JUDGMENT : G.K. Misra, J. - Both the revisions arise out of the same case in which there was one trial The six Petitioners in Criminal Revision No. 155 of 1966 and the Petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 156 of 1966 have been convicted u/s 147 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for three months each. The trial court convicted four of the Petitioners u/s 323 Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 100/ - each in default to undergo R.I. for a further period of one month each. The appellate Court acquitted four of the Appellants before him u/s 323, Indian Penal Code as he was not sure from the evidence as to which of the accused played the individual part in the assault. 2. The Petitioners suspected the informant p.w.1 as being responsible for causing transfer of certain deity's land of the village. The prosecution case is that to feed fat to their grudge they assaulted the informant (p.w.1) at two different places. The defence was one of denial. Both Courts have accepted the prosecution case on the evidence of eye-witnesses. Mr. Roy rightly did not assail the finding. 3. The only point urged by Mr. Roy is that once the charge of assault and commission of offences under Sections 323 and 325 fails, the common object of the unlawful assembly fails and as such the Petitioners are entitled to an acquittal. The contention has no force in the facts and circumstances of this case. 4. Section 146, Indian Penal Code defines rioting thus: Whenever force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly or by any member thereof, in prosecution of the-common object of such assembly, every member of such assembly is guilty of the offence of rioting. The common object of the unlawful assembly as mentioned in the charge was to assault Narendra Pradhan (p.w.1). Mr. Roy contends that some of the Petitioners have been acquitted under Motions 323 and 325, Indian Penal Code and as such the story of assault fails. The common object of the unlawful assembly being to assault Narendra Pradhan, there can be no conviction u/s 147, Indian Penal Code as the common object failed. 5. Mr. Roy contends that some of the Petitioners have been acquitted under Motions 323 and 325, Indian Penal Code and as such the story of assault fails. The common object of the unlawful assembly being to assault Narendra Pradhan, there can be no conviction u/s 147, Indian Penal Code as the common object failed. 5. The finding of the learned Sessions Judge is not that there was no assault on Narendra Pradhan but that on the prosecution evidence it is difficult to definitely Bay which of the Petitioners actually causes the assault. The benefit of doubt was given to the accused so far that section was concerned. On such a finding it cannot be said that there was no assault caused. The common object is established and the charge u/s 147, Indian Penal Code can be sustained. 6. The ends of justice would however be met in this case, if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to a period of two months R.I. on each of the Petitioners. Subject to the aforesaid modification in the sentence, the revision fails.