JUDGMENT R.B. Lal, J. - This appeal by Raghubir and four others is directed against the order and judgment dated 26-5-77 passed by Sri J. V.N. Jaiswal, Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri. All the appellants were convicted of an offence under S. 395 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each. In addition, Ram Prakash appellant was also convicted of an offence under S. 397, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year on this count. Both these sentences of this appellant were directed to run concurrently. 2. Ram Roop and Ram Prakash appellants are real brothers and residents of village Usmanpur. It is said that these appellants were friendly with the remaining appellants and Ramvir and Lakshman. 3. Ram Roop appellant was prosecuted sometime in the year 1970 for assaulting the police and in that case Bhoore Singh had appeared as a witness for the prosecution. Ram Roop was convicted and since then he began to nurse animosity against Bhoore Singh and his family members. 4. Bhoore Singh was a resident of village Nawada, which was about two miles away from village Padham. Both these villages were within the jurisdiction of police station Jasrana district Mainpuri. 5. The prosecution case was that on 22-11-74 Bhoore Singh had gone to the Bazar in village Padham at about 2-30 p.m. He was sitting at the shop of Shri Chand which was about 50 paces away from the police out-post. The present appellants, Ramvir and one Lakshman came to the shop of Shri Chand and said that they would teach him Bhoore Singh a lesson for getting Ram Roop convicted. All the seven persons began to beat Bhoore Singh with fists and kicks and tore his clothes as well. On hearing the hue and cry, Constables Tahar Beg and Sridhar Khanna of the police out-post came to the place of Marpit and intervened and then the assailants withdrew. The constables took Bhoora Singh to the police out-post for the sake of safety. 6. Attar Singh (PW. 7) of village Nawada and one Munna, who had seen the above incident rushed to village Nawada and informed Gajraj Singh (PW. 1) of the Marpit. Gajraj Singh along with his brother Chandra Prakash (PW. 4), Atar Singh and Munna proceeded to village Padham. Gajraj Singh took his and Bhoore Singh's licensed guns also with him. 6. Attar Singh (PW. 7) of village Nawada and one Munna, who had seen the above incident rushed to village Nawada and informed Gajraj Singh (PW. 1) of the Marpit. Gajraj Singh along with his brother Chandra Prakash (PW. 4), Atar Singh and Munna proceeded to village Padham. Gajraj Singh took his and Bhoore Singh's licensed guns also with him. These persons reached the police out-post and found Bhoore Singh there. Gajraj Singh handed over the gun of Bhoore Singh to him. Thereafter, Gajraj Singh, Bhoore Singh, Chandra Prakash and Attar Singh started back for village Nawada. These persons came to a Chauraha which was about 50 yards away from the police out-post. The present appellants and Ramvir and Lakshman were lying in ambush at that place and came out. Ram Prakash appellant fired a shot with a country-made pistol which he was carrying and this shot hit Bhoore Singh on the hip. Ramvir fired a shot from his licenced rifle but fortunately it did not hit any one. The remaining person were armed with lathies and they began to beat Bhoore Singh and Gajraj Singh with lathies. After giving a beating to these persons, the assailants snatched the guns of Gajraj Singh and Bhoore Singh and ran away. This occurrence was seen by Chandra Prakash, Attar Singh, Shyam Babu, Krishna Pal and others. The two constables had also come to the scene. Some persons chased the assailants but could not apprehend any one The occurrence had taken at about 5 p.m. 7. After the aforesaid incident of shooting and Marpit, Constable Shridhar Khanna (PW-10) sent a telephonic message Padham post office to police station Jasrana saying that an incident (Jhagra) had taken place in village and some force should be sent to the village. This message was received at the police station at 7-05 p.m. In this message other details of the incident were not given. 8. Gajraj Singh wrote a report of the occurrence in a Dharmashala in village Padham and took it to police station Jasrana which was about six miles away and lodged it there at 7-15 p.m. Bhoore Singh had also accompanied Gajraj Singh. The injuries of both the injured were examined by Dr. J. S Rathore (PW-8) in the Hospital at Jasrana on 29-11-74 from 9 a.m. onwards. The injuries of both the injured were examined by Dr. J. S Rathore (PW-8) in the Hospital at Jasrana on 29-11-74 from 9 a.m. onwards. The X-ray of the hip injury of Bhoore Singh showed presence of small radio opaque metallic, shadows (pellets) in that injury. Sub-Inspector Fateh Chandra Chaturvedi (PW. 11) of police station Jasrana started investigation of this case. He found a used cartridge of 12-bore, two used brass cartridges of 315-bore and one chaap of gun made of wood and steel bearing No. 2764 on it at the scene of occurrence. He interrogated the witnesses. After completing the investigation, he submitted charge-sheet against the present appellants and Ramvir. 9. One Raghuvir, resident of Nagla Durjan, (he is to be distinguished from Raghuvir appellant) was arrested by Sub-Inspector K.P. Awasthi on the night between 23/24th, Oct, 1975 and from his possession gun No. 2764 was recovered. This was the gun which belonged to Gajraj Singh complainant. 10. Ram Roop appellant admitted that he was prosecuted for assaulting the police and that Bhoore Singh was a witness for the prosecution in that case. He, however, denied that he was convicted in that case or bore any ill-will towards Bhoore Singh and his family members on account of that conviction. 11. The case of Ramvir Singh accused was that on 28-11-74 he was present at Shikohabad between 4-45 p.m. and 5-15 p.m. and at that time he had been medically examined by two doctors in connection with two proposals for life insurance on his own life. 12. Ram Prakash took up the stand that he was a patient of lung T.B. for the last five or six years and he was unable to run. 13. All the accused alleged false implication at the instance of the police. The defence suggestion to Gajraj Singh was that he and his brother were in the habit of lending their licenced guns to dacoits for illicit purposes and a quarrel had taken between them and the dacoits and the injuries were caused in that quarrel. In this connection it was also pointed out that both the guns were later on recovered from two other persons namely Raghuvir (not Raghubir appellant) and Ram Bharosey. 14. Ram Prakash examined one witness (DW-1) to prove that he was suffering from lung T.B. Ramvir examined the two doctors DWs 2 and 3 to prove his alibi. 15. In this connection it was also pointed out that both the guns were later on recovered from two other persons namely Raghuvir (not Raghubir appellant) and Ram Bharosey. 14. Ram Prakash examined one witness (DW-1) to prove that he was suffering from lung T.B. Ramvir examined the two doctors DWs 2 and 3 to prove his alibi. 15. The learned trial Judge accepted the plea of alibi of Ramvir and acquitted him. He. however, found the remaining five accused guilty and convicted and sentenced them as stated above. 16. Lakshman had died earlier and, therefore, did not face the trial. 17. There is no Government appeal against the order of acquittal of Ramvir accused. 18. Raghubir appellant died during the pendency of this appeal and his near relatives did not apply for leave of this Court within the prescribed time to continue the appeal. Hence the appeal of Raghubir has abated. 19. The injury reports of Gajraj Singh and Bhurey Singh are Exs. Ka.6 and Ka.7 respectively. Gajraj Singh had sustained twelve injuries which were swellings with abrasions or contusions. These injuries were caused on different parts of the body. All the injuries were simple and caused by blunt weapon and by friction. 20. Bhurey Singh had sustained three lacerated wounds two abrasions and one multiple gun-shot wound which was as under : "Multiple pellet wounds 5" X 3" on the left hip region, with lacerated wound about 3" X 2" with irregular margins, blackening, tattooing, charring with pieces of clothing present." 21. All the injuries were simple. No. 5 caused by a fire-arm and the rest by blunt weapon. Twenty-four pellets were removed from the gun-shot wound. 22. The doctor estimated the duration of the injuries of both the injured at about 2/3 days. In his deposition he said that these injuries might have been caused on 28-11-74 at about 5 p.m. 23. The prosecution had examined seven witnesses on facts namely Gajraj Singh, complainant, injured (PW-1) Shyam Babu (PW-2), Kishan Pal (PW-3), Chandra Prakash (PW-4) Atar Singh (PW-7), Constable Tahar Beg (PW-9) and Constable Shridhar Khanna (PW-10) to prove the second incident. It had sought to prove the first incident through Atar Singh (PW-7), Constable Tahar Beg (PW-9) and Constable Shridhar Khanna (PW-10). 24. It had sought to prove the first incident through Atar Singh (PW-7), Constable Tahar Beg (PW-9) and Constable Shridhar Khanna (PW-10). 24. Bhurey Singh, the other injured, had been murdered on 6-12-75, therefore, he could not be examined as a witness at the time of trial which commenced in October 1976. 25. Ram Roop appellant admitted his prosecution for the offence of assaulting the police and also the fact that Bhurey Singh injured was a prosecution witness against him. He denied the fact that he was convicted in that case, but did not adduce any evidence to support this denial. The relevant extracts of that criminal case could show as to what was the result of the prosecution or whether the case was still pending. In the absence of such evidence, I am inclined to accept the assertion of Gajraj Singh complainant that Ram Roop appellant was convicted in that case. This witness was not challenged on this point by the defence. On account of his conviction Ram Roop and his associates could bear animosity against Bhurey Singh and his family members. The motive stands established and the finding of the learned trial Judge on this point is correct. 26. Only Ram Roop and Ram Prakash are real brothers. The remaining appellants and Ramvir and Lakshman were said to be their friends and associates. There is only oral evidence regarding this association. Since there is credible evidence, on the record to prove participation of the present appellants in both the incidents, the prosecution case that all these persons were friends and associates inter se, may be accepted. 27. The evidence of Attar Singh (PW-7), Constable Tahar Beg (PW-9) and Constable Shridhar Khanna (PW-10) goes to prove the incident of Marpit which took place at about 4-15 p.m. at the shop of Shrichand in vilage Padham. These witnesses were not shaken in cross-examination in regard to this incident. The learned counsel for the appellants has not assailed this evidence before me. Attar Singh did not support the prosecution case in respect of the second incident and said that he had run away from the scene after the first incident. This witness was, therefore, treated hostile and cross-examined by the learned counsel for the prosecution with the leave of the trial court. Attar Singh did not support the prosecution case in respect of the second incident and said that he had run away from the scene after the first incident. This witness was, therefore, treated hostile and cross-examined by the learned counsel for the prosecution with the leave of the trial court. The statement of this witness with regard to the first incident need not be rejected on the ground that he was treated hostile by the prosecution. Nothing has been pointed out which would show that the statement of this witness with regard to the first incident was unworthy of reliance. The presence of the two constables at the time of the first incident was only natural. I am, therefore, satisfied that the first incident had taken place in the manner and circumstances alleged by the prosecution. 28. Attar Singh (PW-7) did not say that after seeing the first incident he had rushed to vilage Nawada to inform Gajraj and others. Gajraj Singh (PW-1) and Chandra Prakash (PW-4), however, categorically, stated that Atar Singh and Munna had come to them at about 4-15 p.m. and informed about the Marpit with Bhoore Singh. The two constables said that Gajraj Singh, Attar Singh and others had come to the police out-post at about 5 p.m. The learned trial Judge was right in believing the prosecution story that it was Attar Singh and one Munna, who had rushed to vilage Nawada to give information of the Marpit, to Gajraj Singh. 29. Gajraj Singh injured (PW-1), his brother Chandra Prakash (PW-4) and Shyam Babu (PW-2) fully supported the second incident which forms the main occurrence. Kishan Pal (PW-3) made a half-hearted statement only and, therefore, he was declared hostile and cross-examined. His statement may be ignored. Attar Singh (PW-7) said that he had run away and not seen the second incident of Marpit. There is nothing in his statement which may help the prosecution regarding this part of the case but at the same time there is nothing in his statement which may help the defence either. 30. Constables Tahar Beg and Shridhar Khanna PWs said that on hearing the noise they rushed to the scene and saw the occurrence. Constable Tahar Beg fully supported the prosecution story about the Marpit with lathies and about the snatching of guns. According to him shots had been fired before his arrival. 30. Constables Tahar Beg and Shridhar Khanna PWs said that on hearing the noise they rushed to the scene and saw the occurrence. Constable Tahar Beg fully supported the prosecution story about the Marpit with lathies and about the snatching of guns. According to him shots had been fired before his arrival. In fact, it was on hearing the reports of gun-shots that he had rushed to the scene of occurrence. Constable Shridhar Khanna also supported this part of the prosecution case but made a little confused statement and for this reason he was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor with the permission of the trial court. The statements of these two constables are important because they at least generally support the fact that an occurrence of Marpit had taken place at about 5 p.m. in which shots were fired and Bhurey Singh, inter alia, sustained a gun-shot injury and both Bhurey Singh Gajraj Singh sustained lathi injuries. This evidence, therefore, lends assurance to the evidence of Gajraj Singh, complainant, Chandra Prakash and Shyam Babu. As said earlier these constables were independent and non-partisan witnesses and had no reason to side with any of the two contending sides. 