disclose several incoming calls at the telephone bearing no. 9931781506 between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon. On such evidence, the contention raised by Mr. A.K.Kashyap, the learned senior counsel for the appellants in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 759 of 2010 that no call has been made from the mobile phone of the victim at the shop at around 12:00 noon looses its force. The fact that no call was made from the mobile phone of the victim has become irrelevant in face of the ocular evidence. The brother of the victim has said that calls came between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. and the call detail record reveals several calls made at the shop of the victim. At this stage it is also pertinent to record that the appellants have been convicted with the aid of section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Investigating Officer has stated during his cross-examination that a charge-sheet was submitted against as many as five accused persons. It is not necessary for the prosecution to establish each ingredient of section 364-A of the Indian Penal Code against all the accused persons, separately and independently. All the accused persons may not have participated at every stage and all of them were not required to be present all through. What is necessary to find out is that whether they all have acted in concert and the final act has been accomplished in furtherance of common intention. Therefore, it is not necessary that the demand of ransom must came from the mouth of the appellants. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code embodies constructive liability of all. Section 34 in itself is not an offence but it makes others constructively liable for the offence committed in furtherance of common intention. It talks of prior concert between two or more persons but it is not necessary that all the accused persons must have played an active role at every stage in the entire episode. In “Bharwad Mepa Dana and Anr. Vs. The State of Bombay” reported in AIR 1960 SC 289 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the principle which section 34 IPC embodies is participation in action with the common intention of committing a crime and once such participation is established, section 34 is at once attracted. In “Girija Shankar vs. State of U.P.” reported in (2004)3 SCC 793 , the Supreme Court has observed thus:
