Judgment S.B.SINHA and D.P.SINHA JJ. 1. The appellants who are six in number have preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 30th September, 1988 passed by Sri Krishna Chandra Prasad, 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau, at Daltanganj in Sessions Trial No. 140 of 1984, whereby and whereunder the said learned Court convicted the appellants for commission of offences under Sections 302/149 and 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant No. 1 Nazir Ahmad and appelant No. 4 Imam Hazrat were also found guilty under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, but no separate sentence was passed; whereas appellant No. 2 Gulampir Sheikh; appellant No. 3 Sattar Sheikh appellant No. 5 Riazuddin and appellant No. 6 Majuddin, were found guilty also under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, but no separate sentence was passed in relation thereto. 2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass : On 10th July, 1983 at 21 hours, Jamaluddin (P.W. 13) in his fardbayan (Ext. 6) inter alia alleged that in the morning on. that date, the accused Sattar Mian and Nazir Ahmad came on plot Nos. 2860 and 2862 appertaining to khata No. 193 of village Meral for the purpose of sewing seeds thereon, where-upon informant (P.W. 13) and Asim Sheikh (deceased) went to the spot and told them that they would not be allowed to plough the lands unless a partition through the Panchayati is done. Allegedly, sewing to the objections raised by P.W, 13 Jamaluddin and the deceased Asim Sheikh, altercations took place. Thereafter the accused person went away from the said land. It is stated that at about 4 P.M. on the same day when the informant Jamaluddin on his cycle with some rice and Asim Mian with some ground-nut on his head had been proceeding the village Bazar and when they reached near the house of accused Mahang Mian, father of appelant Nos. 1 to 3, accused Wazir Ahmad (appellant No. 1) armed with a garasa, Sattar Mian (appellant No. 3) armed with a lathi came out of their house and caught the cycle of the informant and, thereafter, Barka @ Imam Hazrat (appellant No. 4) accompanied by the other appellants as also Mahang Mian (since deceased) came there. 1 to 3, accused Wazir Ahmad (appellant No. 1) armed with a garasa, Sattar Mian (appellant No. 3) armed with a lathi came out of their house and caught the cycle of the informant and, thereafter, Barka @ Imam Hazrat (appellant No. 4) accompanied by the other appellants as also Mahang Mian (since deceased) came there. Imam Hazrat and Nazir Ahmad allegedly assaulted the informant with bhala and garansa on his head and fore-head as a result whereof he fell down. Thereafter, the appelant Majuddin and Riazuddin assaulted him by lathi. as a result whereof his hand and leg were fractured and after that other accused persons also assaulted him by lathi. It was further alleged that Nazir Ahmad and Barka @ Imam Hazrat assaulted the deceased by means of a bhala and garansa respectively, as a result whereof he fell down and other accused persons had also assaulted him by lathi. It was alleged that the accused persons had also been giving out that they should be killed as he and Asim Sheikh had not allowed them to plough the land. In the first information report itself, it has been mentioned that the occurrence had been witnessed by Bipat Sheikh (P.W. 1). Sheikh Rahmat Ali (P.W. 2), Ramjan Sheikh (P.W. 10) and others. 3. Both the injured persons, thereafter, were taken to Moral Hospital for treatment where Asim Sheikh died. 4. The prosecution in support of its case examined 14 witnesses. P.W. 1 Bipat Sheikh, P.W. 2 Sheikh Rahmat Ali and P.W. 13 Jamaluddin are allegedly to the occurrence eye-witnesses P.W. 3 (Ahmad Ali) is a formal witness who has proved the first information report which has been marked as Ext. 1. P.W. 4 (Jahidan Bibi) is wife of P.W. 13 She is a hear-say witness. P.W. 5 (Kunmunia Bibi), P.W. 7 Ramyad Sao, P.W. 11 Gulam Rasul were tendered. P.W. 6 Kapildeo Prasad is a formal witness who proved the seizure of a lathi from the house of Gulam Rasul. 5. P.W. 8 Dr. Chunilal Prasad held autopsy on the dead-body of Asim Sheikh on 11-7-1983 at about 12.45 P.M. He proved the post-mortem report which was marked as Ext. 3. According to this witness, the deceased had the following ante-mortem injuries on his person : "1. Compound fracture lower and of radius and ulma; 2. 