A. PASAYAT, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONERS assail correctness of judgment in appeal passed by learned Addi. Sessions Judge, Balasore maintaining the convictions and sentences under sections 148 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC) in respect of petitioners Sashibhusan Sabu, Krutibas Pradhan and Sanyani Pradhan and under sections 148 and 323/149, IPC against the rest of the petitioners. ( 2 ) PETITIONERS faced trial on the accusation that on 16. 11. 1982 one Sarat Chandra Mohapatta (informant-PW1) was cutting paddy in his field. At about 10 A. M. the accused persons being armed with deadly weapons came there and as saluted him and his laborers causing several injuries, some of which were grievous in nature. The matter was reported at Baliapal Police Station and F. I. R. was lodged. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and petitioners faced trial for offences under sections 147/14913231 325, IPC. On evaluation of evidence, accused Sashi, Krutibas and Sanyasi were found guilty under sections 148/323/325, IPC and they were found not guilty under sections 147/149, IPC while others were found guilty under sections 148 and 149 read with sections 323/325,ipc and were found not guilty under section 147,1pc. Accused Sashi, Krutibas and Sanyasi were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months six months and one year each for the offence under sections 148/323/325, IPC respectively and the other accused persons were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months, three months and six months each for the offences indicated above. The sentences were directed to run consecutively. ( 3 ) IN appeal, learned Addi. Sessions Judge set aside the conviction under section 325, IPC s far as accused Sashi, Kr. utibas and Sanyasiar concerned, and conviction of all others in respect of offences under sections 325/149, IPC was also set aside. Sentences in respect of other offences as described were maintained. ( 4 ) MAIN grounds of attack in appeal were as follows: The Doctor who is stated to have rendered first aid after the occurrence at Balispal P. H. C. was not examined and bed head tickets were not proved. Requisitions sent for examination to Balasore Headquarters Hospital indicate that Sarat Chandra Mohapatra and Gajendra Mohalik were to be examined, but the certificate so far as Gajendra is concerned, was not brought on record, Nonexamination of this Gajendra Mohalik affected the credibility of prosecution case. Requisitions sent for examination to Balasore Headquarters Hospital indicate that Sarat Chandra Mohapatra and Gajendra Mohalik were to be examined, but the certificate so far as Gajendra is concerned, was not brought on record, Nonexamination of this Gajendra Mohalik affected the credibility of prosecution case. The x-ray plates in respect of the informant and Gajendra were not proved and therefore, materials on record did not bring home the charge against the petitioners. Learned Addi. Sessions Judge came to hold that non-production of x-ray plates excluded possibility of conviction under section 325, IPC which he set aside, but so far as liability under section 323, IPC is concerned, he held that the same was established. Learned Addi. Sessions Judge referred to the evidence of various prosecution witnesses and came to the conclusion that offences as described above, have been established. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for petitioners, has strenuously urged that evidence being discrepant and material discrepancies having not been considered in right perspective by courts below, interference is warranted. Mainly the following aspects have been highlighted. (i) Specific overt acts have not been attributed to the accused and therefore, the conviction is illegal. The ingredients of sections 148 and 149, IPC have not been established. (ii) The evidence in Court and the statement in the FIR are materially different. When P. W. 1 stated that he regained consciousness at 2 P. M. , the FIR could not have been lodged at 12 noon If informant had sustained injury on right hand middle finger, his signature in F. I. R. could not have been in legible and clear letters. (iii) The bed head tickets and x-ray plates having not been produced and Doctor (P. W. 4) having stated that he could not say who is the injured, the prosecution case is bound to fail. (iv) Non-examination of Gajendra casts a shadow of doubt on prosecution case. The mere statement that he is dead is not acceptable. (v) Analysis of evidence of defence witness is faulty. Learned counsel for State however, submits that an elaborate reasoning indicated by trial Magistrate and consideration by appellate court clearly indicate that all material aspects have been considered and there is no scope for interference. ( 6 ) THE submissions on behalf of the petitioners though attractive, do not bear close scrutiny. Learned counsel for State however, submits that an elaborate reasoning indicated by trial Magistrate and consideration by appellate court clearly indicate that all material aspects have been considered and there is no scope for interference. ( 6 ) THE submissions on behalf of the petitioners though attractive, do not bear close scrutiny. Informant (P. W. 1) has clearly stated about specific assaults by petitioners Sashi Bhusen and Sanyasi, though he has made a sweeping statement that all other accused persons assaulted him. The contention that P. W. 1 regained conscious ness at 2. P. M. is not correct. In fact, this witness has stated as follows: x x x I found no injury on my mouth and nose when I regained my sense. At 2 P. M. in the hospital I saw the injuries of Gajendra. This is being misinterpreted by petitioner to submit that P. W. 1 regained senses at 2 p. m. The evidence quoted above is not to that effect. The submission regarding signature in clear hand is fallacious. In any event, no suggestion in that regard was given to P. W. 1 that it is improbable. The learned Addi. Sessions Judge has considered the effect of non-production of x-ray plates. The injury report (Ext. 2) has been accepted by courts below, I do not find any reason to differ. There is nothing in Doctors evidence to support the case of the petitioners. The Doctor was not personally known to the injured persons. So the statement that he did not know who was the injured does not affect credibility of prosecution case. He has specifically asserted about his examination of the persons who had been sent for examination. The contention of petitioners that P. W. 1 and Gajendra were not examined by P. W. 4 therefore, is without merit. So far as non-examination of Gajendra is concerned, P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3 have categorically stated about his death. No suggestion was even given to these witnesses that Gajendra was alive at the time of trial. The submission that non-examination of Gajendra rendered the prosecution case fallible, is without substance. So far as the evidence of defence witness concerned, the credibility thereof has been analysed in detail by the courts below. It is submitted, that the alleged date of occurrence being Sankranti day, the question of cutting paddy does not arise. The submission that non-examination of Gajendra rendered the prosecution case fallible, is without substance. So far as the evidence of defence witness concerned, the credibility thereof has been analysed in detail by the courts below. It is submitted, that the alleged date of occurrence being Sankranti day, the question of cutting paddy does not arise. There is no definite material brought on record by the accused. Even the Defence witness (D. W. 1) has stated as follows: "x x x 16-11-1982 is the day of Sankranti:. In our area paddy is not cut usually on day of Sankranti. T (Underlined for emphasis ). ( 7 ) IT is to be seen whether ingredients of sections 148 and 149 are established. Section 148 is an aggravated form of the offence of rioting punishable under section 147. Riotingt is defined in section 146. In order to bring home charge of rioting it has to be established that (a) there was an unlawful assembly as defined in section 141; (b) the accused was a member of that assembly as defined in section 142; (c) or violence was used by the s/aid unlawful assembly or any member thereof; and, (d) the said force or violence was used in prosecution of the common object of the said unlawful assembly. The mere fact of being armed with a deadly weapon is sufficient to convert ordinary rioting into an aggravated rioting under section 148. It is not necessary to prove as to which specific weapon vas held by which particular accused. (See State v. Chaitu Kisan and 9 others. The evidence on record clearly established the ingredients. SO the Irosecution has brought home the charge under section 148. Section 149 is declaratory of the vicarious liability of the members of an unlawful assembly or offences committed by any of its members in prosecution of its common object, or for such offense as its members knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object In fastening constructive liability, the importance of the common object is great and it is on this basis alone hat an accused is punished for the act of his associates. The emphasis is on Common object and not on Common intention. The emphasis is on Common object and not on Common intention. Mere presence in an unlawful assembly cannot render a person liable unless there was a Common object, he was ilctuated by that Common object and that object is one If those set out in section 141. (See Mosakhan and others v. State of Maharashtra and Roshan and other v. State of Maharashtra. The common object has to be definitely found and has not to be a matter of conjecture or inference. The Courts below have not found with reference to any specific material that the accused persons shared a Common object to assault and cause injury. ( 8 ) IN the ultimate analysis therefore, Convictions of petitioners Sashi. Krutibas and Sanyasi under sections 148/1323. I. P. C. are maintained. The sentences awarded dot not call for any interference. The sentences however, shall run concurrently. SO far as other petitioners namely, Judhisthir, Khagendra, Puma, Jagannath, Kanhu and Nimai are concerned, their conviction under section 148, I. P. C. is maintained, but convictions under section 323/149 are set aside. I have not found substance in the prayer for releasing the petitioners on probation. Deterrent and exemplary punishment has to be, balanced against reformation. Overemphasis on probation is likely to be counter-productive. It would all depend on nature and circumstances of crime and no generalisation can be and should be made. The revision application is accordingly disposed of Ordered accordingly.