stating that they had all surrounded the injured and then the shots were fired. 5. The learned trial Judge was finding that there was no evidence, showing that the two respondents had acted in furtherance of the common intention after having shared the common intention. 6. 5. The learned trial Judge was finding that there was no evidence, showing that the two respondents had acted in furtherance of the common intention after having shared the common intention. 6. We propose to point out that the charge was with aid of Section 34 IPC. The prosecution has to show that there was some sort of meeting of mind by way of conspiracy when they could have decided to do a particular act in furtherance of that particular decision. This is why the courts always emphasized the prosecution to lead evidence, if not directly by circumstances that, the accused persons had acted in concert and then had delivered the decision into action through any particular accused, who could have committed the main act. We also want to point out that the conspiratorial part of sharing the common intention and acting in furtherance thereof, could not be proved by direct acceptable evidence, because these are the aspects mental in nature and it could be the accused persons, who could be knowing about it and the prosecution could be hard pressed to lead evidence on it. In that view of the matter, what has convinced us is that if the evidence was lacking on the sharing of the common intention, which could be deduced only from some words spoken or acts done, the court below could not be faulted for having fallen in error and the judgment impugned, could not be said to be perverse. 7. We have already noted the evidence of the two witnesses and the contradiction thereof, which appears in their evidence for doing any act, indicating that they had acted in furtherance of the common intention. What we further find is that the evidence was unsatisfactory to convince us that the two respondents could also have shared the common intention and in pursuance whereof the main act had been done by the two convicted persons. 8. The appeal lacks merit and, as such, the application seeking leave of the Court to appeal is refused. The appeal is dismissed. _____________