JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THE appellants have been convicted by the Second Additional sessions Judge, Vidisha, in Sessions Trial No. 16 of 1978, under the Judgment dated 11-9-1982 of the offences punishable under sections 147, 225/307/333 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. However, in view of the provisions of section 71 of the Indian penal Code, they have been sentenced in respect of the major offence under section 307 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code only, and sentenced, thereunder, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each. ( 2. ) IT was not disputed before me, in course of the arguments in the appeal, that all the appellants belong to village Kulue-Kheda, P. S. Deepna-Kheda, district Vidisha. Appellants Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6, respectively named Jhammu @ Sabir, Zuber, Laik Khan and Shakir, are brothers being the sons of appellant No. 4 Hanif Khan and, as such, they belong to the same agricultural family. Further, it was also not seriously challenged that in course of the violence, that took place on the evening of 15-10-1977 at about 5. 30 p. m. on the road between the villages Kulue-Kheda and Karia, some of the members of the police party, who have been examined as prosecution witnesses, received injuries, while, on the other hand, among the appellants, appellant No. 3 Zuber and appellant no. 5 Laik Khan @ Laik Miya received gun shot wounds, as also brought out by Dr. Ashok Singhai (D. W. 2) in the defence evidence led by the appellants-accused persons. ( 3. ) BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution story was that on the date of the incident, a police party consisting of H. C. Police Bhanwar Singh (P. W. 3), police constables Laxmi narain (P. W. 4), Diwan Singh (P. W. 6) of P. S. Bahadurpura, district Vidisha, and Home-guard Lance-Naik Pransigh (P. W. 13), accompanied on the way by Ashfaq Ahmad (P. W. 2), was on its way to and near village Kulu-Kheda to execute the non-bailale warrants of arrests (Ex. P. 19 to Ex. P. 22), issued by the Court of the Judicial Magistrate first Class, Mungawali, in police-challan case No. 450 of 1976, under me orders of the court dated 18-7-1977 (Ex. P. 18) against the appellants Ezaz Khan, Laik Khan, Zuber and one Salim Khan, when they came across appellant Zuber on the way. P. 19 to Ex. P. 22), issued by the Court of the Judicial Magistrate first Class, Mungawali, in police-challan case No. 450 of 1976, under me orders of the court dated 18-7-1977 (Ex. P. 18) against the appellants Ezaz Khan, Laik Khan, Zuber and one Salim Khan, when they came across appellant Zuber on the way. On Zuber being identified by Ashfaq Ahmad (P. W. 2) the police party arrested him after explaining the substance of the non-bailable warrant of arrest issued against him. When they had covered a little distance, Zuber raised a hue and cry near the joint family agricultural field on the way. Shortly thereafter, rest of the appellants, variously armed with weapons, came there in order to rescue Zuber and even on being explained about the non-bailable warrants, they did not heed to the police warning not to interfere with the process of law. Among the appellants, Hanif Khan and Jhammu @ Sabir were armed with farsas, Ezaz Khan with a lihangi, Laik Khan with a Parena (stick with a pointed edge to drive the ploughed bullocks) and Shakir with a danda (small stick ). They attacked the Police Party in a body and were also joined in the aggression by zuber, who freed himself with the help of the appellants. With a common object, the unlawful assembly of the appellants caused injuries to the members of the police party with their respective weapons. Ex. P. 1 to Ex. P. 7 are the injury certificates, given by Dr. B. D. Agarwal (P. W. I) inclusive of police requisitions, in this connection. Among the members of the force, H. C. Bhanwar Singh (P. W. 3) received as many as 10 injuries, including a fracture in the skull, as brought out by Dr. A. Dutta (P. W. 17), vide X-Ray plates Ex. P. 28 to Ex. P. 30 and the report Ex. P. 27, which was dangerous to life. He had to be brought back on a tractor-trolley. ( 4. ) IT is alleged that while rescuing appellant Zuber, the appellants not only caused serious injuries to the members of the police party, but also tried to snatch away their guns. Therefore, in self-defence, the members of the police party, including Home-guard Lance-Naik Pran Singh (P. W. 13), initially opened fire in the air. ( 4. ) IT is alleged that while rescuing appellant Zuber, the appellants not only caused serious injuries to the members of the police party, but also tried to snatch away their guns. Therefore, in self-defence, the members of the police party, including Home-guard Lance-Naik Pran Singh (P. W. 13), initially opened fire in the air. When that failed to deter the aggressive appellants, the guns had to be pointed towards the lower limbs of the more aggressive appellants. This, presumably, resulted into the injuries to appellants zuber and Laik Khan. ( 5. ) THE first information report (Ex. P. 6) was recorded at P. S. Bahadurpura on the same day, i. e. , 15-10-1977, at 9 p. m. at the instance of Ashfaq Ahmad (P. W. 2 ). In due course, the. appellants were arrested and the chargesheet in respect of the offences, described in para 1, was put up against them. ( 6. ) IN the trial Court, the appellants abjured the guilt and stated that they had been falsely implicated. ( 7. ) AS many as 17 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and the appellants examined 3 witnesses in their defence, including Dr. Ashok Singhai (D. W. 2)in respect of the medical examination of appellants Zuber and Laik Khan, who sustained gun shot injuries. Upon an assessment of this evidence, the learned trial Judge has held the appellants guilty of the offences and sentenced them as described in the opening paragraph (para 1 ). ( 8. ) I have gone through the evidence on record very carefully and have given my anxious considerations to the arguments advanced in the case by the learned counsel for the parties. Having done so, I find that