JUDGMENT : P.K. Mohanti, J. - The thirteen Petitioners, all residents of village Mirjapur under Patkura P.S. In the district of Cuttack, were put on trial and all convicted u/s 147, Indian Penal Code for having formed themselves into on unlawful assembly with the common object of committing assault on p.w. 1 Bimbadhar Mallik and p.w. 2 Bira Mallik are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each with a default sentence of R.I. for two months each. Petitioners 1 and 4 to 10 were further convicted u/s 323, Indian Penal Code for having caused hurts to p.ws. 1 and 2 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 51/- each with a default sentence of R.I. for one month each. 2. The case for the complainant-opp. party was that there was ill-feeling between the Harijans and caste Hindus of village Mirjapur over the purchase of lands for the village deity and the latter bore a grudge against the former, particularly against p.ws. 1 and 2 and one Uda Mallik as they protested to the above purchase being made in the names of the caste Hindus only. With this background it was alleged that on 28-2-1971 morning while p.w. 2 Bira. Mallik was proceeding to his field with plough, Petitioner No. 1 Balaram Jena hurled abuses at him and shouted that he should be beaten. Thereupon the other Petitioners rushed there in a riotous mood being armed with lathis and shouting to commit assault. Petitioners 4 to 8 assaulted p.w. 1 with lathis on different parts of his body as a result of which he sustained injuries. Petitioners 1, 9 and 10 assaulted p.w. 2 with lath is and he also sustained injuries on his back and neck. p.w. 3 Jema Dei and p.w. 4 Sasa Dei, the wives of p.ws. 1 and 2 respectively came to the spot to intervene and they were assaulted by Petitioners 2, 3 and 13. p.w. 7 Para Dei was assaulted by Petitioners Nos. 11 and 12. The doctor (p.w. 10) examined p.ws. 1, 2 and 3 on 1-3-1971 and found injuries on their persons p.ws. 4 and 7 were examined by the doctor (p. w. 12) on 28-2-1972: On 4-3-1971 p.w. 1 filed a complaint petition upon which the accused persons were summoned to stand their trial. 3. At the trial, the Petitioners denied the occurrence and pleaded innocence. 4. 1, 2 and 3 on 1-3-1971 and found injuries on their persons p.ws. 4 and 7 were examined by the doctor (p. w. 12) on 28-2-1972: On 4-3-1971 p.w. 1 filed a complaint petition upon which the accused persons were summoned to stand their trial. 3. At the trial, the Petitioners denied the occurrence and pleaded innocence. 4. Prosecution examined 12 witnesses and Petitioners two. The learned Magistrate on a consideration of the evidence adduced on either side held the Petitioners guilty and inflicted the sentences as indicated above. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge affirmed the convictions and sentences. It is urged in this criminal revision that the entire trial was vitiated due to defective charge and the findings of the Courts below are against the weight of evidence on record. 5. In exercise of its revisional powers this Court will not ordinarily re-weigh the evidence unless satisfied that there has been some perversity, gross misreading or manifest injustice. In the present case, the trial Court which saw the witnesses, and the appellate Court which reviewed the evidence have believed the complainant's case and I see no good ground to overturn the factual findings recorded by the trial Court and affirmed on appeal. p.ws. 1 and 2 had marks of injuries, the duration of which when examined by the doctor (p.w. 10) tallied with their story and the presence of injuries on their bodies lent assurance to their testimony many. Nothing substantial has been brought to my notice on which I may be persuaded to take a view different from that taken by the two Courts of facts. 6. Shri S.K. Mohanty, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners strenuously contended that the delay of about four days in filing the complaint petition throws a great deal of doubt on the complainant's case. This contention was raised before the Courts below and they repelled the same on cogent grounds. Delay in lodging complaint quite often results in exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. It is, therefore, essential that the delay in lodging complaint should be satisfactorily explained. The explanation furnished by the complainant was that the Bhadralogs of the locality detained him for effecting on amicable settlement and as the accused persons did not turn up he had to file the complaint. This explanation was accepted by the Courts below. It is, therefore, essential that the delay in lodging complaint should be satisfactorily explained. The explanation furnished by the complainant was that the Bhadralogs of the locality detained him for effecting on amicable settlement and as the accused persons did not turn up he had to file the complaint. This explanation was accepted by the Courts below. Moreover, it is in evidence that one Banambar Mallik had lodged information at the P.S. upon which a station diary entry (Ext. B) had been made on the date of occurrence. In the facts and circumstances of the case the delay of four days. In filing the complaint petition does not create any doubt regarding the veracity of the evidence of the witnesses. 7. As regards the conviction u/s 147, Indian Penal Code it is contended that the trial is vitiated inasmuch as the charge does not specify the common object of the unlawful assembly. Relying on a single Judge decision of this Court reported in Nanda Kishore Mohanty v. State 26 (1960) C.L.T. 111 Mr. Mohanty contended that the accused persons are entitled to acquittal on account of the defective charge. In that case the common object of the unlawful assembly was stated to be "to commit rioting" and it was held that as the offence of rioting itself requires a specified common object as described in Section 141, Indian Penal Code, it will be meaningless for a Court to say that the common object was to commit rioting. The learned Magistrate who tried the case did not convict the accused Nanda Kishore Mohanty u/s 148, Indian Penal Code for which a substantive charge had been framed against him, but convicted him under Sections 323, 455 and 152 read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code. The appellate Court convicted the said accused u/s 147, Indian Penal Code though the trying Magistrate had not passed any order either of conviction or acquittal in respect of the charge u/s 148, Indian Penal Code. In these circumstances; his Lordship held that the omission of the trying Magistrate to convict the Petitioner u/s 148, Indian Penal Code must be held to mean that he was acquitted of that charge and once there is thus on acquittal, the Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to alter the conviction to one u/s 147 Indian Penal Code. In these circumstances; his Lordship held that the omission of the trying Magistrate to convict the Petitioner u/s 148, Indian Penal Code must be held to mean that he was acquitted of that charge and once there is thus on acquittal, the Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to alter the conviction to one u/s 147 Indian Penal Code. This decision was over-ruled by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bhajan Suna and Others Vs. The State. In the instant case, the common object of the unlawful assembly as mentioned in the charge u/s 147, Indian Penal Code is to commit assault. Moreover, it was explicitly stated by p.ws. 1 and 2 that the accused persons came in a body in a riotous mood being armed with lath is and shouting to commit assault. It is no doubt true that it is not mentioned in the charge that the common object was to commit assault on p.ws. 1 and 2 which should properly have been done. But the Petitioners did not complain before the two Courts of facts that they were prejudice by any defect in the charge. I think that I should only be justified here in interfering in revision if it appears that the accused were prejudiced by the manner in which the charge was drafted. I am unable to discover any ground for this view. On the recorded evidence it is quite clear that the accused persons formed themselves into on unlawful assembly and that the common object imputed to them was that which they put into effect. The contention raised on behalf of the Petitioners is devoid of any force. 7. It was next contended by Shri Mohanty that as Petitioners Nos. 2, 3, 11, 12 and 13 are not proved to have participated in the assault on p.ws. 1 and 2, they are entitled to acquittal of the charge u/s 147, Indian Penal Code. I am unable to concur in this contention. That the unlawful assembly had the object of causing hurt is obvious. The presence of the above Petitioners at the spot at the time of occurrence is clearly proved by the evidence of the p.ws. If more than five people came with lathis in a body and some of them beat a person and the others stand by there is undoubtedly a common object. The presence of the above Petitioners at the spot at the time of occurrence is clearly proved by the evidence of the p.ws. If more than five people came with lathis in a body and some of them beat a person and the others stand by there is undoubtedly a common object. The position would be different if the person who stands by gives on account of his presence unconnected with the assembly. If the incident took place at a field where the accused had really no business, these considerations do not arise. When lath is are carried one can be certain that the common object is at least to cause hurt. It is in evidence that Petitioners Nos. 2, 3 and 13 caused hurts to p.ws. 3 and 4 who came to the rescue of their husbands (p.ws. 1 and 2) It has also come in evidence that Petitioners Nos. 11 and 12 caused hurt to p.w. 7 para Dei. There is, therefore, no escape from the conclusion that these Petitioners participated in the common object of the unlawful assembly. 8. No other point was urged. Having gone through the materials on record and having heard the counsel at length, I hold that the convictions under Sections 147 and 323, Indian Penal Code are justified. But the sentence of fine awarded for the offence u/s 147, Indian Penal Code appears to be excessive and I reduce the same to a sum of Rs. 51/- only to be paid by each of the Petitioners. In default of payment of the fine, they should undergo R.I. for one month each. Subject to this modification, the criminal revision stands dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed