90 168. Information as to how these attacks occurred within the house of the deceased and the distinct roles played by the accused, are in the special knowledge of only the accused; but no such information was forthcoming through the course of the trial or appellate stage. This court 72 has held that common intention requires prior meeting of mind, which can also be developed in the spur of the moment, provided there is premeditated concert. The circumstances reflect that there was a clear common intention among the three accused, to rob the house, and upon facing resistance - to complete the job and leave undetected, by all means necessary. While no weapon has been recovered from Neha, it is clear that she was involved in the offences, and was present at the scene of the crime. This is evidenced by firstly, the fingerprint expert’s testimony and report, which clearly reflects that her fingerprint was lifted from the crime scene; secondly, the recovery of stolen articles (gold jewellery, Megha’s ATM card, etc.) from her possession; and thirdly, the fact that Manoj and Rahul are only arrested pursuant to her disclosure of their participation - all of which, cumulatively, clearly establish her involvement. The lack of an overt or specific act of violence attributable to Neha does not exonerate her, given that the prosecution has been able to prove her presence at the crime scene and participation in the commission of the offences, and that there was common object. 169. For the above reasons, all three accused are held guilty of the offences under Section 397/34, 449/34 and 302/34 IPC. Additionally, Manoj and Rahul’s conviction under Section 25(1-B)(B) of the Arms Act, and Rahul’s conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act, is upheld. 170. Before proceeding to consideration of the question of sentence, this court finds it necessary to briefly highlight the role of the public prosecutor and trial court in a criminal trial, so as to safeguard the rights of the accused. The concealment of DW-1’s role in this case’s investigation (her analyzing of call 72 Ramashish Yadav v. State of Bihar (1999) 8 SCC 555