31. In this case Shri Chand the shopkeeper, was not produced as a witness and no other resident of village Padham was produced to support this part of the prosecution case. It appears that no one was prepared to come forward to take sides in the dispute between the two contending groups. In the instant case, the non-production of such witnesses cannot cast any suspicion on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. There could be no doubt about the presence of Gajraj Singh and also of his brother Chandra Prakash. Shyam Babu was present in the Bazar and had, therefore, an occasion to see the occurrence. As observed earlier, the statements of the two constables lend assurance to the evidence given by these three witnesses. The learned counsel for the appellant has not pointed out any discrepancy or inherent weakness in the statements of these witnesses. I am, therefore, of the view that the testimony of these witnesses deserves acceptance. 32. The defence suggestions that Gajraj Singh and Bhurey Singh had sustained injures at the hands of dacoits with whom they had a quarrel over lending of their licensed guns, was not substantiated by any material. I am, therefore, of the view that the testimony of these witnesses deserves acceptance. 32. The defence suggestions that Gajraj Singh and Bhurey Singh had sustained injures at the hands of dacoits with whom they had a quarrel over lending of their licensed guns, was not substantiated by any material. This suggestion is negatived by the credible prosecution evidence to the effect that the occurrence of Marpit had taken place at 5 p.m. in which the guns of Gajraj Singh and Bhurey Singh were snatched. 33. The prosecution case with regard to the second incident also received support from the fact that a used cartridge of 12-bore, two used cartridge of 315-bore and a Chaap of gun bearing No. 2764 were recovered from the scene of the occurrence by the Investigating Officer who had reached the scene on the night of 28-11-74. Here it may be reiterated that the number of the gun of Gajraj Singh was 2764. 34. The learned counsel for the appellants had stressed the fact that the case of the prosecution with regard to the presence and participation of Ramvir was found false by the learned trial Judge. He has urged that this rendered the entire story of the prosecution doubtful. I am unable to share this view. I have gone through the evidence of alibi given by Dr. S. P. Misra (DW-2) and Dr. B. S. Mathur (DW-3). In my opinion, this evidence was not conclusive to establish that Ramvir was present in Sikohabad on 28-11-74 at about 5 p.m. The two forms of medical examination proved these doctors, in which the time of the medical examination of Ramvir appeared, could be ante-dated and ante-timed to help this particular accused. There was nothing except the statements of the two doctors to lead to the conclusion that in fact the certificates of medical examination were signed by these doctors on 28-11-74 at 4-45 p.m. and 5-30 p.m. A little probe into this evidence would have disclosed if these proposals for life insurance were genuine or were meant to serve as evidence of alibi. The facts when the amount of first premium was actually deposited in the office of the insurance Company, and whether the two policies were continued in due course or were allowed to lapse after payment of the first of the second premium would have thrown considerable light on the genuineness of these transactions. The facts when the amount of first premium was actually deposited in the office of the insurance Company, and whether the two policies were continued in due course or were allowed to lapse after payment of the first of the second premium would have thrown considerable light on the genuineness of these transactions. It is said that some Smt. S. Kumari was the Insurance Agent who had secured this insurance business and introduced Ramvir to the doctors. She should have been examined by the learned trial Judge in order to find out what was the truth behind these two proposals. I am therefore, not satisfied that the evidence of alibi was worthy of acceptance. Though the order of acquittal of Ramvir cannot be interfered with in this appeal, still I feel that the evidence which was relied upon in support of his plea of alibi may be examined in connection with the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that the acquittal of Ramvir casts suspicion on the prosecution case and the prosecution evidence. Here, I would like to refer to another important circumstance which was also referred to by the learned trial Judge. Ramvir possessed a licensed rifle. The Investigating Officer had found two used cartridges of 315 bore at the scene of occurrence. It was alleged that Ramvir had fired shots from his rifle. Still for some reason which is not clear on the record and which it is not possible to guess, the Investigating Officer did not make an attempt to procure the rifle of Ramvir in order to obtain the opinion of the Ballistics Expert if the two used cartridges of 315 bore were fired from the rifle. The Investigating Officer did not say that the bore of the rifle of Ramvir was different. The criticism of the Investigating Officer by the learned trial Judge for this important lapse is quite justified. To my mind, this lapse of the Investigating Officer does not deserve to be ignored and it seems desirable that departmental enquiry be held into this conduct of this police officer. 35. The prosecution evidence convincingly proves that Ram Prakash appellant had fired a shot with a country-made pistol at Bhoore Singh from a close range and it hit the hip of Bhoore Singh causing a gun-shot wound. 35. The prosecution evidence convincingly proves that Ram Prakash appellant had fired a shot with a country-made pistol at Bhoore Singh from a close range and it hit the hip of Bhoore Singh causing a gun-shot wound. Thereafter, the lathimen had plied their lathies on Bhoore Singh and Gajraj Singh causing them blunt weapon injuries. The evidence also shows that the licenced guns of Gajraj Singh and Bhoore Singh were snatched at the close of the Marpit and taken away. The evidence regarding the identity of the assailants who actually snatched the gars is not clearly brought out by the evidence on the record and on this point the evidence is not uniform. Gajraj Singh stated that all the assailants had snatched the two guns. Shyam Babu (PW-2) on the other hand said that the guns of Gajraj Singh and Bhoore Singh were snatched by Ramvir and Ram Roop assailants respectively. Chandra Prakash (PW-4) said that he could not say as to which of the assailants had snatched the guns of Bhoore Singh and Gajraj Singh. This implies that according to this witness all the assailants had not jointly snatched the two guns and only two of the assailants had done the snatching. Kishan Pal, who turned hostile, said that he did not know as to who had snatched the guns of Gajraj Singh and Bhoore Singh. Constable Tahar Beg generally said that the assailants had snatched the guns after beating. Constable Shridhar Khanna said that Raghubir and others had snatched the guns. He did not say specifically that all the assailants had snatched the guns. In this state of affairs it will not be reasonable to accept that all the assailants had snatched and taken away the guns of Gajraj Singh and Bhoore Singh. It appears that towards the end of the Marpit two of the assailants had snatched the guns of these brothers and then all the assailants had run away. It is not possible to fix up the identity of those two assailants with any reasonable certainty. It will not be safe to rely on the statement of Shyam Babu (PW-2) with regard to the identity of those assailants who had snatched away the two guns. It is not possible to fix up the identity of those two assailants with any reasonable certainty. It will not be safe to rely on the statement of Shyam Babu (PW-2) with regard to the identity of those assailants who had snatched away the two guns. Thus, the real position with regard to the snatching of the two guns appears to be that the guns were snatched away by two assailants just before the assailants withdrew on account of the arrival of the constables at the scene. The evidence on the record is not sufficient to fix up the identity of those two assailants who snatched away the guns. 36. The learned counsel for the appellants has next urged that on the facts found established in the case, the appellants could not be held guilty of an offence under S. 395, I.P.C. or under S. 397, I.P.C. The main purpose of the assailants was to give a beating to Bhoore Singh and Gajraj Singh and not to loot their guns or other property. The snatching of the guns of these two persons which took place towards the fanged of the Marpit was the individual act of those assailants who actually snatched and took away to guns. The appellants could, therefore, be held guilty of the offence of voluntarily causing hurt only. The two assailants who had snatched the guns could further be held guilty of the offence of theft under S. 379, I.P.C. Since it could not be said with certainty as to who those two persons were, none of the appellants could be held guilty of the offence under S. 379, I.P.C. The learned counsel has further urged that since charges under Sections 323 and 324, I.P.C. simpliciter or with the aid of S. 149, I.P.C. were not framed against the appellants in the alternative, none of them could be held guilty for any of these offences and all of them were entitled to acquittal. 37. I have given anxious consideration to the above submissions of the learned counsel. I am inclined to take the view that the common object of the appellants and their companions was to give a beating to Bhoore Singh and Gajraj Singh and not to commit dacoit and it was in prosecution of this object that they had assaulted these two persons and caused them injuries. I am inclined to take the view that the common object of the appellants and their companions was to give a beating to Bhoore Singh and Gajraj Singh and not to commit dacoit and it was in prosecution of this object that they had assaulted these two persons and caused them injuries. The act of snatching the guns of the two injured was an individual act of those two persons who actually snatched and took away the guns. Since in the instant case the assault on the two injured persons was not made for the purpose of committing theft of the guns, the act could not fall within the purview of definition of robbery contained in S. 390 of the Penal Code and could not also amount to the offence of dacoity on account of the presence or participation of given persons. The words `for that end' occurring in the first part of the definition of robbery are crucial and distinguish a case of theft accompanied by assault covered by Sections 379 and 323, I.P.C. from that of robbery. I, therefore, agree with the submission of the learned counsel that the appellants could not be held guilty of the offence under S. 395, I.P.C. or under S. 397, I.P.C. They could be held guilty of offences under S. 323 and/or S. 324, I.P.C. simpliciter or with the aid of S. 149, I.P.C. besides offences under S. 147 or Section 148, I.P.C. Since the identity of the two assailants who snatched the guns could not be fixed up, no one could be held guilty under S. 379, I.P.C. 38. The next important question for consideration in this case is whether on the facts found proved by me, the conviction of the appellants or any one of them could be altered from offences under Sections 395 and 397, I.P.C. to offences under Sections 323 and 324, I.P.C. simpliciter or read with S. 149, I.P.C. and under Sections 147 and 148, I.P.C. 39. The learned Additional Sessions Judge had framed a charge under Sections 395, I.P.C. against all the appellants and had generally said in the charge that they had committed dacoity. It was not said in this charge that the appellants and their companions had while committing dacoity assaulted Bhoore Singh and Gajraj Singh and caused them injuries. The learned Additional Sessions Judge had framed a charge under Sections 395, I.P.C. against all the appellants and had generally said in the charge that they had committed dacoity. It was not said in this charge that the appellants and their companions had while committing dacoity assaulted Bhoore Singh and Gajraj Singh and caused them injuries. Against Ram Prakash appellant there was an additional charge under S. 397, I.P.C. and it was said that he had used a country-made pistol and attempted to cause grievous hurt to Bhoore Singh. It was not said in this charge that the shot had actually hit Bhoore Singh causing pellet injuries. 40. The examination of all the accused including the appellants under S. 313, Cr. P.C. was, however, a detailed one and the prosecution case was put in all material details to each of the accused. The part played by each accused in the first and the second incidents was put to the accused. The appellants denied all these allegations and attributed their false implication to enmity. None of the appellants set up a counter-version. They said that they were not present and had not taken part in the alleged incidents. 41. In evidence, the prosecution story with regard to the second incident which is the main incident for purposes of the present case, was set out in detail and the part played by each of the appellants was also mentioned in detail. The defence subjected the witnesses to cross-examination in regard to this material. It can, therefore, safely be said that the appellants had full knowledge of the prosecution case against them notwithstanding the fact that the charge framed against them was under S. 395, I.P.C. and against Ram Prakash appellant also under S. 397, I.P.C. and these charges were couched in general terms without setting out the detailed part played by each of them. They knew what case they had to meet. They were not taken by surprise and were not prejudiced in any manner in their defence. They knew what case they had to meet. They were not taken by surprise and were not prejudiced in any manner in their defence. The appellants cannot say in this case that they were misled in their defence on account of the charges which were actually framed against them in general terms and that they would have set up a different defence if they had known that the charges against them were under S. 323/324/149/147 and 148, I.P.C. Their total denial precludes them from taking up such a stand. As a matter of fact, such a stand had not been taken up before me by the learned counsel for the appellants. 42. Section 221 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 reads thus : "Where it is doubtful what offence has been committed : (1) If a single act or series of acts is of such a nature that it is doubtful which of several offences the facts which can be proved will constitute, the accused may be charged with having committed all or any of such offences, and any number of such charges may be tried at once, or he may be charged in the alternative with having committed some one of the said offences. (2) If, in such a case the accused is charged with one offence, and it appears in evidence that he committed a different offence for which he might have been charged under the provisions of sub-section (i), he may be convicted of the offence which he is shown to have committed, although he was not charged with it." 43. Sub-section (2) of S. 221 would cover a case of the present kind. In this connection a reference may be made to the decision Begu v. Emperor, AIR 1925 PC 130 . In that case charge only under S. 302, I.P.C. was framed against the appellants. The prosecution case was that the accused had committed murder and done away with the evidence of the crime. The trial Judge was of the view that the evidence was not sufficient to make out the offence of murder, but on the other hand it made out a case under S. 201 of the Penal Code. The Lahore High Court upheld this view and their Lordships of the Privy Council held that this could be done in view of the provisions of S. 237, Cr. The Lahore High Court upheld this view and their Lordships of the Privy Council held that this could be done in view of the provisions of S. 237, Cr. P.C. (1898) (corresponding to section 221(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973). 44. For the above reasons I am clearly of the view that the appellants can be convicted of other offences which they appeared to have committed although they were not charged with the same. 45. From the evidence it is clear that the appellants and their companions had formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of beating Bhoore Singh and Gajraj Singh and Ram Prakash appellant was armed with a country-made pistol while the remaining appellants were armed with lathis. In prosecution of that common object Ram Prakash had fired a shot from his country-made pistol at Bhoore Singh injuring the latter and the remaining appellants had plied lathis on Bhoore Singh and Gajraj Singh and caused them simple injuries. Thus, on the strength of the facts found established, Ram Prakash appellant is guilty of offences under Sections 148, 324 and 323/149, I.P.C. and the remaining appellants Udaivir, Ram Roop and Gyan Chand are guilty of offences under Sections 147, 323 and 324/149, I.P.C. These appellants are accordingly found guilty of these offences instead of offences under Sections 395 and 397, I.P.C. 46. Next I come to the question of sentence. 47. The learned counsel for the appellants has urged that a sentence of fine alone would meet the ends of justice. I am unable to accept this submission. Having regard to the nature of the injuries sustained by the two injured persons and other circumstances, I think that the ends of justice will be sufficiently met if Ram Prakash appellant is awarded a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for nine months for the offences under Sections 148 and 324, I.P.C. each and rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Sections 323/149, I.P.C. and the remaining three appellants Udaivir, Ram Roop and Gyan Chand are awarded a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months on each of the three counts. 48. The appeal of Raghubir appellant abates. 49. The appeal of the remaining appellants Ram Prakash, Udaivir, Ram Roop and Gan Chand is allowed in part. 48. The appeal of Raghubir appellant abates. 49. The appeal of the remaining appellants Ram Prakash, Udaivir, Ram Roop and Gan Chand is allowed in part. The conviction of Udaivir, Ram Roop and Gyan Chand appellants is altered from an offence under S. 395, I.P.C. to offences under Sections 147, 323 and 324/149, I.P.C. and the sentence of each of them is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for six months on each of the three counts. The conviction of Ram Prakash appellant is altered from offence under Sections 395 and 397, I.P.C. to offences under Sections 148, 324 and 323/149, I.P.C. and his sentence is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for nine months under each of the first two counts and rigorous imprisonment for six months under the third count. All the substantive sentences of each of these four appellants shall run concurrently. These appellants are on bail. They shall surrender to their bail bonds to serve out the sentences according to law.