JUDGMENT H. C. P. Tripathi, J. - Out. of these 22 appellants, appellants Nos. 1 to 21 have been convicted under Sections 147, 225, 332, 149 and 323/149, I.P.C. and sentenced to two years R. I., two years' R. I., two years R.I. and one year's R. I. respectively under those counts. Appellant No. 4 has further been convicted under Section 323, I. P. C. and sentenced to two years R. I. Appellant No. 22 has been convicted under Section 148, I.P.C. and sentenced to three years R. I. He has been further convicted under Section 19(f), Arms Act, and sentenced to two years R. I. The learned Civil and Sessions Judge of Bulandshahr has directed all the sentences of the appellants to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution story, in short, is as follows :- Bhamman, Jahaz, Goonga and Husaina, all residents of village Menhdipur in police circle Jewar were wanted by the police for offences under Sections 457 and 511, I.P.C. Village Menhdipur is mainly populated by Newatis who are known for their turbulent nature. Sub-Inspector Shvam Singh, having requisitioned some police force from Khurja police station, organised a party consisting of about twenty police constables and proceeded for the village on May 6, 1962 at 3.15 a.m. for effecting the arrest of the wanted men. In the way he approached the Pradhan of Gopal Garh for help but without any result. He then went to Hamidpur nearby village in the district of Aligarh and from there took with him some of the villagers and , included them in his party. The party ; consisting of the police personnel and t public men most of whom were armed with firearms, reached village Menhdipur at 5.30 a.m. and surrounded the houses of the wanted men. They challenged Bhamman and others to come out of the houses and surrender themselves. At this, appellants Azeem Khan and Ali Khan came out of their respective rooms and exhorted the residents of the village to muster strength to face the police force which had come to arrest their fellow villagers. Their exhortation produced the desired effect and 33 persons, including the appellants, armed with lathis, gandasas and balkaties, appeared on the scene. Azeem Khan had a country made pistol with him. 3. Their exhortation produced the desired effect and 33 persons, including the appellants, armed with lathis, gandasas and balkaties, appeared on the scene. Azeem Khan had a country made pistol with him. 3. Sub-Inspector Shyam Singh told the assembled villagers that the police had come on a lawful object for effecting arrest of Bhamman and others who were wanted in criminal cases and that they should disperse. Meanwhile Gulab Singh constable caught hold of Bhamman. Thereupon all the 33 villagers made a concerted attack on the police party with their respective weapons and got Bhamman accused released. Azeem Khan fired twice from his pistol but fortunately none was injured. Sub-Inspector Shyam Singh gave a lathi blow at the hand of Azeem Khan and snatched away his pistol. The police party also wielded their dandas and succeeded in arresting 26 members of the unlawful assembly at the spot Seven of them, however, managed to escape. Sub-Inspector Shyam Singh, some members of the police force and some public men, who were included in the police party, had received injuries at the hands of the appellants and their associates in the incident. Gandasas, lathis and pistol with which the miscreants were armed were taken in possession and a recovery memo Ex Ka. 2 was prepared in respect of the same. On the arrival of further police force from police station Khurja, consisting of Circle Inspector, one Sub-Inspector and some constables, all the 26 persons arrested at the spot, were made Baparda and brought to the police station Jewar where a report of the occurrence was lodged at 12 noon on May 6, 1962. A case was registered which was investigated by Sri N. C. Malik, Circle Inspector. 4. Sub-Inspector Shyam Singh and four constables, namely, Rajendra, Tejmal, Gulab and Satyadeo as also Girraj, Tesa, Pratham Singh, Bhanwar Singh, Kale and Sohanpal, residents of village Hamidpur, who had accompanied the police party were medically examined by Dr. Yashpal Gupta (P.W. 10) on June 6, 1962, who found in all 37 simple injuries on their person having been caused by a blunt object. The duration of these injuries synchronised with the time of the occurrence. 5. On completion of investigation 33 persons, including the appellants, were sent up for trial, out of which 11 had been given benefit of doubt by the trial court. 