this appeal is devoid of substance. There, could be no doubt, whatever, in respect of the incident of violence taken place between the appellants and the members of the police party. The injures sustained by the members of both the parties constitute the strongest circumstance in favour of the incident having taken place and presumably, that is the reason why the learned counsel for the appellants was not in a position Seriously to challenge the same on facts, besides pointing to the minor inconsistencies and contradictions in the oral testimonies, which are bound to occur in any case, howsoever true. There was no motive, whatever, for the police falsely to implicate the appellants or any one of them, for it was not going on a mission of its investigation, but merely to execute the orders of the Court, i. e. , the judicial Magistrate First Class, Mungawali, in securing the attendance of the concerning appellants against whom non-bailable warrants had been issued. There is nothing again to bring out that the non-bailable warrant against Zuber, who was first to be arrested, was executed in any illegal or irregular manner. In the circumstances of the case, the motive which led Zubers brothers and father, as also co-culprit Ezaz Khan, to attack the police party and the attempt forcibly to rescue Zuber could not be otherwise than disregard for the legal process of ill-founded mistaken apprehension against the police, as the party was accompanied for the purpose of identification by Ashfaq Khan (P. W. 2), with whom they were presumably on inimical terms. The incident of violence is so natural and in the proper sequence of events, for the members of the force could have no reason to open fire upon the appellants; except to save their own lives and to safeguard their weapons. The serious injury sustained by H. C. Bhanwarsingh (P. W. 3)is the strongest circumstance in favour of the incident having taken place in the manner alleged by the prosecution. ( 9. ) WHILE in course of the arguments, the learned counsel for the appellants also pointed to the weaker part of the prosecution evidence in respect of seizure of the weapons from the accused, which is because Gopalsingh (P. W. 8), Gopilal (P. W. 9) and ajij Khan (P. W. 16), on the point, have turned hostile. However, in the case of the present nature, which essentially depends, on oral testimony which has been relied upon, the subsidiary evidence, relating to the seizure of weapons, is of no consequence. The injuries sustained by the members of the police party are very much there irrespective of the weapons, by which they were caused, and the nature of weapons used is also brought out in the medical evidence. The learned counsel also urged that the incident of violence is shown to have taken place suddenly and, as such, the provisions of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code could not be applicable. The learned counsel also urged that the incident of violence is shown to have taken place suddenly and, as such, the provisions of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code could not be applicable. However, again, the argument is hollow, insofar as it is well settled that the common object of an unlawful assembly can develop in an instant in the particular circumstances of the case. In this particular case, it is so obvious, since the common object of rescuing Zuber from the police custody developed then and there and his brothers, father and co-culprit Ezaz khan decided to take the law into their own hands and to rescue him at any cost I have, therefore, not the slightest hesitation in confirming the convictions of the appellants in this case, the convictions under all the heads being well deserved and well supported by the evidence adduced and the circumstances of the case. The convictions are, accordingly, confirmed ( 10. ) LAST, but not the least, in the alternative, the learned counsel lor the appellants also sought clemency on the point of the sentences, imposed upon the appellants by the trial Court. I am of the opinion that the learned trial Judge had already taken a lenient view of the matter in view of the gun shot injuries sustained by two among the appellants in course of their foolhardy, as pointed to by him in the concluding paragraph (para 26) of his Judgment However, still so, I am of the opinion that only one among the appellants, i. e, Shakir, deserves further leniency, for the reason that on the date of the trial Court Judgment, he was the youngest among the 4 brothers aged hardly about 18 years. His role in the incident of violence was comparatively insignificant inso-far as he was only armed with a danda, i. e. a small stick. The learned counsel for the appellants also stated that 5 among the appellants, i. e. , Hanif Khan and his 4 sons, including Shakir, are the members of the same agricultural family and in the case of all of them remaining in jail custody for two years, the sustenance of the remaining family members would be difficult In that view of the matter, I deem it proper to reduce the jail term imposed upon appellant Shakir to one year, together with fresh imposition of fine Rs. 500/-, in default of which he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. ( 11. ) THE result is, that except for reduction of jail sentence of appellant Shakir, the appeal fails and is, hereby, dismissed. The convictions of the appellants in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 225/307/333 read with Section 149 of the indian Penal Code are confirmed. The jail sentences imposed upon them by the trial court under Section 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code are also confirmed, with the exception of the jail term imposed upon appellant Shakir, which is reduced and converted to rigorous imprisonment for one year along with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of which he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months more. The appellants are on bail. They shall surrender to their bail bands before the Chief judicial Magistrate, Vidisha, and serve out the remaining portion of imprisonment, according to law. Order accordingly.