Short Note : 1. In the present case, the accused persons were tried for the charge under section 307 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code for an attempt to commit murder of Ramkripal and Mahabir. Since there is no mention in the charges framed against the appellants about the injuries caused to Mohanlal Awadh Narayan. Bhagwat Prasad and Bhagwan Prasad, none of the appellants was convicted in that respect. According to the learned Sessions Judge, all the 17 appellants formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of killing Ramkripal and Mahabir. The Sessions Court found all of them guilty for the offence punishable under section 307 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to rigorous imprisonment for five years. Held: On going through the evidence on record and after hearing the learned counsel from both the sides, I am of the opinion that the present case is a case of sudden, mutual free fight. It was a case of party - faction in the village. After there being a quarrel in between Ramkripal and Bhaiyalal which had practically already subsided, both the parties collected the members of their respective groups who started abusing each other and in excitement indulged into mutual free fighting. In these circumstances, there remains no relevancy of the fact as to who was the aggressor nor is there any scope for taking resort to the provisions of section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. In a case of sudden mutual free fights, each person can be held individually liable for his own act. 2. During the course of the argument, a chart disclosing details of evidence against each of the accused appellants was prepared and submitted by the Deputy Government Advocate. On perusal of the same, it is apparent that out of 17 accused persons, there is no allegation of any overt act or omission so as to infer their participation in the incident of marpit in any manner against appellant No. 1 (Bhaiyalal), appellant No.3 (Sheosharam), Appellant No.4 (Ajayablal), Appellant No.6 (Awadh Narayan), Appellant No. 7 (Sitaram), Appellant No.9 (Bhagwan Prasad); Appellant No 10 (Vindeshwari). Appellant No. 11 (Mohanlal), Appellant No. 13 (Budhnarayan), Appellant No. 14 (Shanktha Prasad), and Appellant No. 17 (Balendra Shekhar). Appellant No. 11 (Mohanlal), Appellant No. 13 (Budhnarayan), Appellant No. 14 (Shanktha Prasad), and Appellant No. 17 (Balendra Shekhar). It is true that when Bhaiyalal's hands and legs were tied by a piece of towel and he was put aside by Ramkripal, he did call persons for help but thereafter in the entire evidence, there is nothing to indicate that he exhorted the other accused persons or instigated them in any manner to indulge into violence. The only allegation against all the aforesaid appellants, as made by the witnesses examined by the prosecution was that they were present on the spot and were holding sticks. In my opinion the learned Sessions Judge was wrong in concluding that these persons formed an unlawful assembly with any common object. In villages, normally the villagers move with sticks. If they came to the place of occurrence and were witnessing the quarrel without any overt act on their part, it cannot be said that they made themselves liable under section 148 or 149 of the Indian Penal Code. In these circumstances, it will not be possible to hold them guilty and accordingly, the convictions of Bhaiyalal (No. 1) Sheosharan (No.3) Ajayablal (No.4) Awadh Narayan (No 6), Sitaram (No.7), Bhagwan Prasad (No.9), Vindeshwari (No. 10), Mohanlal (No 11), Budhnarayan (No. 13), Shankatha Prasad (No. 14), and Balendra Shekhar (No. 17) and the sentences imposed are set aside and they are acquitted of the charges framed against them. 3. Out of the remaining accused persons, mere exhortation has been alleged against Kedarnath (appellant No. 15) and Ramsumer (appellant No. 16). The witnesses have stated that both of them were holding guns and were exhorting other appellants to beat the members of the other group. On going through the evidence, I find that the testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution in this respect does not inspire confidence. There is a tendency to implicate various persons by making such type of allegations of exhortation, No gun has been seized and produced. In the absence of any overt act on the part of these appellants - (Kedarnath No. 15 and No. 16 Ramsumer), it would not be safe to convict them merely on the basis of the parrot like version given in this respect by each and every eye-witnesses, examined by the prosecution. In the absence of any overt act on the part of these appellants - (Kedarnath No. 15 and No. 16 Ramsumer), it would not be safe to convict them merely on the basis of the parrot like version given in this respect by each and every eye-witnesses, examined by the prosecution. These two appellants - Kedarnath (No. 15) and Ramsumer (No. 16) are also, therefore, acquitted of the charges and their convictions and sentences are set aside. They are acquitted accordingly. (Remaining three accused were punished for the offence committed by them). Appeal partly allowed.