6. At the trial the appellants denied their complicity in the crime. The duration of these injuries synchronised with the time of the occurrence. 5. On completion of investigation 33 persons, including the appellants, were sent up for trial, out of which 11 had been given benefit of doubt by the trial court. 6. At the trial the appellants denied their complicity in the crime. Their case was that accused Niaz Mohammad (acquitted) had filed a criminal case against Jahana, Rajendra and others who were related to the prosecution witnesses and also to Sub-Inspector Shyam Singh and that Shyam Singh and the prosecution witnesses attacked a marriage party consisting of the appellants and some others at the bus stand and arrested them all on a false charge. Their suggestion was that Sub-inspector Shyam Singh was a Jat, the witnesses from the public were also jats and related to each other and, therefore, they had attacked the marriage party consisting of the appellants because the appellants were connected with Niaz Mohammad and Kaubul Khan who had filed complaints against 'some of their relations. In support of their version, the appellants had filed certain documents. 7. The case of the prosecution rests or: the testimony of Sub-Inspector Shyam Singh, Mukbtar Singh, Pratham Singh. Kaley, Sohanpal, Vikram Singh, Manua, Beni Singh, Sheodan, constable Teja Mai and constable Gulab Singh (P. Ws. 1 to 8, 11, 12 and 14) who have been examined as eye-witnesses of the occurrence. The other evidence produced in the case is only of a formal character. 8. Sub-Inspector Shyam Singh had described the incident in all its details. He has given the specific crime numbers with the specific sections of the Indian Penal Code in which Bhamman, Jahaz, Goonga and Husaina were wanted by the police. He says that as he apprehended some trouble, he organised a party of police men available at his station and also from police station Khurja in which he included some villagers of Hamidpur as residents of other villages did not offer their services in spite of his requests. According to the witness, when the force reached village Menhdipur and surrounded the houses of the required men, on exhortation by Azeem Khan and Ali Khan, 33 persons of the village, armed with gandasas, lathis and balkaties, appeared on the scene and attacked the police party with their respective weapons. According to the witness, when the force reached village Menhdipur and surrounded the houses of the required men, on exhortation by Azeem Khan and Ali Khan, 33 persons of the village, armed with gandasas, lathis and balkaties, appeared on the scene and attacked the police party with their respective weapons. The police force, however, was able to subdue them and arrested 26 members of the unlawful assembly at the spot. He denied to have had any relationship with the residents of village Hamidpur and asserted to have approached them because he expected help from them but not from others. 9. The story given by Shyam Singh has been supported in all its essential particulars by the other eye-witnesses of the occurrence. In spite of searching cross-examination, nothing appears in their depositions to make their testimony unreliable. The fact that on medical examination most of these eye-Witnesses were found to have injuries on their person unmistakably points about their presence and participation in the incident. The defence story that a police party consisting of the witnesses and members of the police force led by Sub-Inspector Shyam Singh had attacked a marriage party consisting of the appellants and other arrested persons is too incredible to merit any consideration and has been rightly rejected by the trial court. There is no reason why the appellants and these villagers who had no particular reason either to be under the influence of the police or to be against the appellants should have taken upon themselves the unlawful task of arresting them from a marriage party and also receiving injuries in that connection. If Niaz Mohammad had filed a complaint against some persons who had no direct relationship with any one of these witnesses, it is wholly improbable to bold that because of that complaint the present story had been cooked up by the police for falsely implicating the appellants under various charges. 10. If Niaz Mohammad had filed a complaint against some persons who had no direct relationship with any one of these witnesses, it is wholly improbable to bold that because of that complaint the present story had been cooked up by the police for falsely implicating the appellants under various charges. 10. On the basis of the evidence furnished by the eye-witnesses which stands corroborated by the medical evidence and circumstances appearing on the record, I am satisfied about the veracity of the prosecution case, that, when the police party consisting of the witnesses and others had gone to village Menhdipur for the arrest of some of the residents who were wanted in various criminal cases, they were attacked by an unlawful assembly of the villagers which had caused them numerous injuries and had stood in their way of execution of their official duty. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the testimony of the eye-witnesses shows that on the arrival of the police party there was an excitement in the village and not only the appellants but many other residents had assembled there. Learned counsel urges that, in the circumstances, it will not be safe to convict those appellants who had not been given any specific role by the prosecution witnesses simply because of their arrest at the spot as it may be that they were innocent spectators who had arrived there not with a view to prevent the police party from executing their mission but only because of their curiosity. 12. Learned counsel has invited my attention to the statement of Sheodan (P. W. 11) who has stated that when lathis were being wielded, then besides the appellants some other residents of Menhdipur had also arrived. 13. It is true that in a case of the present nature where a large number of persons are charged for having committed offences as members of an unlawful assembly, it is necessary to closely examine the prosecution evidence to avoid the possibility of innocent spectators being branded as embers of the unlawful assembly and the case of each of them, therefore, must be scrutinised individually. 14. Azeem Khan. He was arrested at the spot. According to the evidence he had exhorted the villagers to assemble and to rescue the arrested persons and had fired a pistol towards the police party. 14. Azeem Khan. He was arrested at the spot. According to the evidence he had exhorted the villagers to assemble and to rescue the arrested persons and had fired a pistol towards the police party. He has been named and identified by Mukhtar Singh, Pratham Singh, Kaley, Mohan Pal, Vikram Singh, Manua, Sheodan, Beni Singh, Tejumal and Gulab. His presence as member of the unlawful assembly and participation in the crime is established. 15. Suley Khan. He too was arrested at the spot and has been specifically stated to have been giving lathi blows to the police party. He has been identified by P.Ws. 2, 3, 5, 7 and 11. The entry in the General Diary Ex. Ka-4 shows that he had a number of injuries on his person. He himself admitted to have used lathi in self-defence. The charge against him is established. 16. Sher Mohammad. It has been specifically stated by the witnesses that the police party had gone to arrest him and it was on his arrest that it sparked of the whole trouble. He has been named and personally known to P.Ws. 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12 and 14. His presence and participation in the crime is established beyond any doubt. 17. Firoz Khan. He was arrested at the spot but had been named by only two persons Mukhtar Singh and Pratham Singh, out of a large number of witnesses. He should, therefore, be given benefit of doubt. 18. Shaft Mohammad. He admits to have caused injuries to police party in self-defence and has also been known to Mukhtar Singh and Vikram Singh (P. Ws. 2 and 6). His presence in the unlawful assembly and participation in the riot is established. 19. Rahman. He was arrested at the spot and was personally known to Sub-Inspector Shyam Singh, Mukhtar Singh, Pratham Singh, Kaley and Vikram Singh, all of whom have named him as a member of the unlawful assembly. He appears to have wielded his umbrella in self-defence and thus admits his presence in the fight. Entry in the General Diary shows the presence of some injuries on his person. He has been rightly convicted by the trial court. 20. Bati Khan. He appears to have wielded his umbrella in self-defence and thus admits his presence in the fight. Entry in the General Diary shows the presence of some injuries on his person. He has been rightly convicted by the trial court. 20. Bati Khan. He too was arrested at the spot but out of a large number of witnesses he has been named by two persons, namely Mukhtar Singh and Kaley only, and he should be given the benefit of doubt. 21. Manua. He was arrested at the spot and has been named by Mukhtar Singh, Kaley and Sohan Pal. The General Diary entries show presence of injuries on his person. According to him, he was in the barat from where he was arrested. In my opinion, the case against him has been also established beyond any doubt. 22. Alu. He was arrested at the spot and has been named by Mukhtar Singh, Kaley, Sohan Pal and Sheodan who knew him from before. He had injuries on his person. His presence in the unlawful assembly is established. 23. Umar Sher. He too was arrested at the spot. He was personally known to Mukhtar Singh, Beni Singh, and Gulab Singh. Constable Gulab Singh also identified him in court. According to the entry in the General Diary injuries were found on his person at the time of arrest. His presence in the riot cannot be doubted, 24. Rahman Khan. He has been named by Mukhtar Singh, Pratham Singh, Kaley and Gulab Singh. Gulab Singh identified him in court. He was arrested at the spot. His presence and participation in the occurrence cannot be doubted. 25. Rati Mohammad. He too was arrested at the spot and has been named by Mukhtar Singh, Pratham Singh and Kaley. Injuries were recorded on his person in the General Diary. His participation in the crime is established. 26. Gutta. He is said to have been armed with a gandasa at the time of occurrence. He has been named by Mukhtar Singh, Pratham Singh, Beni Singh, Sheodan and Gulab Singh. His presence in the riot cannot be doubted. 27. Ali Khan. He is the person who exhorted the villagers to assemble and beat the police party. He was personally known to Mukhtar Singh, Kaley, Sohan Pal, Vikram Singh, Beni Singh and Sheodan who have named him. He has admitted to have saved himself by wielding his canes. His presence in the riot cannot be doubted. 27. Ali Khan. He is the person who exhorted the villagers to assemble and beat the police party. He was personally known to Mukhtar Singh, Kaley, Sohan Pal, Vikram Singh, Beni Singh and Sheodan who have named him. He has admitted to have saved himself by wielding his canes. His presence in the riot cannot be doubted. 28. Jala. He is one of those who were I armed with gandasas. He was known to Mukhtar Singh, Pratham Singh, Kaley (P. Ws. 2 to 4) who have named him. His presence in the riot is established. 29. Saida. He too was arrested at the spot and has been named by Mukhtar Singh, Prathon Singh and Kaley who knew him from before. His presence as a member of the unlawful assembly is established. 30. Shahida. He was arrested at the spot. Out of a large number of witnesses he has been named only by two persons, Mukhtar Singh and Pratham Singh. He should, therefore, be given benefit of doubt. 31. Din Mohammad. He was not arrested on the spot hut has been named by Mukhtar Singh, Kaley, Sohan Pal. Vikram Singh, Beni Singh, Tejumal and Gulab Singh, all of whom have stated that he was a member of the unlawful assembly. There is nothing to show that he had any injury on his person. It may be that he was mistaken as a rioter by the witnesses though he was only a spectator. He should, therefore, be given benefit of doubt. 32. Posti. He was arrested at the spot and has been named by Mukhtar Singh, Pratham Singh and Sohan Pal. There is nothing to show that he had received any injury. It may be that he had come to the scene only as a spectator. He should be given benefit of doubt. 33. Loola. He too was not arrested at the spot. He has keen named by Mukhtar Singh, Prathhm Singh, Manua and Teju Mai. There is nothing on the record to show that he had any injury on his person. It may be that he was mistaken as one of the rioters by the witnesses though he was only a spectator. He should be given benefit of doubt. 34. Chholey Khan. He was arrested at the spot. He too has been named by Mukhtar Singh, Pratham Singh and Kaley. It may be that he was mistaken as one of the rioters by the witnesses though he was only a spectator. He should be given benefit of doubt. 34. Chholey Khan. He was arrested at the spot. He too has been named by Mukhtar Singh, Pratham Singh and Kaley. Entry in General Diary Ex. Ka-4 shows that injuries were found on his person. The case against him is also established. 35. In the result, I allow the appeal of Firoz Khan, Bati Knan, Rashida, Deen Mohammad, Posti and Loola and set aside their convictions and sentences. They are on bail. Their bail-bonds are discharged. They need not surrender. The convictions and sentences of other appellants are affirmed and their appeal is dismissed. They are also on bail. Their bail-bonds are cancelled. They must surrender forthwith to serve out the sentences.