JUDGMENT D.K. Trivedi, J. - These two criminal appeals have been preferred by seven appellants against the judgment and order dated 30-41979 passed by Sri C. P. Singh, IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Gonda, in Sessions Trial No. 183 of 1978. Appellants Mahadeo, Deota Prasad and Ram Samokhan have been convicted under Sections 147, 302/149 and 307/149 I.P.C. and sentenced to one year's R. I., life imprisonment and seven years R.I., respectively. appellants Ram Sukh, Ram Khelawan, Mata Prasad and Munna Lal have been convicted under Sections 148. 302/149 and 307/149 I.P.C. and sentenced to two years R.I., imprisonment for life and seven years R.I., respectively. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2. The allegation of the prosecution was that there was enmity between the complainant party on one side and the accused-appellants on the other. All the accused are related to each other and are residents of villager Madarpur except accused Munna Lal who is resident of Village Kanjay Mau. It is said that Ram Samujh owns two chaks Nos. 668 and 670 in Village Madarpur and these chaks lie towards south of the house of complainant Ram Pher. The houses of accused Mahadeo, Ram Samujh and Ram Khelawan he towards north of these chaks and it is said that a 2 decimal land of Gao Sabha lies in between the chaks of Ram Samujh and the houses of the accused persons. The said land was left as Abadi in consolidation operations. It is said that accused Mahadoo took illegal possession of this plot and thereafter intended to grab the land of the chaks of Ram Samujh. In order to stop this Ram Samujh moved an application for demarcation before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate impleading Mahadeo and others as opposite parties. In the said demarcation proceedings one Sri Gangadhar Dubey, Vakil, was appointed as Commissioner for demarcating the plot. It is said that the Commissioner demarcated the plot on spot just three days before the incident and fixed boundary pillars. Secondly, it is alleged that Mahadeo and others uprooted onion crop of the complainant Ram Pher just 6 or 7 months before this incident. There was exchange of hot words and Ram Pher P.W. 1 lodged a F.I.R. of this incident (Ext. Ka. 1) with the police on 21-1-1978 against Mahadeo, Ram Samokhan, Ram Khelawan and Mata Prasad. Secondly, it is alleged that Mahadeo and others uprooted onion crop of the complainant Ram Pher just 6 or 7 months before this incident. There was exchange of hot words and Ram Pher P.W. 1 lodged a F.I.R. of this incident (Ext. Ka. 1) with the police on 21-1-1978 against Mahadeo, Ram Samokhan, Ram Khelawan and Mata Prasad. Apart from this Deota Prasad and others uprooted Imli tree of Ram Samujh and on protest accused Deota Prasad, Ram Khelawan, Ram Sukh, Rajendra Prasad, Mata Prasad and others assaulted Ram Pher and his father Ram Samujh. Ram Samujh then lodged a report at P.S. Colonelganj and a case against the said accused was pending at the time of the present incident. It is said that on account of these incidents accused persons bore ill-will against the complainant and others. 3. According to the prosecution case on 11-7.1978 at about 9 a.m. complainant Ram Pher along with his brothers Raj Kishore, and Jwala Prasad and servant Ram Sukh were weeding Ghuiyan Crop in the said Chaks. It is said that all the accused persons, namely, Ram Niwaz Ram Sukh. Ram Khelawan and Munna Lal armed with Bhalas and Mata Prasad armed with Pharsa and the remaining accused armed with lathis came there and started beating all the four persons mentioned above with their respective weapons. The complainant and others raised alarm and on hearing the alarm Ram Sunder deceased and Shyam Lal, who were grazing cattle in the nearby fields, reached there and asked the accused persons to stop beating innocent persons. It is said that upon this all the accused challenged them and said that they should also be killed and then started beating Ram Sunder and Shyem Lal with their respective weapons. It is alleged that Ram Sunder received injuries and fell down in the field. Ram Sunder died on the spot due to injuries caused by discussed persons. After making arrangement. or a bullock cart injured Ram Pher. Jwala prasad, Raj Kishore and Shyam Lal went to the police station. On the way Ram Pher got a written report Ext. Ka 2 prepared by one `Udai Pratap and lodged the same at 11.50 a.m. at P.S. Colonelganj, District Gonda. The distance of the police station from the place of occurrence is 3. miles. Ram Dularey P.W. 6 prepared a chik report and registered a case. On the way Ram Pher got a written report Ext. Ka 2 prepared by one `Udai Pratap and lodged the same at 11.50 a.m. at P.S. Colonelganj, District Gonda. The distance of the police station from the place of occurrence is 3. miles. Ram Dularey P.W. 6 prepared a chik report and registered a case. Basant Misra, P.W. 7, Station Officer, P. S. Colonelganj-, was present at the time of the lodging of the report and therefore, he took up investigation and interrogated complainant Ram Pher at the police station. Thereafter he recorded the statements of other witnesses at P.H.C., Colonelganj After, recording the statements of the injured persons he proceeded to the village and on the way he met Ram Swarup injured. He recorded his statement and sent him to P.H.C., Colonelganj along with constable Gopal Shukla. He reached the village at about 3 p.m. and prepared inquest report and sent the dead body of Ram Sunder to Gonda for post mortem examination. After completing investigation he submitted charge sheet against all the accused persons. 4. The post mortem examination of the dead body of Ram Sunder was conducted on 12-7-1978 at 5.15 p.m. by Dr. Y.N. Pathak Y.W. 9. The doctor found one lacerated wound, one contusion, one abrasion as well as two penetrating wounds on the dead body. He further found fracture of temporal bone and the said fracture goes up to middle clavicle bone and Liver was perforated under injury No. 2. The post mortem report in Ext. Ka. 24. According to the doctor injuries 1 and 2 were sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death. 5. Other injured persons were medically examined by Dr. Pancham Singh P.W. 10 at P.H.C. Katra Bazar, Gonda, on 11-7-1978. The doctor found five injuries on the person of Ram Pher, out of which one was incised wound, one was penetrating wound and the remaining were lacerated wounds or contusions. Injuries 1, 2 and 3 were kept under observation. The doctor further found seven injuries on the person of Jwala Prasad, out of which-one was a penetrating wound and the remaining were lacerated wounds and abrasions. Injuries 1 and 3 of Jwala Prasad were kept under observation. On the person of Shyam Lal, the doctor found nine injuries out of which three were penetrating wounds and the remaining were lacerated wounds, contusions or abrasions. Injuries 1 and 3 of Jwala Prasad were kept under observation. On the person of Shyam Lal, the doctor found nine injuries out of which three were penetrating wounds and the remaining were lacerated wounds, contusions or abrasions. Injuries 1, 2, 4, and 5 were kept under observation. On the person of Raj Kishore the doctor found 11 injuries out of which two were penetrating wounds and the remaining were lacerated wounds, contusions or abrasions. Injuries 1, 2, 3, 7, 8 and 9 of Raj Kishore were kept under observation. On the person of Ram Swarup the doctor found six injuries, out of them one injury was a penetrating would and the remaining were lacerated wounds, contusions or a bastions. Injuries 1, 2 and 4 of Ram S warup were kept under observation. According to the doctor injury No. 3 of Ram Pher could be fatal All the injured persons were sent for X-ray and Dr. Krishna Murari Srivastava. P.W. 8, who conducted X-ray stated that he found fracture of left and right leg of Raj Kishore only. 6. The prosecution in support of its case examined 11 witnesses. Out of them. P.W. 1 Ram Pher, P.W. 2 Raj Kisore and P. W . 3 Shyam Lal Are witnesses of fact. These witnesses had also received injuries and are injured witnesses. P.W. 4 Nageshwar proved the inquest report Ext. Ka. 3 as well as memos of bloodstained earth etc P.W. 5 Udai Pratap Singh is the scribe of the report and P.W. 6 Ram Dularay is a formal witness who registered a case at P. S. Colonelganj. P.W. Krishna Murari Srivastava is the Radiologist and, as pointed out above, he conducted X-ray of the injuries of the injured persons and proved X-ray plates Exts. 5 to 10 and X-ray Exts. Ka. 18 to Ka 21. P.W. 9 Dr. Y. N. Pathak was the Medical Officer at the Civil Hospital, Gonda. He conducted autopsy of the deceased Ram Sunder and proved post mortem report Ext. Ka. 24. 7. On the other hand, the accused persons denied the prosecution case as well as the fact that Munna Lal is related to them. Ka. 18 to Ka 21. P.W. 9 Dr. Y. N. Pathak was the Medical Officer at the Civil Hospital, Gonda. He conducted autopsy of the deceased Ram Sunder and proved post mortem report Ext. Ka. 24. 7. On the other hand, the accused persons denied the prosecution case as well as the fact that Munna Lal is related to them. They further.denied that the accused formed any unlawful assembly or caused death of Ram Sunder as alleged by the prosecutions They stated that they were falsely implicated in this case due to enmity and the witnesses are partisan and inimical witnesses. Accused Mata Prasad stated that in fact a dacoity was committed in the house of the complainant and the dacoit's inflicted injuries on the injured and the complainant finding an opportunity falsely implicated them in this case. The accused also examined one witness Beni Prasad D.W. 1 who stated that the village Madar Purwa lies at a distance of half a furlong from his house and a dacoity was committed on the night in question at about 2 or 2.30 a.m. He further stated that on hearing ,he alarm he proceeded to Village Madar Purwa along with other persons but by the time he reached village Madar Purwa the dacoits had already left the place. He found that Raj Kishore, Ram Pher, Jwala Prasad Shyam Lal, Ram Swarup and Sunder were injured and the condition of Ram Sunderwas precarious. 8. The learned IIIrd Addl. Sessions Judge, Gonda, after considering the the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of the accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, he convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above. He, however, acquitted accused Ram Newaz giving him the benefit of doubt. While giving benefit of doubt to Ram Newaz the learned Sessions Judge observed that admittedly Ram Newaz was a young boy and student of Class X. Mahadeo is his grandfather and Deota Prasad accused is his father and, therefore, it was not expected from them to take such a child of tender age with them specially when he was alleged to be armed with Bhala along with 3 other persons. Aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the trial court five of the appellants, namely, Deota Prasad, Ram Samokhan, Mata Prasad, Mahadeo and Munna Lal filed Criminal Appeal No. 348 of 1979 and the other two co-accused Rant Khelawan and Ram Sukh filed Criminal Appeal No. 362 of 1979. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the Government Advocate for the State. The contention of appellants' counsel is that the evidence of the eye witnesses is not acceptable because all of them belong to one family and no independent witness was examined in support of the prosecution case. He further pointed out certain discrepancies in the statements of the eye witnesses in order to show that they are not stating correct facts. However, learned counsel for the appellants strenuously contended that the appellants cannot be convicted under Sections 302/149 I.P.C. as the common object of the assault was not to kill Ram Sunder. He submitted that even on the evidence accepted by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge the charge under Sections 302/149 I.P.C. has not been established against the appellants. In support of his contention he relied upon the cases : Shambhu Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1960 SC 725 and Moti v. State, AIR 1967 Allahabad 437. 10. As regards the question of believing or not believing the testimonies of the eye witnesses is concerned we have perused the evidence of the three eyewitnesses who were injured and could not find any ground to disbelieve their testimonies. Learned counsel for the appellants also could not draw our attention to any serious infirmity in the evidence except characterising their testimonies as that of interested witnesses. The question of accepting the testimonies of relative witnesses has already been considered in several cases by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court and it was held that normally a relative witness is not likely to falsely implicate innocent persons and protect the real culprits and further only on this ground that they are interested the prosecution case as a whole cannot be thrown out. (See State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki, AIR 1981 SC 1390 ; State of U.P. v. Ballabh Das, 1985 Cr1 LJ 2009 : AIR 1985 SC 1384 and Gurnek Singh v. State of Punjab, 1989 Crl LJ 229 : AIR 1988 SC 2249 . (See State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki, AIR 1981 SC 1390 ; State of U.P. v. Ballabh Das, 1985 Cr1 LJ 2009 : AIR 1985 SC 1384 and Gurnek Singh v. State of Punjab, 1989 Crl LJ 229 : AIR 1988 SC 2249 . We are unable to find any ground on which basis it can be said that the witnesses have falsely implicated the accused persons in this case. All the three eye witnesses are injured and natural witnesses and their presence on the spot at the time of occurrence is also clearly proved. The testimonies of the three injured witnesses also find corroboration from the medical report. P.W. 1 Ram Pher lodged F.I.R. promotly in which he gave details of the occurrence including the names of the accused as well as witnesses. We, therefore, do not find any reason to reject the testimonies of all the three injured witnesses. 11. As regard the second contention, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the common object of the accused was only to beat Ram Sunder and in no case to kill him. In support of his contention he pointed out that admittedly the accused armed with deadly weapons came to assault Ram Pher and others. They had no knowledge that Ram Sunder as well as Shyam Lai will come there and intervene in the incident, .herefore, there is no question of the common object to kill Ram Sunder He contends the no doubt the accused persons armed with deadly weapons reached the onion field with the common object to assault Ram Pher and others but beyond this they may have differed in their object because admittedly all the accused persons did not give blows to Ram Sunder and Shyam Lal. 12. The law regarding S. 140 IPC is well settled now. Hon'ble Supreme Court from the time of the case of Shambhu Nath v. State, AIR 1960 SC 725 to the case of Lalji v. State of U.P., 1989 SCC (Cril) 211: 1990 All LJ 210 held that commission of offence by the member of an unlawful assembly must have been either in prosecution of the common object of that assembly or must be that such a member of that assembly knew it to be likely to be committed. In Lal Ji's case, 1990 All LJ 210 Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the scope of S. 149 IPC observed (Para 9) : "This section makes a member of an unlawful assembly responsible as a principal for the acts of each and all, merely because he is a member,of an unlawful assembly. While overt act and active participation may indicate common intention of the person perpetrating crime, the mere presence in the unlawful assembly may fasten vicariously criminal liability under S. 149 IPC. It must be noted that the basis of constructive guilt under S. 149 IPC is mere membership of the unlawful assembly, with the requisite common object or knowledge." 13. Keeping in mind the above noted principle we find that S. 149 IPC constitutes a substantive offence but punishment is under the section to which it is tagged. S. 149 IPC in fact creates vicarious liability of the members of the unlawful assembly for the unlawful act committed in pursuance of the common object by any member of the assembly. From the above, it is clear that S. 149 IPC has also got two limbs : 1. If an offence is committed by the member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly. 2. Members of that assembly knew that such offence is likely to be committed in prosecution of the said common object. 14. Keeping in mind the above noted principle now we all proceed to decide that whether in the present case the accused are guilty under S. 302/149 IPC or not. In short, the precise question to be decided in this appeal is whether the murder of Ram Sunder was committed by the appellants in prosecution of the common object of that assembly or not. It is proved by overwhelming evidence on record that the appellants formed an unlawful assembly and armed with dangerous weapons like Pharsa, Bhala and lathi reached the onion filed of Ram Pher in order to assault him and others. Learned ,counsel for the appellants also did not seriously challenge the prosecution story up to this stage. The contention of the appellants' counsel is that originally there was no common object to kill Ram Sunder because admittedly Ram Sunder was neither present there nor he was the target of original attack. Learned ,counsel for the appellants also did not seriously challenge the prosecution story up to this stage. The contention of the appellants' counsel is that originally there was no common object to kill Ram Sunder because admittedly Ram Sunder was neither present there nor he was the target of original attack. According to him up to this stage members of the unlawful assembly may have community of object but beyond this they may differ and, the fact that Ram Sunder and Shyam Lal were assaulted by some members of the unlawful assembly and not by all, itself shows that all the members cannot be held responsible for the said offence with the aid of S. 149 IPC. Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the case of Moti v. State, AIR 1967 Allahabad 437 and the Supreme Court case of Shambhu Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1960 SC 725 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shambhu Nath Singh made the following observations (Para 6) : "But members of an unlawful assembly may have a community of object upto a certain point, beyond which they may differ in their object, and the knowledge possessed by each member of what is likely to he committed in prosecution of their common object may vary not according to the information at his commend, but also according to the extent to which he shares the community of.object and as a consequence of this the effect of S. 149 of the Penal Code may be different on different members of the same unlawful assembly." In Moti's case this Court relying upon the principle of Shambhu Nath's case held that the appellants are guilty under Sections 326/149 IPC and not 5.302/149 IPC because the common object of the assembly was found to cause grievous hurt. 15. We-are unable to appreciate how these decisions help the appellants in the present case. It cannot be disputed that the question as to what the common object is a question of fact and has to be decided on the basis of facts and circumstances of each case. 15. We-are unable to appreciate how these decisions help the appellants in the present case. It cannot be disputed that the question as to what the common object is a question of fact and has to be decided on the basis of facts and circumstances of each case. In the case of Shambhu Nath Singh, AIR 1960 SC 725 the Supreme Court after considering the evidence on record upheld the finding recorded by the High Court that the common object of the unlawful assembly was to cause grievous hurt and in fact death was caused only by one of the accused for which other accused were not responsible. In the case of Moti v. State, AIR 1967 Allahabad 437 (supra) also the court recorded a finding of fact that the common object of the unlawful assembly was not to kill but only to cause grievous hurt. The Court after considering the evidence as well as the circumstances, namely, that the appellants and the victims belonged to the same family, Mansukh and others who were made target received minor injuries and some of the injuries were caused by the accused who were armed with Kanta by the other side of Kanta, came to the conclusion that the common object of the unlawful assembly was only to cause grievous hurt punishable under Sections 326/ 149 IPC. 16. In the instant case the accused formed at unlawful assembly and armed with deadly weapons like Pharsa, Bhala reached the onion field of Ram Pher and started assaulting Ram Pher. Jwala Prasad, Shyam Lal and Raj Kishore and the injured received a total number of about 38 injuries on their persons. Out of them Ram Pher received 3 injuries on vital parts. The doctor, who examined the injuries of Ram Pher, clearly stated in his deposition that injury No. 3 was grievous and could cause death. Jwala Prasad also received three injuries on vital parts whereas Shyam Lal received one injury on a vital part Raj Kishore received three injuries on vital parts and Ram Swarup received one Bhala injury on a vital part. The injuries found on the dead body of Ram Sunder are one lacerated wound on head, one penetrating wound in. the abdomen apart from other penetrating wounds and contusions. The doctor further found fracture of temporal bone which goes upto middle clavicle bone and Liver was perforated. The injuries found on the dead body of Ram Sunder are one lacerated wound on head, one penetrating wound in. the abdomen apart from other penetrating wounds and contusions. The doctor further found fracture of temporal bone which goes upto middle clavicle bone and Liver was perforated. The injuries of Pharsa, Bhala and lathi on the head and abdomen clearly show the intention of the appellants and prove beyond doubt that the intention of the appellants was nothing else except to murder Ram Pher and others or to cause them injuries sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The intention can very well be inferred from the conduct of the accused appellants in assaulting with such deadly weapons like Bhala and Phrasa on vital parts of the body of the injured and caused fracture of middle clavicle bone of the deceased Ram Sunder. We find no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that after beating Ram Pher and others there was no common object of assaulting Ram Sunder or Shyam Lal or causing injuries which are sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death because the accused-appellants did not know that Ram Sunder will come and intervene in the incident. 17. We are further of the view that even the second limb of S. 149, IPC is established on the evidence in this case. According to the prosecution case the accused-appellants were armed with deadly weapons and they reached the onion field and started causing injuries to Ram Pher and others and in the same transaction caused fatal injuries to deceased Ram Sunder who tried to intervene. There is no escape from the conclusion that all the appellants came and assaulted the injured and the deceased with one design and object and they were definitely in the know of the fatal consequence that could actually take place as a result of attack, to make them all vicariously responsible under S. 149. IPC. There is no escape from the conclusion that all the appellants came and assaulted the injured and the deceased with one design and object and they were definitely in the know of the fatal consequence that could actually take place as a result of attack, to make them all vicariously responsible under S. 149. IPC. In Sheo Mahadeo Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1970 SC 1492 : 1970 Cri LJ 1389 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in similar circumstances held that the accused are guilty of the offence under Sections 302/149, IPC as the offence has been committed in furtherance of the common object by the members of unlawful assembly who unlawfully assembled and started demolishing stairs of the tube well and also caused some injuries to the persons sitting there. It is alleged that hearing the alarm two brothers reached there and tried to intervene but on instigation by one of the accused another accused gave one Bhala blow on the neck of Ram Prasad who died on the spot. In the instant case it is the case of the prosecution from the very beginning that when the deceased Ram Sunder intervened then the appellants gave a call "MAR DALO The F. I.R. which was lodged promptly by the complainant corroborates the statement of P.W. 1 Ram Pher who stated that all the appellants stated that "IN SALON KO BHI MAR LO". In fact the words "IN SALON KO BHI MAR LO" further indicate the fact that the assault on Ram Sunder deceased was in continuation of the common object of the unlawful assembly. In another case Gokul v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1972 SC 209 the Hon'ble Supreme Court took a similar view in similar circumstances of the case. In Gokul's case the victim was not one of those who had originally accompanied the Court Nazir. The victim was one Sampat Meena who intervened and advised the accused to settle the matter 'peacefully and amicably. On his intervention one of the accused instigated and then the other accused gave Pharsa blows to Sampat Meena. In these circumstances the Court took the view that Sampat Meena was assaulted in furtherance of the common object, therefore, all the accused persons were held responsible under Ss. V2/149. IPC. 18. On his intervention one of the accused instigated and then the other accused gave Pharsa blows to Sampat Meena. In these circumstances the Court took the view that Sampat Meena was assaulted in furtherance of the common object, therefore, all the accused persons were held responsible under Ss. V2/149. IPC. 18. The facts and circumstances on record are in our opinion sufficient to prove beyond any doubt that the appellants were members of unlawful assembly. having a common object to assault Ram Pher and others and Ram Sunder and Shyam Lal. The assault upon the victims was such that the members of the assembly certainly had the knowledge of the likely result of such an assault. We have already indicated the nature and site of different injuries received by injured persons and the deceased. The deceased had received injuries at the head and abdomen. They were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The conduct of the accused persons and the circumstances clearly indicate that the accused persons had at least the knowledge of the likely result or the offence which was likely to be committed. Therefore. it cannot be said that they did not have the common object of murderous assault which actually took place injuring Ram Pher and others well as Ram Sunder. The appellants therefore, cannot escape liability under Sections 302/149, IPC. The contention thus raised on behalf of the appellants is repelled being devoid of merit. 19. No other point has been pressed by the learned counsel for the appellants. 20. Both the appeals, therefore, fail and are hereby dismissed. The conviction and sentences awarded to the appellants are upheld. The appellants are on bail. They shall surrender forthwith to serve out the sentences. 21. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gonda, will submit compliance report to this Court within two months.