JUDGMENT : K. B. Sinha and S. H S. Abidi, JJ. - This appeal is directed against the JUDGMENT : and ORDER :by which appellant Guru Charan Yadav has been convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life. The remaining six appellants' have been convicted under section 302 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentences of rigorous imprisonment for life has been awarded to them. Appellant Wakil Yadav has been further convicted under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years. Appellants Jagdish Yadav alias Madhuban Yadav, Sheo Shankar Yadav and Ram Dulari Devi have also been convicted under section 323 of the Penal Code and sentenced, to one year's rigorous imprisonment. Appellants Jagdish Yadav and Ram Dulari Devi have further been awarded one year's. rigorous imprisonment for their conviction under section 147 of the Penal Code and the rest two years' rigorous imprisonment for their conviction under section 148 of the Penal Code. A charge under section 426 of the Penal Code was framed against appellants Guru Charan Yadav and Wakil Yadav, but they were acquitted of the sale charge. 2. The incident out of which this appeal arises took place on 11.11.73 between 11 and 12 A.M. (mid-day) in village Shankarpur within Nasriganj Police Station in the district of Rohtas. According to the prosecution case, the khalihan of the informant and appellant Wakil Yadav were situated side by side towards west of the village. On the day of the occurrence the informant Parikha Singh Yadav had prepared his khalihan for thrashing paddy crop. At about mid-day he came from his field with his son Sheorati Singh (P.W. 2) carrying bundles of paddy crop at his khalihan. He noticed appellants Guru Charan Yadav and Wakil Yadav demolishing the intervening ridge between the two khalihans which he had repaired in the morning. Lorik Yadav, the elder son of the infomant, objected to the demolition of the ridge which led to an altercation between the parties. While altercation was going on, appellants Wakil Yadav and Guru Charan Yadav picked up barchha kept in their khalihan by the side of a place where bricks were stocked. Immediately thereafter appellants Wakil Yadav exhorted Guru Charan Yadav to do away with the life of Lorik. While altercation was going on, appellants Wakil Yadav and Guru Charan Yadav picked up barchha kept in their khalihan by the side of a place where bricks were stocked. Immediately thereafter appellants Wakil Yadav exhorted Guru Charan Yadav to do away with the life of Lorik. In the meantime the other appellants also appeared variously armed at the khalihan Appellant Guru Char an Yadav inflicted a barchha blow on the side of the chest of Lorik Yadav as a result or which he fell down unconscious after sustaining the injury. The informant wanted to save his son but Wakil Yadav assaulted him with barchha on the left side of his chest and gave the second blow on his check, Appellant Ram Dulari Devi hurled brickbat on the informant causing injury on his right leg. Appellants Jagdish Yadav and Sheo Shankar Yudav assaulted Sheorati Singh with lathi. On the halla raised by the members, of the prosecution party, some villagers including Daroga Singh (P.W. 1) and Bhikhar Mian came at the place of the occurrence and thereafter the appellants took to their heels. Lorik Yadav was carried on a cot for treatment to Nasriganj but he died on the way. The dead body, thereafter, was placed on a bulled cart and was taken to the police station. 3. A first information report (Ext.2) was lodged at Nasriganj Police Station on the basis of which the Police registered a case and after investigation submitted charge sheet. 4. Out of 8 witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution P. W. 1 Daroga Singh, P.W. 2 Sheorati Singh and P.W. 3 Parikha Vadav deposed as eye witnesses to the occurrence. P.W. 4 G.N. Verma conducted autopsy on the deed body of Lorik Yadav P.W. 7 Abdullah Khan, Sub-Inspector of Police, made investigation into the case. The evidence of P.W. 5 Nand Kishore Singh is formal in nature as he formally proved the first information report. Similarly P.W. 6 Gopal Prasad Singh proved the charge sheet (Ext. 3) and Tulsi Singh (P.W. 8) proved the injury reports (Exts. 4/2 and 4/3) prepared by the doctor with regard to the injuries found on the person of the informant (P. W. 3) and his son (P. W. 2). So their evidence is also formal in nature. 5. Similarly P.W. 6 Gopal Prasad Singh proved the charge sheet (Ext. 3) and Tulsi Singh (P.W. 8) proved the injury reports (Exts. 4/2 and 4/3) prepared by the doctor with regard to the injuries found on the person of the informant (P. W. 3) and his son (P. W. 2). So their evidence is also formal in nature. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, while assailing the JUDGMENT : submitted that injuries were found on the person of two of the appellants which were not explained by the prosecution and as such the prosecution case should be disbelieved on this score alone. It is further contended that altercation had taken place between Lorik Yadav on the one hand and appellants Wakil Yadav and Guru Charan Yadav on the other and in fit of anger the latter inflicted the injury at the instance of the former and hence no case punishable under section 302 of the Penal Code has been made out against appellant Guru Charan Yadav. It is also urged that the remaining five appellants cannot be held liable for committing the offence under section 302 read with section 149 of the Penal Code as they did not share the common object for committing the murder of Lorik Yadav 6. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, bas submitted that the injuries found on the person of the two appellants were not of such nature on the basis of which it can be conducted that the manner of occurrence as presented by the prosecution was not correct and the witnesses were speaking falsehood on a material point. It is also contended that the altercation, it any, was of a minor nature and so appellant Guru Charan Yadav cannot escape the liability of committing the offence under section 302 of the Penal Code. 7. Regarding applicability of section 302 read with section 199 of the Penal Code, it is urged that the appellants other than Guru Charan Yadav and Wakil Yadav, though came at a subsequent stage but, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, they also shared the common object for committing the murder of Lorik Yadav. 8. At the time of occurrence P.W. 1 Daroga Singh was at the bungalow (Dalan) of one Tulla Singh situated close east of the Khalihan of the informant. 8. At the time of occurrence P.W. 1 Daroga Singh was at the bungalow (Dalan) of one Tulla Singh situated close east of the Khalihan of the informant. Having heard halla, he came out of the Dalan and noticed appellants Wakil Yadav and Guru Charan Yadav cutting the ridge prepared by Parikha Singh for preventing the flow of water as the Khalihan of the appellants was situated at a higher level. On objection raised by Lorik Yadav the said two appellants started altercation with him. Immediately thereafter the informant Parikha Singh Yadav and Sheorat Singh appeared with bundles of paddy in the khalihan. The informant asked his son not to quarrel with the appellants. Appellant Wakil Yadav instigated Guru Charan Yadav to kill Lorik. In the meantime other appellants also came there. Sheopujan Yauav was armed with a barchha. Appellants Jagdish Yadav and Sheo Narain Yaday had lathi in their hands and appellant Ram Dulari Devi was carrying a brickbat. Appellant Sheo Govind Yadav was armed with a bhala. On the instigation of Wakil Yadav a barchha injury was inflicted by appellants Guru Charan Yadav on the left side of the chest of Lorik. The informant went ahead to pick up Lorik Yadav but he was assaulted twice by Wakil Yadav causing injury on the left side of his chest and forehead. Sheorati Singh was assaulted by appellants Sheo Shankar Yadav and Jagdish Yadav with lathi. The appellants thereafter fled away. Lorik Yadav who was unconscious was carried with the help of villagers for treatment but he died on the way. His dead body was kept on a bullock-cart. 9. P.W. 3 Parikha Yadav supported the prosecution case as disclosed in the first information report and stated that be want in his khalihan with bundles of paddy with his son (P.W. 2). Both the witnesses' stated that they found appellants Wakil Yadav and Guru Charan Yadav demolishing the intervening, ridge between his khalihan and the khilihan of Wakil Yadav. An altercation was going on between Lorik and the said two appellants on account of demolition of the ridge. The said two appellants picked up barchha which they had kept by the side of the place where bricks were stocked. In the mean time other appellants came armed with weapons as mentioned above. An altercation was going on between Lorik and the said two appellants on account of demolition of the ridge. The said two appellants picked up barchha which they had kept by the side of the place where bricks were stocked. In the mean time other appellants came armed with weapons as mentioned above. Appellant Wakil Yadav exhorted Guru Charan Yadav and the latter gave a barchha blow on the left side of the chest of Lorik who fell down. The informant was also assaulted with bhala by appellant Wakil Yadav when he wanted to proceed towards Lorik Yadav who was lying injured. He sustained brickbat injuries on his head and lip, hurled by appellant Ram Dulari Devi, wife of appellant Guru Charan Yadav. Appellant Jagdish Yadav assaulted Sheorati with lathi and appellant Sheo Shankar Yadav also assaulted him with lathi portion of barchha. P.Ws. 2 and 3 also stated that Lorik Yadav died on the way while he was being carried for treatment on a cot. His dead body was taken to the police station on a bullock-cart. P.W. 3 stated that his injuries were examined by a doctor. Both the witnesses denied the defence suggestion that no occurrence took place, as stated by the prosecution, in the khalihan. It was suggested to P.W. 3 that he along with P.W. 2 and the deceased assaulted appellants Guru Charan Yadav and Jagdish Yadav at their residence, which he denied. 10. P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 were subjected to long cross-examination but nothing was elicited so as to create any reasonable doubt with regard to their testimony. 11. P.W.1 Daroga Singh is an independent witness and is not related to either party in any way. Injuries were found on the person of P.W. 2 and 3 which lend support to the fact that they were present at the time of the occurrence. Even according t6 the suggestion given to these two witnesses, they were present where the occurrence had taken place. 12. P.W. 7 Abdullah Khan was the Officer Incharge of Nasriganj Police Station at the relevant time. He visited the place of occurrence on 11.11.73 itself, In course of inspection he found the khalihans of the parties situated contiguous to each other. Brickbats were also found scattered over the khalihan. He found some blood lying on the ground in the khalihan. P.W. 7 Abdullah Khan was the Officer Incharge of Nasriganj Police Station at the relevant time. He visited the place of occurrence on 11.11.73 itself, In course of inspection he found the khalihans of the parties situated contiguous to each other. Brickbats were also found scattered over the khalihan. He found some blood lying on the ground in the khalihan. He slated categorically that he did not find any sign of disturbance at the Darwaza of the appellants, which goes against the defence suggestion that the occurrence took place at their Darwava. 13. P.W. 4 Dr. Gupteshwar Nath Verma had performed autopsy on the dead body of Lorik on 12.11.73 and found the following antemortem injuries :- "One punctured wound 1/2"X 1/3" entering the chest cavity on left side in fourth left intercostal space in the anterior axillary line injuring the intercostal muscles, pleura and puncturing the left lung in its entire thickness in lower lobe and piercing the upper part of pericardium and the right oricle anteriorly. The left pleural cavity contained 12 ozs. of blood and the pericardial cavity contained 2½ oz. of blood". P.W. 4 stated that the injury was caused by a sharp-edged pointed weapon such as barchha and it was within 24 hours of the death. In the opinion of the doctor, Lorik died as a result of the injury which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He proved the post-mortem report which was marked Ext.1. When asked in cross-examination he stated that the injury was caused by one blow only. 14. The ocular evidence is amply corroborated by the medical evidence that Lorik Singh Yadav died as a result of injury caused by appellant Guru Charan Yadav with, a barchha. It is also corroborated by the objective findings of the Police Investigating Officer (P.W.7). 15. It has come in the evidence of P.W. 4 Dr. G.N. Verma that Madhuban Singh was examined by him on 12.11.73 and he found the following injuries : "(i) Ecchymosis 3" X 3" below left eyebrow. (ii) Swelling of the whole of upper lip arid about 1/2" X 1/2" on the left upper lip. (iii) Abrasion 5" X 1/10" on the right upper part of the arm" The injuries were simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance such as lathi and the age of the injuries was within 24 hours. 16. (ii) Swelling of the whole of upper lip arid about 1/2" X 1/2" on the left upper lip. (iii) Abrasion 5" X 1/10" on the right upper part of the arm" The injuries were simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance such as lathi and the age of the injuries was within 24 hours. 16. On the same day P.W. 4 examined appellant Guru Charan Yadav and found the following injuries : "(i) Lacerated wound 2" X 1/6" X scalp deep on the back part of head. (ii) Ecchymosis 4" X 1" on the mid of right thigh. (iii) Lacerated wound 1"X 1/6" skin deep on the left eyebrow. (iv) Ecchymosis 1" X 1" on the left zygoma. (v) Lacerated wound 1" X 1/6" X scalp deep on the back of head left side. (vi) Abrasion 1" X 1" on the left elbow joint." These injuries were also simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance such as lathi and the age of the injuries was within 24 hours. He proved the injury reports (Exts. A and A/1). According to his evidence the injuries on Madhuban Singh and Guru Charan Yadav could be caused by friendly hands if the injured took the risk. 16. On the basis of the evidence of P. W. 4 an argument has been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the injuries found on the person of Madhuban Singh alias Jagdish Vadav and Guru Charan Yadav were not explained by the prosecution which was fatal for the prosecution case. There is no mechanical rule that simply because the prosecution witnesses do not explain the injuries on the person of the accused the entire/prosecution evidence should be discarded. According to the medical evidence the nature of the injuries found all the said two appellants was simple and they could be caused, by friendly hands. There is no mechanical rule that simply because the prosecution witnesses do not explain the injuries on the person of the accused the entire/prosecution evidence should be discarded. According to the medical evidence the nature of the injuries found all the said two appellants was simple and they could be caused, by friendly hands. In a leading case on this point Lakshmi Singh and others v. State of Bihar (A.I. R. 1976 S.C. 2263), it has been held that the omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused assumes much greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution it has been also observed that there ma y be cases where the non-explanation of the injuries by the prosecution may not affect the prosecution case and this principle would obviously apply to cases where the injuries sustained by the accused are minor and superificial or where the evidence is so clear and cogent, so independent and disinterested, so probable, consistent and credit-worthy, that it far outweighs the effect of the omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries. 17. In the instant case the evidence of the prosecution falls in the latter category. So we are constrained to hold that the failure an the part of the prosecution to explain the injury of the two appellants is not material and does not affect the prosecution story adversely and accordingly this paint fails. 18. The next question which falls for consideration is whether all the appellants can be held liable for committing the offence under section 302 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the charge framed by the trial court the abject of the unlawful assembly was to commit mischief, assault and murder of Lorik Yaday. As the appellants were acquitted of the charge under section 426 of the Penal Code, so the common object to commit mischief is not attracted in this case. In view of the argument put forward on behalf or the appellants, the evidence of the witnesses may be placed in two categories for the sake of convenience. As mentioned above appellants Wakil Yadav and Guru Charan Yadav were seen engaged in demolition of the ridge and in altercation with the deceased. In view of the argument put forward on behalf or the appellants, the evidence of the witnesses may be placed in two categories for the sake of convenience. As mentioned above appellants Wakil Yadav and Guru Charan Yadav were seen engaged in demolition of the ridge and in altercation with the deceased. The other appellants were not present at that stage. They came subsequently. By the time they appeared at, the scene of the occurrence, appellant Wakil Yadav had already ORDER :ed appellant Guru Charan Yadav to do away with the life of Lorik Yadav. It was at this stage that the other five appellants came at the Khalihan. Guru Charan Yadav infilicted barchha injury immediately on the instigation of appellant Wakil Yadav. Under the circumstances mentioned above it is difficult to hold that the remaining five appellants had knowledge that Guru Charan Yadav was going to inflict a barchha on a vital part of the body of Lorik Yadav. It, therefore, follows that the five appellants who came at the scene of the occurrence at the later stage did not share the common object with the other two for committing the murder of Lorik Yadav and as such they cannot be held guilty for committing the offence under section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code. 19. These appellants, who came at the latter stage in the khalihan did not remain silent spectator of the occurrence. But they can be said to be by-standers. All of them, except Ram Dulari Devi, had come armed with lathi or sharp pointed weapon. According to the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3, appellant Wakil Yadav twice inflicted barchha blow on the informant, when the latter proceeded towards his son Lorik Yadav who was lying injured. P.W. 2 was also assaulted by appellant Jagdish Yadav with lathi and appellant Sheo Shankar Yadav with lathi portion of barchha. There is some contradiction with regard to use of weapon by appellant Sheo Shanker Yadav as P.W. 1 stated first that he assaulted Sheorati Singh with lathi and then changed his statement and stated that he was assaulted with lathi portion of barchha. The fact remains that these appellants assaulted the informant and his son Sheorati Yadav. There is some contradiction with regard to use of weapon by appellant Sheo Shanker Yadav as P.W. 1 stated first that he assaulted Sheorati Singh with lathi and then changed his statement and stated that he was assaulted with lathi portion of barchha. The fact remains that these appellants assaulted the informant and his son Sheorati Yadav. Thus it can legitimately be inferred that the members of the mob even at the second stage had the common object to assault the members of the prosecution patty in pursuance of which P.Ws. 2 and 3, both were assaulted. The doctor who examined the injuries of P.Ws. 2 and 3 was not produced as a witness in the trial court and so there is no material to indicate the nature of injury or the weapon with which the said injuries were caused. Although P.W. 8 formally proved the injury report prepared by the doctor after examination of person of P.Ws. 2 and 3, but that cannot be used as a substantive piece of evidence. 20. On a careful consideration of the evidence, we find that appellant Jagdish Yadav caused hurt to P.W. 3 and thereby committed an offence under section 323 of the Penal Code. Similarly, appellants Jagdish Yadav and Sheo Shankar Yadav caused hurt to Sheorati Singh (P.W. 2) and so their conviction under section 323 of the Penal Code also is maintained. 21. It has been rightly argued on behalf of the appellants that the case of appellant Ram Dulari Devi stands on different footing. Admittedly she was neither armed with lathi nor bhala. An omnibus statement was made in the first information report (Ext. 2) that she also appeared at the scene of occurrence along with other appellants armed with lathi and bhala. P.W. 1 stated that she was carrying a brickbat in her hand, but did not say that she caused injury with brickbat to the informant. From the evidence, of P.W. 3, the informant it appears that she was not armed with any weapon when she came to the khalihan; rather picked up a brickbat in the khalihan itself. P.W. 2 made specific statement that Ram Dulari was not carrying any arm. It appears that having heard the halla she had also come at the scene of occurrence perhaps, not with the intention to cause injury to anyone. P.W. 2 made specific statement that Ram Dulari was not carrying any arm. It appears that having heard the halla she had also come at the scene of occurrence perhaps, not with the intention to cause injury to anyone. But out of curiosity and rule was assigned to her by the prosection because she happened to be the wife of appellant Guru Charan Yadav. We find that the charges against Ram Dulari have not been proved beyond all reasonable doubts and accordingly she is acquitted of all the charges. 22. It has also been argued that according to the evidence of P.W. 3 there was dispute between the parties over the khalihan in question. The informant and the other two witnesses (P.Ws. 1 and 2) stated that prior to assault on Lorik, altercation had taken place between the deceased on the one hand and Wakil Yaday and Guru Charan Yadav on the other and so the offence was not culpable homicide amounting to murder. It is urged that on account of provocation given by Lorik Yadav, appellant Guru Char an Yadav assaulted him on the instigation of Wakil Yadav. The defence of sudden provocation may be available to an accused when he does intend to kill or inflict grievous bodily injury if such intention arises from sudden passion involving loss of self-control by reason of provocation. It is all types of provocation that are covered by exception of section 300. It must be such that as a result of which a reasonable man can temporarily be deprived of the power of self-control. The real test is the effect of provocation on a reasonable man. A person, unreasonably excited, is not entitled to the benefit of this provision and take the plea of sudden provocation by which ordinarily a person would not react to the extent of committing murder. In the instant case, there is nothing in the evidence to indicate that in course of altercation Lorik Yadav used provocative language and created a situation by which appellants Wakil Yadav and Guru Charan Yadav lost self-control. The verbal exchange of words by way of request is not enough for attracting this permission. In this case only there was verbal altercation and Lorik did not take any step to physically prevent the said two appellants from demolishing the ridges. So we find no substance in this argument and accordingly it is rejected. The verbal exchange of words by way of request is not enough for attracting this permission. In this case only there was verbal altercation and Lorik did not take any step to physically prevent the said two appellants from demolishing the ridges. So we find no substance in this argument and accordingly it is rejected. 23. In view of the foregoing discussions of evidence, we find that appellant Guru Charan Yadav has rightly been convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life. 24. So far as appellant Wakil Yadav is concerned, it has been argued that his conviction under section 302, read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be maintained. When the two appellants took into their bead to assault Lorik Yadav the other appellants were not even present at the scene of occurrence and as such the requisite number of persons for forming the unlawful assembly was not there. On behalf of the State, it has been urged that this appellant had instigated the commission of the offence of murder and hence he is liable for conviction for abetment of the said offence. 25. The question, which falls for determination, is whether appellant Wakil Yadav can be convicted for abetting the offence of murder in absence of• such a charge? The answer to this question may be found on applicability or otherwise of the provisions of section 22 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which reads is follows :- "221. Where ids 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 offence. (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 (1), he may be convicted of the offence which he is shown to have committed although he was 'not charged with it." According to sub-section (2) of section 221, if the accused is charged with one offence and it appears from the evidence that he committed a different offence for which he might have been charged under the provision of sub-section (1), he maybe convicted for such offence. It, therefore, follows that the aforesaid section permits conviction of an accused for abetment of an offence even if the charge is framed for committing the substantive offence. But it has to be kept in view that the accused must have notice of all the facts constituting the offence of abetment. From the evidence on the record if it appears that appellant Wakil Yadav had no notice of the facts constituting the offence and had no opportunity to meet the allegation, then there would not be any justification for convicting him for abetment of murder in absence of the charge. 26. In this case from the very inception, the allegation was made that appellant Wakil Yadav exorted appellant Guru Charan Yadav to kill Lorik. There is consistent evidence of P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3 that Wakil instigated appellant Guru Charan Yadav in clear terms to commit murder of Lorik, in consequence of which the latter inflicted a spear blow on the side of the chest of the deceased, which proved fatal. He had also kept a barchha Concealed in the khalihan and picked up at the time of the occurrence. Although no charge under section 302, read with section 109 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against this appellant in the trial court, but the prosecution had adduced evidence on this point. Therefore, he had knowledge of the allegation that he abetted the offence of murder. Full opportunity was afforded to this appellant to meet the allegation in the trial court. After close scrutiny of the evidence on the record, we find that no prejudice is caused to this appellant, if he is convicted for abetting the offence of, murder. 27. Therefore, he had knowledge of the allegation that he abetted the offence of murder. Full opportunity was afforded to this appellant to meet the allegation in the trial court. After close scrutiny of the evidence on the record, we find that no prejudice is caused to this appellant, if he is convicted for abetting the offence of, murder. 27. Similar view has been taken in the case of Begu vs. Emperor (A. I. R. 1925 Privy Council 130) and it has been held by their Lordships that where the charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code fails against some of the accused persons, they can be convicted under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code without a separate charge made against them under the latter section. Following the maxim laid down by the Privy Council, it has been held by a Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Syamo Maha Patro vs Emperor (A. I. R. 1932 Madras 391) that an accused person charge with the offence of murder can be convicted of abetment of murder even enough he is not separately charged for the same. This Court in Hira Sah vs. Emperor (A. I. R. 1947 Patna 350) has held that the Court of revision can alter a conviction for substantive offence into one for abetment if on the facts of the case the provisions of sections 236 and 237 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 are attracted and no prejudice is caused to the accused in his defence. Section 221 of the new Code corresponds to section 236 and 237 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. 28. There is no bar in law to convict a person for abetment of the offence without a distinct charge if the circumstance brings the case within the scope of section 221 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. So, we find appellant Wakil Yadav guilty under section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence him to undergo imprisonment for life. 29. Lastly, it is stated that all the appellants, except Ram Dulari Devi remained in jail for about a month and half, which is not controverted by the learned counsel for the State after looking to the case records. 29. Lastly, it is stated that all the appellants, except Ram Dulari Devi remained in jail for about a month and half, which is not controverted by the learned counsel for the State after looking to the case records. So, while maintaining the conviction of appellants Jagdish Yadav alias Madhuban Yadav and Sheo Shankar Yadav under section 123 of the Indian Penal Code, the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. Having regard to the fact that the occurrence took place in the year 1973 and the appellants remained in jail for quite some time, no separate sentence is awarded for their conviction under sections 147 and 148 of the Code. The conviction of appellant Wakil Yadav under section 324 of the Penal Code to also maintained and for the reasons mentioned above, the sentence is reduced to the period undergone. The conviction of the appellants no. 3 to 7 under section 302 read with section 149 of the Penal Code and the sentence passed on this count are set aside. 30. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with the notification in conviction and sentence as indicated above. The appeal on behalf of Ram Dulari Devi is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed against her are set aside. All the appellants, except Guru Charan Yadav and Wakil Yadav are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds.