JUDGMENT Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 8th September, 1987, passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura whereby all the appellants were held guilty under Section 302 /34 I.P.C. and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and Mrs. Meena, learned A.G.A. representing the State and have perused the record. 3. The factual matrix of the case as unfurled during the trial is that on 26.07.1986 at about 10.20 A.M. when the informant Shivcharan along with his cousin brother Chandan Singh was going to his work place and reached near Roti Godown, Krishna Puri, they saw the appellants Sugreev, Pappu and Ram Singh, having previous enmity, standing on the road. The appellants Sugreev and Pappu were armed with country made pistols and appellant Ram Singh was standing there with a motorcycle having its engine on. Seeing them the informant and his brother turned around and tried to run away. Meanwhile, the appellant Sugreev fired on them with an intention to kill them. The fire hit at the back of Chandan Singh. Just after that, the appellant Pappu made another fire which hit at the right temporal region of Chandan Singh as a result of which he fell down and died on the spot. After committing the murder of Chandan Singh, both the appellants Sugreev and Pappu ran away on the motorcycle of appellant Ram Singh, which he had already kept started. The occurrence was witnessed by the brother-in-law of the informant (another Pappu) and witnesses Bhagwan Das and Gyan Singh. The motive behind the occurrence was also mentioned by the informant in the F.I.R. to the effect that there was personal enmity between them in connection with a criminal case in which the informant and Chandan Singh were witnesses. It has been alleged by the prosecution that after the appellants Sugreev and Pappu were released on bail in the aforesaid case, they put pressure on informant Shivcharan not to appear as witness in that case, but Shivcharan not only refused to oblige them rather he stated that he would definitely state in the Court whatever he had seen and he would speak only the truth in the Court. The F.I.R. of the case was lodged promptly at 11.45 A.M. on the same day. The F.I.R. of the case was lodged promptly at 11.45 A.M. on the same day. The occurrence has taken place at 10.20 A.M. and the distance of police station is one and a half kilometers from the place of occurrence i.e. Roti Godown. The investigation of the case was taken up by S.I. Ram Pratap Singh, who immediately rushed to the scene of occurrence along with S.I. Mahendra Singh Yadav and other police force. S.I. Mahendra Singh Yadav conducted the inquest and prepared the inquest report. He also prepared other connected papers and sent the dead body of deceased Chandan Singh for post mortem. The post mortem on the dead body of the deceased was conducted by Dr. P.C. Sharma of Civil Hospital, Mathura. The I.O. recorded the statement of witnesses, collected blood stained and plain earth from the place of occurrence, prepared the site plan and after completion of investigation submitted the charge sheet against all the three appellants. 4. A charge under section 302/34 I.P.C. was framed against all the three accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. The prosecution in order to prove its case, produced seven witnesses in all, out of which only two witnesses were witness of fact and the remaining witnesses were of formal nature. 6. PW-1 is Shivcharan, who is the informant and an eyewitness of the occurrence. PW-2 is Gyan Singh, who has also been produced as an eyewitness of the occurrence. 7. Both these witnesses have corroborated the prosecution version of the case. PW-3 is Head Constable Mehrajuddin, who is scribe of check report (Ex.Ka-2) and corresponding G.D. (Ex.Ka-3), PW-4 is S.I. Mahendra Singh Yadav, who is the I.O. of this case. PW-5 is Dr. P.C. Sharma, who has conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. PW-6 is Constable Ram Kumar, who has taken the dead body of the deceased for post mortem examination and PW-7 is S.I. Ram Pratap Singh, who is the second I.O. Of this case, who was present at the police station when the case was registered. He has recovered a pistol from the house of appellant Ram Singh and has submitted the charge sheet against all the appellants. 8. He has recovered a pistol from the house of appellant Ram Singh and has submitted the charge sheet against all the appellants. 8. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of all the appellants were recorded in which they denied the allegations and alleged their false implication due to enmity. Accusedppellant Sugreev stated that the case relating to firing on Mahavir Singh, in which the complainant Shivcharan and his brother were eyewitnesses had ended in acquittal as the injured Mahavir Singh did not give any evidence against him. To the contrary, Mahavir filed an affidavit in the Court exonerating the appellants. Accusedppellant Ram Singh stated that he had purchased a shop in which PW-2 Gyan Singh was a tenant and was using that shop to run his tea stall. Since after purchasing such shop he got him (Gyan Singh) evicted from the said shop. He felt inimical towards him and got him falsely implicated in the present case. 9. In their defence, the accused appellants examined two defence witnesses DW-1 Chandra Prakash, Judicial Assistant Collectorate, Mathura and DW-2 Mool Chandra, Revenue Assistant III Collectorate, Mathura. 