5. P.W. 8 Dr. Chunilal Prasad held autopsy on the dead-body of Asim Sheikh on 11-7-1983 at about 12.45 P.M. He proved the post-mortem report which was marked as Ext. 3. According to this witness, the deceased had the following ante-mortem injuries on his person : "1. Compound fracture lower and of radius and ulma; 2. Incised woundright hand below the elbow joint 3" X 2" x 2"; 3. Incised woundright hand above the elbow joint lateral side 1" X 1" x 11/2" 4. Fracturelower jaw in two pieces. 5. Fractureright patella in two pieces. 6. Fracturelower end of right tibia and fibula. 7. Scratch left shin of tibia to middle 1" x1/2 " x cuticle. 8. Scratch above the left arch joint 1/2" x 1/2". 9. Lacerated woundpalm below left thumb and index finger 11/2" X 1" x skin deep. 10. Fracture of left metacarpal bones 1, 2, 3, and 4. 11. Bruise left hand 4" x 2" with extravation of blood 12. Fracture supra-coridylesleft hand. 13. Incised wound-scalp right temparal region 2" x 1" x bone deep. 14. Incised woundright temporal region middle 3 x 11/2" X bone deep. 15. Scratch zygematic tracess 1" x 1"." According to the doctor, all the incised wounds were caused by some sharp-cutting weapon and the rest were caused by hard and blunt subs- tance. According to him, time elapsed since death was 24 hours. In his opinion, the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage due to afore- mentioned multiple injuries. This witness has also proved the post-mortem report prepared by him which was marked as Ext. 3. 6. P.W. 9 Dr. Sheo Charan Prasad was the Medical Officer of Moral State Dispensary. He examined injured Jamaluddin (P.W. 13) and found the following injuries on his person : "1. Fracture of left ulna (left fore arm) at the junction of upper two third and lower one third. 2. Fracture of fibula bone of right leg in the lower part with swelling around the right anch. 3. Sharp cutting wound on the right parietal region of skull longitudinally 3" x 1" X 1". 4. Sharp cutting wound on right side of fore head joint above the right just above the right upper eye-brow 1" X 1/2" x 1/2" 5. Punctured wound in the upper part of right leg laterally just below the right knee 1" X 1/2" x 1". 6. 4. Sharp cutting wound on right side of fore head joint above the right just above the right upper eye-brow 1" X 1/2" x 1/2" 5. Punctured wound in the upper part of right leg laterally just below the right knee 1" X 1/2" x 1". 6. Echymosis on right arm in lateral aspect 3" x 1". 7. The doctor stated that in his opinion that injury Nos. 1 and 2 were grevious in nature and the rests were simple. He has further stated that injury Nos. 1, 2 and 6 were caused by hard and blunt substance whereas injury Nos. 3 and 4 were caused by sharp-cutting weapon like garansa. Injury No. 5, according to the doctor, was caused by sharp pointing weapon such as bhala. The age of injuries was within three hours from the time of examination. This witness proved the injury report which was marked as Ext. 4. 8. This witness further stated that P.W. 13 was submitted in the hospital in a pulseless condition, but he survived because of medical treatment meted out to him. He further testified that deceased Asim Sheikh was also brought by the informant at the State Dispensary, but he was declared dead. He also stated that he had sent a letter to the police station giving information about the aforementioned death of Asim Sheikh and injuries received by P.W. 13. The said letter was marked as Ext. 5. 9. P.W. 10 Gulam Rasul although appears to have been named as an eye-witness in the first information report, but he was examined as a witness only on the point of seizure. In his cross-examination, however, he has stated that he has not seen the assault. 10. P.W. 12 E. M. Siddiqui is also a formal witness. P.W. 13 is the informant, Jamaluddin. P.W. 14 is Dular Sao who is the Investigating Officer in this case. 11. Appellant No. 1 Nazir Ahmad and appellant No. 2 Gulampir Sheikh raised the plea of alibi. According to them, appellant No. 1 Nazir Mian was ill for about 4-5 months and had been undergoing treatment at Dehri-an-sone and he was not present in the village at all. Appellant No. 2 Gulam Pir Sheikh also had raised a plea of alibi on the ground that he at the relevent time had been at Garhwa. In support of their case, the said appellants have examined three witnesses. Appellant No. 2 Gulam Pir Sheikh also had raised a plea of alibi on the ground that he at the relevent time had been at Garhwa. In support of their case, the said appellants have examined three witnesses. D.W. 1 is Sheo Dayal Sao, D.W. 2 is Maheshwar Prasad Gupta and D.W. 3 is S. S. Aliya. 12. So far as the plea of alibi of appellant No. 1 is. concerned, no documents had been produced nor the doctor of Dehri-on-Sone who had allegedly been treating him was examined. The defence witness, however, stated that at the relevant time Gulam Pir Sheikh had been working as a gangman. D.W. 3 proved the relevant entry of the pay-sheet in a copy book allegedly maintained in the office of P.W. 1 of Garhwa Road Railway Station to show that he had been working at Garhwa in the month of July, 1983. However, in cross-examination this witness admitted that at the relevant time, he was not working at Garhwa. Thus, admittedly appellant No. 2 Gulam Pir Mian must also be held to be not present at the place of fish work. 13. Mr. P. P. N. Roy appearing for the appellants firstly submitted that in view of the prosecution case that the deceased has also P.W. 13 had been going to Bazar with rice and ground-nut with them apperently for the purpose of sale, but the same was not found at the place of occurrence by the police. It was further submitted that the prosecution witnesses are not at all independant witnesses and as such they should not at all be relied upon. Learned counsel has further pointed out that the evidence of the alleged eye-witnesses are contradictory to each other. 14. Learned counsel next contended that in the facts and circumstances of this case, it must be held that the appellants did not have any common objects to commit the murder of Asim Sheikh. According to him, the common object, if any, must be held to cause grievious hurt only and as such the appellant should be convicted under Sections 326/149 and/or 325/149 of the Indian Penal Code. In this connection; learned counsel has relied upon the decisions in Bhajan Singh and others V/s. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1978 SC 1759 ; State of Haryana V/s. Prabhu and others, reported in 1979 Cr. In this connection; learned counsel has relied upon the decisions in Bhajan Singh and others V/s. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1978 SC 1759 ; State of Haryana V/s. Prabhu and others, reported in 1979 Cr. LJ 892; and in Ram Anjore and others V/s. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in AIR 1975 SC 185 . 15. Learned counsel further submitted that in any event there is no evidence that appellant No. 3 Sttar had assaulted anybody and as such the question of his being convicted under Sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code does not arise at all. Learned counsel in this connection has strongly relied upon a decision reported in AIR 1980 SC 1269 . 16. Mr. S. N. Rajgarhia, Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submitted that there is no reason to disbelieve P.Ws. 1, 2 and 13. According to the learned counsel, the presence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 has been mentioned in the first information report itself and, thus, there is no reason to disbelieve these witnesses. It was further submitted by the learned counsel that P.W. 2 is a resident of the locality and is also an independant witness. 17. It was next contended that the common object on the part of the appellants was to commit the murder of Asim Sheikh as also to commit the murder of the informant P.W. 13 which would be evidence from the fact that they were assaulted on various parts of the body. According to learned counsel, for the purpose of proving the common object to commit murder, it is not necessary that they must have a premeditation to the effect that by their acts, some-body may be killed ; but for the purpose of attracting the provisions of Section 149 of the Act, it will be sufficient if it is proved that they had the cammon object to cause such injury to the victim which to their knowledge would and/or is likely to cause death. 18. Learned counsel pointed out that the presence of all the accused persons cannot be doubted and their conduct, the manner of assault and the number of injuries sustained by the deceased as also P.W. 13 clearly go to show that they formed an unlawful assembly with an object to commit the murder of Asim Sheikh and P.W. 13. 19. 18. Learned counsel pointed out that the presence of all the accused persons cannot be doubted and their conduct, the manner of assault and the number of injuries sustained by the deceased as also P.W. 13 clearly go to show that they formed an unlawful assembly with an object to commit the murder of Asim Sheikh and P.W. 13. 19. Learned counsel pointed out that non-examination of some other witnesses by itself is not fatal to the prosecution case inasmuch as it is not expected that all the witnesses would come forward to depose in the Court. 20. P.W. 13 is the informant. In his deposition before the Court below, he specifically stated that in the morning of the date on which the occurrence took place, Sattar Sheikh, Nazir Ahmad came upon plot Nos.2860 and 2862 for the purpose of sowing seeds but they intervened; as a result whereof an altercation took place. This witness stated that they told the aforementioned accused persons that they would not allowed to sow seeds on the land unless they got the same partitioned by Panchayati. Thereafter, the said accused persons went away with their bullocks and plough, He further stated that on that day at about 4 P.M. he had been going to Meral with rice kept on a cycle; whereas Asim Sheikh had been going there with ground-nut. According to this witness, when they reached the darwaja of Mahang Mian since deceased, and father of appellant Nos. 1 to 3, the appellants Sattar and Nazir Ahmad came out. Sattar was armed with a lathi and Nazir was having a garansa in his hand. They caught his cycle. At that time, Imam Hazrat armed with a bhala and the rest accused persons armed with lathi also came out. Imam Hazrat allegedly assaulted him with a bhala on his head and Nazir Ahmad also inflicted a garansa blow on his head. He further alleged that accused Riazuddin and Mazuddin assaulted him with lathi, as a result whereof his left hand and right leg were fractured. He further stated that Asim Sheikh was assaulted by Nazir Ahmad by a garansa on his head while Imam Hazrat assaulted him on his left hand and, thereafter, other accused persons also assaulted him by lathi mercilessly. He further stated that Asim Sheikh was assaulted by Nazir Ahmad by a garansa on his head while Imam Hazrat assaulted him on his left hand and, thereafter, other accused persons also assaulted him by lathi mercilessly. This witness further stated that all the accused persons had been stating that they should be killed as he and Asim Sheikh had not allowed them to plough the land. 21. Mr. P. P. N. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that this witness could not have been a witness of assault on the deceased. It has further been pointed out that although this witness has taken the name of Sattar, other witnesses, namely, P.Ws. 2 and 13 have not taken his name. He has, therefore, submitted that the testimony of this witness is not at all reliable. 22. It was further submitted that no reliance should be placed upon P.W. 1 inasmuch as he being father of P.W. 13 is an interested witness. With regard to P.W. 2, learned counsel drew out attention to the suggestion given to this witness to the effect that he has been inimically disposed of towards the accused persons. In short, learned counsel submitted that for the purpose of convicting the appellants, this Court should not rely upon the solitary evidence of P.W. 13. It was further submitted that P.W. 10 who has been named in the first information report as an eye-witness did not support the prosecution case inasmuch as he stated in the cross-examination that he had not seen the assault. 23. It is not in dispute that in some incident Asim Sheikh died as a result of injuries sustained by him and the informant Jamaluddin also sustained grievious injuries. The question which therefore, arises for consideration is as to whether the appellants are liable for the commission of murder of Asim Sheikh and causing injuries to Jamaluddin or not. 24. Before proceeding to analyse the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it may be mentioned that the occurrence alleged to have taken place at 4 P.M. and the injured Jamaluddin (P.W. 13) was examined by Dr. Sheo Charan Prasad (P.W. 9) at 5 P.M. From a perusal of the injury report (Ext. 4), which has been stated in details hereinbefore, it would be evident that the informant suffered as many as six injuries. Sheo Charan Prasad (P.W. 9) at 5 P.M. From a perusal of the injury report (Ext. 4), which has been stated in details hereinbefore, it would be evident that the informant suffered as many as six injuries. According to the evidence of the doctor, the age of the injuries was within three hours. 