Judgment C.N.Tiwary, J. 1. Appellants have been convicted under Sec.147 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months each. 2. Prosecution case is that on 10-10-1970, which was Dashera day, informant Sifat Lal Jha (P. W. 6) was returning to his village Khajuri at about 12 noon after worshipping the goddess at Tara Asthan. When the informant reached the river known as Kairi Dhar in village Kulharia, all the 8 accused persons who were catching fish in the river, all of a sudden rushed and surrounded him saying that the (informant) was causing harassment to them in litigation. They were armed with lathi and Muogara. At the instigation of accused Bhagwat Mukhia they all caught hold of him and began to assault him by means of lathi, Muogara, kicks and fists. On receipt of assault he (informant) fell down and thereafter accused Jogendra Mukhia took out a sum of Rs. 210.00 from his upper pocket and likewise Choudhary Mukhia also snatched his wrist watch worth Rs. 100/-. The other accused persons also removed his clothes, umbrella, spectacles and shoes. The accused persons with an intention to kill and finish him lifted him and threw him in a paddy field nearby where at the instigation of accused Bhagwat Mukhia accused Horil Mukhia began to take out his eyes by means of a knife and accused Sarjug Mukhia, Chaudhary Mukhia and Jogendra Mukhia began to press his neck. His cry attracted the presence of witnessess Indra Narain Jha (P. W. 5). Hare Krishna Thakur (P. W. 1), Fuleshwar Jha alias Ful Jha (P. W. 10). Parsuram Mishra (P. W. 11) and Sheonandan Mishra (P. W. 7) and then the accused persons fled away. The aforesaid witnesses carried the informant in injured condition first to his house and then to Sadar Hospital. Saharsa where he was admitted and treated, In the Sadar Hospital Saharsa. his fardbeyan (Ext. 2) was recorded by Tarkeshwar Prasad, A. S. I. of Saharsa police Station at 9 hours on 11-7-1970 and on the basis thereof regular case under Sections 147, 148, 379 and 307 I. P. C. was registered at Bakhtiarpur police station and a formal F. I. R. (Ext. 3) was drawn up. On completion of investigation, the police submitted chargesheet against all the accused persons. 3) was drawn up. On completion of investigation, the police submitted chargesheet against all the accused persons. Usual enquiry under Chapter XVIII of the old Code of Criminal Procedure was held and the accused persons were committed to the Court of session to stand their trial. Charges under Sections 147., 379 and 307 I. P. C. were framed against all the accused persons and charged under Sections 323 and 148 I. P. C. was framed against accused Horil Mukhia. 3. Defence of the accused persons was complete denial of the occurrence. It appears that it was urged on behalf of the accused persons that taking advantage of the fact that there was assault on the informant at the hands of some unknown culprits, the informant falsely implicated the accused persons. 4. Learned Sessions Judge, Saharsa has found that the informants version of the occurrence as regards place of occurrence, manner and origin short of embellishment is highly convincing, reliable and trustworthy vide (paragraph 17 of the judgment). Further finding of the learned Sessions Judge in para 26 of his judgment is that really on the relevant date the informant was subjected to assault at the place and time alleged and that the occurrence in its fundamental aspect is wholly proved and established. The learned Sessions Judge has observed in para 27 of his judgment that the accused persons formed an unlaful assembly with a common object to commit assault on the informant although they had never the intention to kill the informant Sifat Lal Jha as alleged in the charge. The learned Sessions Judge accepted this part of the prosecution case that the accused had common intention to commit assault and they were members of an unlawful assembly. He accordingly held all the accused persons guilty under Sec.147 of the I. P. C. and convicted them with the result stated above. 5. The learned Sessions Judge has found that the story of theft of Rs. 210.00 and wrist watch was embellishment in the prosecution case. Therefore, he has held that the charge under Sec.379 I. P. C. was not proved. He has further found that there was total lack of evidence on the point of alleged attempt on the life of the informant and, therefore, the charge under Sec.307 of the I. P. C. also failed. Therefore, he has held that the charge under Sec.379 I. P. C. was not proved. He has further found that there was total lack of evidence on the point of alleged attempt on the life of the informant and, therefore, the charge under Sec.307 of the I. P. C. also failed. Allegation that Horil Mukhia used a Chhuri for taking out eyes of the informant was belied by medical evidence. Therefore, the charge under Sections 148 and 324 I. P. C. also failed. The accused persons concerned were acquitted of these charges. 6. The learned Counsel of the appellants did not appear. Hence, I have heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State. He has very fairly placed the entire facts and evidence before me. 7. As many as 12 witnessess were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P. W. 12 Dr. A.Z. Mullik, Deputy Superintendent of Sub-Divisional Hospital, Budhepura examined the informant. Sifat Lal Jha on 10-10-1970 at 7-45 P. M. and found as many as 6 injuries on his person. Injury No. 1 which was grievous was dislocation of left elbow joint the oblique fracture of the lower part of the bumerus bone. The rest of the injuries were ecchymosis and defused swelling. In the opinion of the Doctor, the injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance like lathi and Muogara. 8. Informant Sifat Lal Jha (P. W. 6) has stated that all the accused persons suddenly rushed and surrounded him and began to assault him with lathi, Muogara, fists and slaps, but he could not say which accused assaulted him how many times. The age and nature of the injuries as found by the Doctor (P. W. 12) fits in with the prosecution version of the occurrence as to the time and nature of assault. There is no reason to discard this part of the prosecution case. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly observed that there is no reason to discard Core of the case, namely the factum of assault at the hands of the accused persons. There is no reason to discard this part of the prosecution case. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly observed that there is no reason to discard Core of the case, namely the factum of assault at the hands of the accused persons. In para 17 of his judgment, he has rightly observed I am no much impressed with the evidence of the informant atleast on the point of assault, at the hands of the present accused persons, that I would feel wholly safe to base conviction of the accused persons on the strength of his solitary testimony, although, there are good number of witnesses supporting the same as shown hereunder. 9. This much of the evidence of P. W. 1 Hare Krishna Thakur that he found the informant lying in unconscious state and that he saw the accused persons running away has rightly been accepted by the learned Sessions Judge. The evidence of this witness lends support to the prosecution version. 10. P, W. 5 was tendered. P. Ws. 4, 7 and 10 were declared hostile. The learned Sessions Judge does not appear to have placed much reliance on the evidence of P. Ws. 2, 8, 9 and 11. 11. The evidence of the informant (P. W. 6) and the evidence of some of the P. Ws. discussed above established beyond doubt that the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly with the common object to assault the informant and that in pursuance of the common object they assaulted the informant. 12. The defence version that the informant was assaulted by some unknown culprits and taking advantage of the injuries on his person he falsely implicated the accused persons has rightly been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge for the reasons given by him. 13. An important point of law that arises for consideration is whether conviction of the appellants under Sec.147 of the Indian Penal Code can be sustained when the appellants were acquitted of the charges under Sec.307 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The charge under Sec.147 of the Indian Penal Code framed against the accused persons was to the effect that they were members of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, namely to kill Sifat Lal Jha and commit theft of property committed the offence of rioting punishable under Sec.147 of the Indian Penal Code. The charge under Sec.147 of the Indian Penal Code framed against the accused persons was to the effect that they were members of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, namely to kill Sifat Lal Jha and commit theft of property committed the offence of rioting punishable under Sec.147 of the Indian Penal Code. The charges under Sections 307 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code could not be established and, therefore, it may be argued that the common object of the persons forming unlawful assembly, which is the essence of the offence under Sec.147 of the Indian Penal Code, could not be proved therefore, there could be no conviction under Sec.147 of the Indian Penal Code. It must be pointed out that in cases of rioting it often happens that the Court may consider that the story told by the prosecution is false in some of its details, but is nevertheless sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. As pointed out above, the prosecution could prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly with common object to assault the informant and that in furtherance of the common object they assaulted the informant. It is not a general preposition of law that a conviction under Sec.147 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be supported, when the common object as stated in the charge is not precisely made out. Question in this case is whether the common object as established agrees in essential parts with that laid in the charge. In the instant case variance between the common object alleged and that found was not such as to invalidate the conviction. Accused persons do not appear to have been prejudiced by such variance between the common object as laid in the charge and that found. 14. In the circumstances the appellants have rightly been convicted under Sec.147 of the Indian Penal Code, The sentence imposed on them cannot be said to be severe and it does not call for any interference. 15. In the result, I do not find any merit in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.