10. Both these defence witnesses were produced by the appellants in proof of the fact that the special report in this case was not sent to the concerned Magistrate within time. 11. Two court witnesses have also been examined in this case. They are Constable Vedprakash (CW-1) and Jagdish Chandra Sharma, Clerk Collectorate, Mathura (CW-2). Both these court witnesses have stated about the special report of the present case being taken by them for delivery to the concerned authorities. CW-1 has stated that after delivery of special report to the concerned authorities, he took their signatures on the receipt. CW-2 has also corroborated the statement of CW-1 by deposing that after receiving the special report he made an entry of the same in register. 12. Learned court below after appreciating the evidence produced by both the parties and after a detailed discussion of the arguments advanced from both sides, found the appellants guilty for the offence under section 302/34 I.P.C. and convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid. 13. 12. Learned court below after appreciating the evidence produced by both the parties and after a detailed discussion of the arguments advanced from both sides, found the appellants guilty for the offence under section 302/34 I.P.C. and convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid. 13. The legality and the correctness of the aforesaid judgment of conviction has been challenged in this appeal by learned counsel for the appellants on the following grounds: - 1.The conviction of the appellants is against the weight of evidence on record and against the law. 2.All the prosecution witnesses are highly interested witnesses. 3.The prosecution has failed to prove the motive behind the occurrence. 4.The medical evidence in this case does no coincide with the ocular version of the occurrence. 5.The special report of this case was not sent to the concerned authorities within time which shows that the F.I.R. of this case has not been lodged at the time as stated by prosecution and the F.I.R. is ante timed and ante dated. 6.There are only two witnesses in this case out of which the presence of PW-2 Gyan Singh on the spot at the time of occurrence is doubtful and he is a chance witness. 7.The statement of witnesses suffer from material contradictions, discrepancies, embellishments and omissions making the prosecution case doubtful. 8.The learned trial judge without considering the aforesaid facts, has illegally and arbitrarily convicted the appellants on the basis of surmises and conjectures. 14. Before dealing with the issues canvassed, it is considered expedient to have a bird's eye view on the statements of relevant prosecution witnesses. 15. PW-1, the informant Shivcharan, has given a detailed version of the case as mentioned in the F.I.R.. He has stated that he and his brother were eyewitness in a criminal case lodged earlier against Sugreev, Pappu, his brother Subhash and some others and after sometime when Sugreev and Pappu were released on bail they started putting pressure on him not to give evidence in the aforesaid case, but he refused to do so. Deceased Chandan Singh was his cousin brother. Both of them were working as driver in Public Works Department. He has further stated that on the day of occurrence, they were going to their office situated at Krishna Puri and when they reached near Roti Godown, they saw all the three accused persons. Deceased Chandan Singh was his cousin brother. Both of them were working as driver in Public Works Department. He has further stated that on the day of occurrence, they were going to their office situated at Krishna Puri and when they reached near Roti Godown, they saw all the three accused persons. PW-1 was going one or one and a half paces behind Chandan Singh. Seeing the accused persons they immediately turned around and tried to run backwards. The accused Sugreev immediately opened fire which hit on the back of deceased Chandan Singh. Thereafter, accused Pappu opened fire which hit on the right temporal region of Chandan Singh. His brother Chandan Singh died on the spot. He wrote a report of the occurrence and went to police station to lodge it. 16. PW-1 has been cross examined at length by the defence side and during his cross examination he has stated about one more case under Sections 107, 116 Cr.P.C. between the parties in which deceased Chandan Singh was a witness. 17. PW-2 Gyan Singh has corroborated the statement of PW-1 Shivcharan in material particulars. He has stated that on the date and time of occurrence he was going towards the market to buy some wheat from Mandi. When he reached at the crossing he saw accused Ram Singh standing there with a motorcycle having its engine on. The accused Sugreev and Pappu were also standing there with country made pistols in their hands. Seeing Chandan Singh and Shivcharan accused Sugreev fired shot on Chandan Singh, who managed to run 8 to 10 paces after receiving gun shot injury on his back, thereafter, accused Pappu fired the second shot which also hit Chandan Singh at his temporal region as a result of which he fell down and died. 18. A careful analysis of statements of both the prosecution witnesses shows that their statements find corroboration not only with each other but also with the post mortem report (Ex.Ka-17) prepared by PW-5 Dr. P.C. Sharma, according to which following ante mortem injuries were found on the body of Chandan Singh at the time of post mortem: - Gun shot wound of entry 9cm x 3cm x brain cavity deep on right temporal area including right ear. Right ear is attached only with tego of skin. Margins are lacerated and inverted. P.C. Sharma, according to which following ante mortem injuries were found on the body of Chandan Singh at the time of post mortem: - Gun shot wound of entry 9cm x 3cm x brain cavity deep on right temporal area including right ear. Right ear is attached only with tego of skin. Margins are lacerated and inverted. Abrasion 2cm x 1cm on left side chin 4cm below angle of mouth. Gun shot wound of entry 5cm x 2cm x abdominal cavity deep on right side back 13 cm below inferior angel of scapula. It is just lateral to mid line. Tattooing present around the wound. 19. In the opinion of the doctor the aforesaid injuries were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death of Chandan Singh. The doctor (PW-5) has further stated that from the body of the deceased a conical bullet and two flattened metallic pieces of bullet were recovered which were sealed and handed over to the police. 20. Learned counsel for the appellants has tried to assail the credibility of prosecution case by vehemently arguing that the recovery of conical bullet with two flattened metallic pieces makes the prosecution case unreliable with regard to the weapon alleged to be used in the occurrence is concerned. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the prosecution case is that at the time of firing appellant Sugreev as well as appellant Pappu (the assailant) were armed with country made pistols, but the statement of PW-5 Dr. P.C. Sharma clearly shows that the bullet founds from inside the body of the deceased could not be of a 12 bore gun or of Katta, but it could be of a revolver, pistol or a rifle. 21. Per contra, learned A.G.A. Km. Meena has contested the aforesaid argument by arguing that the country made pistol and the bullets used in country made pistols have not any definite character, shape and size hence what to say about a layman, even a ballistic expert is unable to draw any definite conclusion about the shape, size and velocity of a country made pistol. Meena has contested the aforesaid argument by arguing that the country made pistol and the bullets used in country made pistols have not any definite character, shape and size hence what to say about a layman, even a ballistic expert is unable to draw any definite conclusion about the shape, size and velocity of a country made pistol. Learned A.G.A. has contended that both the prosecution witnesses are rustic villagers having no idea regarding the distinction between a pistol and a Katta and if they have used the word Katta in their evidence, it does not mean that it rules out the possibility of the appellants having pistols with them. Often a country made pistol and an authentic pistol have the same look and a layman cannot distinguish between them in fleeting moments of incident. Moreover, PW-5 Dr. P.C. Sharma is also not a ballistic expert hence the entire prosecution case cannot be discarded merely on the statement of PW-5 the doctor who is not even a ballistic expert, that the bullet recovered from inside the body of deceased could not be of a country made pistol. 22. We find force in the arguments advanced by learned A.G.A. The facts of case clearly show that the deceased Chandan Singh was going ahead of the informant Shivcharan and after seeing the armed assailants both of them tried to run away from the spot turning towards back. Naturally, when the appellants would have fired on them, the deceased Chandan Singh who was going ahead of Shivcharan had sustained gun shot injury on his back. The second shot also hit his temporal region he being running behind Shivcharan. The witnesses have stated that the appellant Sugreev fired at the deceased from a close range and his shot hit the deceased on his back, whereas appellant Pappu fired a second shot from a longer range as by that time the deceased had moved 10 or 15 paces ahead, which the deceased sustained on his temporal region. The testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 finds full corroboration with the statement of Dr. P.C. Sharma (PW-5) and also with the description of ante mortem injuries in the post mortem report, which shows that the injury on the back of the deceased had tattooing and blackening around it whereas there was no blackening or tattooing on the injury sustained by the deceased on his temporal region. 23. P.C. Sharma (PW-5) and also with the description of ante mortem injuries in the post mortem report, which shows that the injury on the back of the deceased had tattooing and blackening around it whereas there was no blackening or tattooing on the injury sustained by the deceased on his temporal region. 23. The learned trial court has also expressed the same view and we find no illegality or perversity in the aforesaid view of the trial court. Accordingly, we hold that there is no discrepancy between the medical and ocular evidence. So far as the argument regarding the presence of PW-2 on the spot is concerned. It has been argued by learned counsel for the appellants that PW-2 is a chance witness and his presence on the spot is doubtful. However, in view of the fact that PW-2 lives at Roti Godown, which is the place of occurrence, there does not appear any substance in the aforesaid argument and we hold that PW-2 is a natural witness. Moreover, he has no motive to falsely implicate the accused Sugreev and Pappu. Learned counsel for the appellants has tried to assail the credibility of this witness by pointing out that if PW-2 (Gyan Singh) had in fact seen the occurrence what was the reason that the I.O. did not record his statement immediately on the spot, but his statement was recorded with a delay of few hours. 24. We do not find any force in the aforesaid argument. The statement of PW-2 Gyan Singh has been recorded by the I.O. on the same day of occurrence and PW-2 himself has explained the reason for this delay by stating that he was going to purchase wheat from Mandi when the occurrence took place. After the occurrence, he went to the Mandi and when he returned from the Mandi, he was interrogated by the I.O. 25. The statements of both these witnesses find full support and corroboration with the F.I.R., site plan, inquest report, post mortem report, recovery memo of blood stained and simple earth and their statement as a whole inspire confidence. Besides some minor contradictions and omissions, which are natural to occur if a witness is not tutored only, there does not appear any material contradiction in their deposition so as to discredit the prosecution's case. 26. Besides some minor contradictions and omissions, which are natural to occur if a witness is not tutored only, there does not appear any material contradiction in their deposition so as to discredit the prosecution's case. 26. The law in this regard has been well settled by a catena of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court that minor discrepancy of trivial matters which does not touch the core of the case should not be given undue importance by the courts while appreciating the evidence of a witness because even honest and truthful witness may defer while deposing the incident because the power of observation, retention and reproduction defer with individuals. The approach must be whether the evidence of the witness has a ring of truth in it or not. If the evidence is found generally reliable, minor discrepancies and technical errors should be ignored. 27. It has been vehemently argued on behalf of the appellants that both the witnesses are inimical to appellants. PW-2 Gyan Singh has admitted in his cross examination that the shop in which he used to sell tea was purchased by Ram Singh and he had to vacate the said shop. The argument raised on behalf of the appellants is that since the shop was purchased by appellant Ram Singh, PW-2 Gyan Singh had a greater motive to falsely depose against the appellant Ram Singh. 28. We do not find any force in the above submission. There is no evidence on record to show that any litigation took place between the appellant Ram Singh and Gyan Singh over the vacation of the said shop. PW-2 Gyan Singh has categorically stated that he voluntarily gave possession of the shop to appellant Ram Singh because he was not earning much from the said shop. Simply for the reason that the said shop was purchased by the appellant Ram Singh of which previously PW-2 Gyan Singh was a tenant, it cannot be assumed that PW-2 Gyan Singh would falsely depose against the appellants. 29. Much stress has been laid by learned counsel for the appellants on the point that special report in this case has not been sent to the authorities concerned within time, which makes the prosecution case with regard to time of lodging the FIR wholly doubtful. 29. Much stress has been laid by learned counsel for the appellants on the point that special report in this case has not been sent to the authorities concerned within time, which makes the prosecution case with regard to time of lodging the FIR wholly doubtful. Learned counsel for the appellants in this regard, has placed reliance on the Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of Arjun Marik v. State of Bihar 1994 Law Suit (SC) 290, in which it has been held that sending of special report forthwith is mandatory under section 157 Cr.P.C. and mere note in the F.I.R. itself that report was dispatched by Special Messenger is not enough. 30. The above cited case cannot help the present appellants because the facts here are entirely different. In the aforesaid case of Arjun Marik, there was no evidence on record that the special report was sent forthwith to the concerned Magistrate, but to the contrary there was evidence that the special report was sent on 22.07.1985 whereas the FIR was registered on 20.07.1985 and in the aforesaid case learned counsel appearing for the State had submitted at bar before the Apex Court that since 20.07.1985 and 21.07.1985 were Saturday and Sunday, the report was sent on Monday i.e. on 22.07.1985 to the authorities. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court observed that the special report should be sent to concerned authorities immediately without any delay irrespective of the fact that it is Sunday or Saturday. 31. So far as the case in hand is concerned, there is ample evidence on record that the special report has been sent promptly in this case. PW-3 Head Constable Mehrajuddin has proved G.D. Entry No.22 and has stated that special report was sent on 26.07.1986 (the day of occurrence) at 12.15 P.M. through Constable Vedprakash, who returned to police station at 6.05 P.M. after delivering the special report to the concerned authorities. The copies of G.D. entries recording the aforesaid facts are available on record as Ex.Ka-4 and Ex.Ka-5. Moreover, the two court witnesses have also clearly stated that as it was Sunday the special report was sent at the residence of D.M.. 32. Moreover, Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena of judgments has reiterated the law that the delay in sending the special report to the concerned authorities may by itself not render the whole case of the prosecution as doubtful. 32. Moreover, Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena of judgments has reiterated the law that the delay in sending the special report to the concerned authorities may by itself not render the whole case of the prosecution as doubtful. In Alla China Apparao & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2002 SC 3648 , it has been held by the Apex Court that the expression ‘forthwith’ within the meaning of Section 157(1) obviously cannot mean that the prosecution is required to explain every hour’s delay in sending the first information report to the Magistrate. In Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh, AIR 2003 SC 1164 , it has been held that sending of special report of occurrence to the Magistrate within two hours and twenty minutes after lodging of F.I.R. cannot be said to be delayed sending of report. In Mahmood vs State of U.P. 2008 Criminal Law Journal 696 (Supreme Court), it has been observed by the Apex Court as under: - “It is not possible to lay down any universal rule as to within what time the special report is required to be dispatched by the Station House Officer after recording the F.I.R.. Each case turns on its own facts.” 33. Learned A.G.A. has placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Ravi Kumar vs State Of Punjab decided on 4 March, 2005, in which the supreme court has observed as under: - “Sending the copy of the special report to the Magistrate as required under Section 157 of the Cr.P.C. is the only external check on the working of the police agency, imposed by law which is required to be strictly followed. The delay in sending the copy of the FIR may by itself not render the whole of the case of the prosecution as doubtful but shall put the court on guard to find out as to whether the version as stated in the Court was the same version as earlier reported in the FIR or was the result of deliberations involving some other persons who were actually not involved in the commission of the crime. Immediate sending of the report mentioned in Section 157 Cr.P.C. is the mandate of law. Delay wherever found is required to be explained by the prosecution. If the delay is reasonably explained, no adverse inference can be drawn….” 34. Immediate sending of the report mentioned in Section 157 Cr.P.C. is the mandate of law. Delay wherever found is required to be explained by the prosecution. If the delay is reasonably explained, no adverse inference can be drawn….” 34. The next argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellants regarding interestedness of the witnesses also appears to be baseless in view of the well settled legal position that version of an eyewitness cannot be discarded merely on the ground that such eyewitness happened to be a relative or friend of the deceased. (Shyam Babu v. State of UP (2012) 8 SCC 651 ). 35. There is abundant authority in favour of the legal proposition that minor contradictions, improvements and omissions should not be given undue weightage because these are natural and likely to occur in the statement of a witness if he or she has not been tutored. In State of Rajasthan v. Abdul Mannan, (2011) 8 SCC 65 , the Apex Court has reiterated the law that variations in minor details of incident are immaterial unless discrepancy in statement of witness or entire statement of witness erodes credibility of witness himself. In Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana (SC) 2013(3) RCR (Criminal), it has been reiterated by the Apex Court that the court is not supposed to give undue importance to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter, and shake the basic version of the prosecution witness. The statement of both the witnesses are found reliable and trustworthy in the wake of aforesaid judicial pronouncements. 36. The argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellants that the prosecution has produced only two witness of fact and has failed to produce any other independent witness despite the fact that the place of occurrence was a busy place i.e. public way and the time of occurrence is 10.20 A.M. when several persons are on road, also appears to be irrelevant in view of the well settled legal principle that it is not the number of witnesses but the quality of their evidence which matters. The Supreme Court in the case of Rohtash Kumar (supra) has observed as under: - “…..there is no requirement in the law of evidence stating that a particular number of witnesses must be examined in order to prove/disprove a fact. The Supreme Court in the case of Rohtash Kumar (supra) has observed as under: - “…..there is no requirement in the law of evidence stating that a particular number of witnesses must be examined in order to prove/disprove a fact. It is a time- honored principle, that evidence must be weighed and not counted.” 37. The motive behind the occurrence has been successfully established by the prosecution, although in the statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. the appellant Sugreev has stated that the injured Mahavir had given an affidavit in his favour in that case resulting in his acquittal. The same cannot benefit him. PW-1 Shivcharan has stated that by the time of occurrence, his evidence in the earlier case had not been recorded, which means that when the occurrence of the present case took place the earlier criminal case in which Shivcharan had to appear as a witness was still pending and at that time appellants Sugreev and Pappu had no inclination that the case may end in acquittal. Possibility also cannot be ruled out that because of the said murder of Chandan Singh, the witnesses in that case became afraid and did not give evidence against the accused. The occurrence has taken place in the background of enmity between the appellants on one side and complainant Shivcharan and his relations on the other side. In another case under sections 107, 116 Cr.P.C. deceased Chandan Singh was a witness. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that there was no motive behind the crime or the prosecution has not been able to establish the motive of the crime. Moreover, the law with regard to status of motive is very clear that if there are eyewitnesses of the occurrence, the motive fades into insignificance. In Darbara Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 476 it has been held as under: - “Motive has great significance in a case of circumstantial evidence contrary to the case of direct evidence which cannot be discarded on the ground of absence of motive.” 38. In Darbara Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 476 it has been held as under: - “Motive has great significance in a case of circumstantial evidence contrary to the case of direct evidence which cannot be discarded on the ground of absence of motive.” 38. Testing all the facts and circumstances of this case on the touch stone of legal position, well established by various judgments of Supreme Court, we are of the firm view that the prosecution in this case has been successful in proving its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt as well as the time, place and manner of occurrence, with the help of cogent and reliable evidence. 39. The first information report has been promptly registered, ruling out the possibility of any deliberation or consultation. Both the witnesses produced by the prosecution are natural witnesses of the occurrence. PW-1 was going to the office at the time of occurrence along with the deceased, as both were working in the same department. PW-2 is a resident of the same locality i.e. Roti Godown which is the place of occurrence. Both these witnesses have faced grueling cross examination but nothing could have been elicited to discredit any part of their evidence. They are throughout cogent and consistent while deposing in court and their evidence as a whole appears fully reliable and it inspire confidence. It has been vehemently argued by learned counsel for the appellants that Ram Singh has wrongly been convicted in this case with the help of section 34 I.P.C. He has no role in the firing incident. So far as the role of appellant Ram Singh is concerned, although he has not taken active participation in the act of firing shots from the pistol and he was also not armed with any deadly weapon at the time of occurrence but he has materially helped the accused persons in running away from the spot after the murder of Chandan Singh. He was standing there with a motorcycle having its engine on. Clearly all the three appellants, who have been assigned specific roles, in a planned manner have committed the act in furtherance of their common intention and therefore each of them is liable for the act as if it has been done by him alone. 40. There is a plethora of judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court on the law relating to common intention. 40. There is a plethora of judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court on the law relating to common intention. 41. In Rajesh Kumar v. State of H.P., AIR 2009 SC 1 , it has been held by the Apex Court as under: - “In order to bring home, the charge of common intention, the prosecution has to establish by evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, that there was plan of meeting of mind of all the accused persons to commit the offence for which they are charged with the aid of Section 34 , be it pre-arranged or on the spur of moment, but it must necessarily be before the commission of the crime. The true contents of the Section are that if two or more persons intentionally do an act jointly, the position in law is just the same as if each of them has done it individually by himself.” 42. In Chaman and another v. State of Uttaranchal AIR 2009 SC 1 036, it has been observed by Apex Court as follows: - “The existence of a common intention amongst the participants in a crime is the essential element for application of Section 34 , I.P.C. It is not necessary that the acts of the several persons charged with commission of an offence jointly must be the same or identically similar. The acts may be different in character, but must have been actuated by one and the same common intention in order to attract the provision.” 43. In view of the above scrutiny and analysis of evidence on record, we find no substance in this appeal and hence we uphold the conviction and sentence against all the appellants. The appeal lacks merit, it is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 44. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The judgment dated 8th September, 1987 is affirmed. 45. Let the accused appellants be taken into custody to serve out the sentence of life imprisonment. The Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned will take suitable steps to ensure custody of the accused-appellant to get him admitted in the jail to serve out the sentence. 46. Registry is directed to send copy of this judgment to C.J.M. concerned forthwith.