25. It is further borne out from the records that P.W. 9 sent an information to the Officer-in-charge of Meral nolice station immediately after examining P.W. 13 as also finding that Asim Sheik had died. The said letter of information has been marked as Ext. 5 and on that basis P.W. 14 Dular Sao came to the hospital and recorded the fardbayan of P.W. 13 at about 9 P.M. 26. The statements of P.W. 13 in his fardbayan before P.W. 14 Dular Sao must be judged in this context. As it is evident that P.W. 13 as also the deceased had been taken to hospital immediately after the occurrence, as they were examined by P.W. 10 there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the occurrence took place at the point of time when it was alleged to have taken place. 27. P.W. 13 in his deposition categorically stated about the occurrence which took place in the morning on the date of occurrence. He further gave a vivid description about the occurrence in which he was assaulted and Asim Sheikh was killed. He specifically stated that Sattar and Nazir came out armed with lathi and garansa respectively and caught his cycle and at that point of time other accused persons namely Imam Hazrat came with a bhala and Mazuddin, Riazuddin and Mehang Mian (since deceased) Gulampir Mian came there having lathies in their hands. He further categorically stated that Imarn Hazrat inflicted bhala on his head and accused Nazir Ahmad had also inflicted a garansa blow on his head. He further categorically stated that accused Rirazuddin and Mazuddin had assaulted him by a lathi, as a result whereof his left hand and right leg were fractured. This witness further stated that Asim Sheikh was assaulted by Nazir Ahmad by garansa on his head and on his right hand. Imam Hazrat assaulted him on his left hand and other accused persons also assaulted him by lathi mercilessly. 28. Mr. This witness further stated that Asim Sheikh was assaulted by Nazir Ahmad by garansa on his head and on his right hand. Imam Hazrat assaulted him on his left hand and other accused persons also assaulted him by lathi mercilessly. 28. Mr. P. P. N. Roy learned counsel appearing for the appellants has not been able to point out any infirmity in his evidence. 29. The evidence of this witness, in our opinion, cannot be brushed aside only because he is an interested witness. As a matter of fact, he being an injured witness and evidently being present at the place of occurrence, this evidence should be accepted unless found to be tainted one. 30. It is true that P.W. 1 is an interested witness, but interest of a witness as such is not a ground to discard the same. It may be pointed out that it has come on record that the houses of the appellants were near the place of occurrence. The house of the prosecution party was also not far away. 31. P.W. 1 also categorically stated in his evidence about the assault by the appellants upon P.W. 13 and Asim Sheikh. 32. It is now well-known that only because a witness is a related witness, that by itself will not justify rejection of his testimony. The evidence of such a witness has to be considered along with other evidence on records. 33. P.W. 2 is a resident of the same place. His house is near the house of the accused persons. In view of the fact that the time of occurrence was 4 O clock in the afternoon, there is absolutely no reason as to why, he could not be present at the spot. He has also given a vivid description of the occurrence. It is true that the prosecution had suggested that he is inimical to the prosecution party, but he had denied the same. The prosecution has suggested that Gulam Pir had deposed against P.W. 2 in a case under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 34. As noticed hereinbefore, P.W. 2 has denied the suggestion. No document has been produced by the defence to prove the same P.W. 2 at the time of his deposition was about 65 years. The prosecution has suggested that Gulam Pir had deposed against P.W. 2 in a case under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 34. As noticed hereinbefore, P.W. 2 has denied the suggestion. No document has been produced by the defence to prove the same P.W. 2 at the time of his deposition was about 65 years. Even assuming that the suggestion given to this witness on behalf of the appellants was correct, but in our opinion, there was no reason as to why only because one of the anpellants had deposed against him in a proceedins under Section 133, Cr. P. C, he would state falsehood. 35. In this case, the Investigating Officer has also found that the place of occurrence as alleged by the informant was correct. As noticed hereinbefore, he has also collected blood-stained earth from the place of occcrrence. He has also given a photography of the said place. 36. The occular evidence as noticed hereinbefore has also been supported fully by the medical evidence. It is true that Sattar has not been named by P.W. 2 and P.W. 13 as having assaulted anybody but as would be discussed hereinafter that would not absolve him from his liability even if he was simply present and had not assaulted anybody, in the event if it be held that he had also the requisite common object to commit murder of Asim Sheikh and to make an attempt to murder the informant P.W. 13 along with others. 37. It is true that it had been stated by P.W. 13 that the deceased had been taking badam and rice to the bazar and nobody has said anything about what happened to those articles. But the defence has also not put this aspect of the matter in cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. In such a situation, in our opinion, not much importance can be placed to the fact that no witness has stated as to whether badam and rice fell on the ground and if so who took them away. 38. It is true that besides P.W. 2, no other person has come to depose as against the appellants. However, that by itself would not be a ground to discard the prosecution case, if it had proved its case on the basis of testimonies of the witnesses examined. It is now well-know that now a days people generally remain insensitive. 38. It is true that besides P.W. 2, no other person has come to depose as against the appellants. However, that by itself would not be a ground to discard the prosecution case, if it had proved its case on the basis of testimonies of the witnesses examined. It is now well-know that now a days people generally remain insensitive. When a crime is committed even in their presence, they keep themselves away from the Court where a crime takes place, they consider the same like civil disputes between two individuals or parties and they do not involve themselves in that. The Court therefore, instead of doubting the prosecution case for want of independent witness has to consider the spectrum or the prosecution version and then search for the negate of proof with regard to probability, if any, suggested by the accused. See Appabhai and another V/s. State of Gujarat, reported in 1988 SC 396=1988 East Cr C 288 (SC)=1988 Cr. LJ 848. 39. In this appeal, one further fact is to be noticed. Although three defence witnesses have been examined in order to prove alleged alibi on the part of Nazir and Gulampir Mian, learned counsel has not addressed us with regard to that part of the finding of the learned Court below wherein he disbelieved the testimonies of the witnesses on this point. Further the prosecution case as projected by the prosecution appear to be normal. 40. So far as the other contention of the learned counsel to the effect that the appellants cannot be found guilty under Sections 302/149 or under Sections 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the same, in our opinion, does not have much substance. Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code read as follows : "If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offense, is member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence." 41. It is true that as against Sattar, no specific overt-act has been mentioned by P.Ws. It is true that as against Sattar, no specific overt-act has been mentioned by P.Ws. 2 and 13, but it is a settled law that an accused person whose case falls within the terms of this section cannot put forward the defence that he did not on his own committed the offence in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly or such as the members of the assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object. (See AIR 1972 SC 860 ). 42. In this case, the following facts are clearly borne out from the records. At about 7.30 A.M. on the date on which the occurrence took place, the appellant Sattar Sheikh and Nazir Ahmad intended to forcibly plough the and of P.W. 13. P.W. 13 and Asim Sheikh objected to the aforementioned acts on the part of the said two persons. At that point of time, they had to return back with their bullocks and ploughs as they were not allowed to sow the seeds. The accused persons along with Mahang Mian, father of appellant Nos. 1 to 3, came out of their houses which were situated on both sides of the road as soon as P.W. 13 and the deceased Asim Sheikh came nearby. It is, therefore, evident that they had been waiting for them. The occurrence took place at about 4 P.M. which goes to show that they must have deliberated always themselves for commission of the crime in between the 8 Oclock in the morning and the time when the occurence actually took place. All the appellants and Mahang Mian came on the road varioually armed; some of which were lethal weapons. They came out not from one house but from two houses which are situated on both sides of the road which clearly go to show that they had a pre-meditation to commit the crime At the time of offence they gave but that the injured P.W. 13 and Asim Sheikh, must be killed, as they had prevented the appellants from cultivating the land. 43. It has further come on record that having seen P.W. 13 being mercilessly assaulted, Asim Sheikh tried to flee away but he was chased, ought and then murdered. P.W. 13 received six injuries, as a result v. hereof his left arm and right leg were fractured. 43. It has further come on record that having seen P.W. 13 being mercilessly assaulted, Asim Sheikh tried to flee away but he was chased, ought and then murdered. P.W. 13 received six injuries, as a result v. hereof his left arm and right leg were fractured. He received two sharp cutting injuries and one punctured wound. Asim Sheikh had fracture at six places of his body, out of which one was a compound fracture. He further received four incised injuries apart from other injuries. 44. Taking thus all facts and circumstances into consideration, we have no doubt in our mind that the appellants had the common object of committing murder of P.W. 13 and Asim Sheikh. 45. The decisions cited by the learned counsel are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. In Bhajan Singhs case AIR 1978 SC 1759 . it was found as of fact that a trespass was committed by the accused persons with the common object to cause grievious injury with dangerous weapons to repel any protest by the deceased. The question as to whether the common object of the accused persons was to commit murder or to cause grievious hurt depends oh facts of each ease. In that case most of the injuries were below the knee of the deceased and his wife. 46. In Ram Anjore and Others V/s. State of U. P. AIR 1975 SC 185 , again on the facts of that case, it was found that when the common object was to assault the victim and it may not be to murder one of them, they should be convicted under Sections 326/149 of the Indian Penal Code. In that case, however, one of the accused persons against whom there was specific charge of commission of murder was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 47. In Babu Krishna Kemble and others V/s. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1980 SC 1269 , the Supreme Court on the basis of clear and definite evidence held that the appellant did not participate in any crime at all. The name of the appellants was also not mentioned in the first information report as a participant in the assault. One of the witnesses also did not include his name amongst the accused before the committing Court. The name of the appellants was also not mentioned in the first information report as a participant in the assault. One of the witnesses also did not include his name amongst the accused before the committing Court. In these situation, the appellant No. 1 was given the benefit of doubt; whereas the conviction of others was uphold. 48. It may be mentioned that the aforementioned decision was strongly relied upon by Sri Roy with reference to Sattar. 49. In this case, however, Sattar took a leading role in the commission of the crime. He came out first from the house along with Nazir. He was having a iathi in his hand. His presence at the time of occurrence had been testified by all the three eye-witnesses. Only two of them might not have seen him using lathi. As indicated hereinbefore, the Supreme Court has clearly held in Balwant Singhs case (supra) that for the purpose or conviction of an accused in terms of Section 149 I.P.C. who had formed a common object in commit an offence, actual participation in the crime may not be necessary. It is, therefore, clear that the presence of Sattar is not at all doubtful. 50. Taking thus all facts and circumstances of this case into considreation, we are of the view that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants under Sections 307/149 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code as also rightly convicted appellant Nos. 1 and 6 under Section 148 of the. Indian Penal Code as also appellant Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 under Section 147 I.P.C. There being, thus, no merit in this appeal, it is dismissed. Appellant Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6 are on bail. They are directed to surrender forthwith to serve out the sentence.