R. D. SHUKIA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal Tis directed against the Judgment and other dated 10. 10. 1986 of the 1st Addi. Sessions Judge, Ratlam passed in S. T. No. 86/85 whereby the accused-appellants have been convicted under Section 325 Road with 149, I. P. C. and sentenced to 6 months R. I. each for causing grievous hurt to Bhagwansingh and further convicted under Section 323, I. P. C. for causing simple injuries to Umraosingh and Sentenced to one month R. I. each. Accused Bhanwarsingh Sb Bapusingh has been convicted under Section 148, I. P. C. and sentenced to four months R. I. and a fine of Rs. 200/- in default of payment of fine S. I. for one month. Rest of the accused persons have been convicted under Section 147, I. P. C. and sentenced to three months R. I. each. ( 2 ) THE brief history of the case is that injured persons Bhawansingh (P. W. 7) and Umraosingh (P. W. 9) are residents of Village Bhavgarh. Accused persons are also residents of the same Village. It appears nearly 5-6 days prior to the date of incident i. e. 26. 4. 1985 the officials of Excise Department have raided the house of accused Bhanwarsingh, Bhuwansingh and Prabhulal. It appears they were involved in illicit distillation of liquor. These accused persons were suspecting that Bhagwansingh has acted as an informer. Bhagwansingh denied this allegation and further requested that he is ready to take oath in a temple situated in the same Village. ( 3 ) ON the date of incident all the accused persons and persons of the Village had assembled in the temple. Injured Bhagwansingh and Umraosingh also came there. Bhagwansingh Was probably having water in a jug probably mixed with changes water. He proposed in the presence of accused persons and the villagers that he is ready to take oath in the name of Ganges water or in the name of deity installed in the temple. But accused persons did not agree to his proposal and they were continuously making allegation that he (Bhagwansingh) has acted as informer against them. Bhagwansingh and Umraosingh, thereafter wanted to leave the place by Bhanwarsingh S/o Udaisingh did not allow them to leave place and on his exhortation, all the accused persons surrounded them. But accused persons did not agree to his proposal and they were continuously making allegation that he (Bhagwansingh) has acted as informer against them. Bhagwansingh and Umraosingh, thereafter wanted to leave the place by Bhanwarsingh S/o Udaisingh did not allow them to leave place and on his exhortation, all the accused persons surrounded them. ( 4 ) ALL the accused person assaulted and caused injuries by means of Dhariya and lathis. Bhanwarsingh S/c Bapusingh caused injuries by means of Dhariya and Bhanswarsingh Sb Udaisingh caused injuries by means of lathi-fitted with iron pipe at the extreme end. Other accused persons also caused injuries by means of lathis. Bhagwansingh fall down. Umraosingh tried to save Bhagwansingh. He was also beaten by accused-persons. Parvatsingh Chowkidar also tried to save both of them. Bhagwansingh and Umraosingh were thereafter taken to Police Station. The matter was reported to Police Station Alot nearly four hours after the incident on the same night i. e. intervening night of 26. 4. 1985 and 27. 4. 1986. Police Sub-inspector am prakash Dhakad (P. W. 12) registered a case under Crime No. 76/85 vide Ex. P/33. The cloths of Umraosingh and Bhagwansingh having blood-stained were seized vide Ex. P/34 and Ex. P/35 respectively. Both of them were sent for medico-legal examination with a letter of requisition. ( 5 ) P. W. 1 Dr. S. N. Palsule examined Bhagwansingh at about 3. 30 on the same night i. e. on 27. 4. 1985 and found the following injuries: 1. Incised wound on the left arm near the shoulder 3 x 1/4 x 1/4. 2. Incised wound on the left upper arm 4 above elbow joint 2 x I x 112 cemicircular. 3. Abrasion 2 x 1 at the right scapular region. 4. Contusion 4 x 2 immediately have injury No. 3. 5. Abrasion on the right arm near shoulder 1" x 112. ( 6 ) ABRASION on the right-upper-arm below injury No. 5 and 3 above the right elbow joint. ( 7 ) CONTUSION 6 x 1 on the back on both sides of the vertebrae. ( 8 ) LACERATEND wound 2 x 1/4 on the exterior part of the left ear, ( 9 ) LACERATED wound 3 x 2 x 1/2 on the dorsal aspect of the left hand. ( 7 ) CONTUSION 6 x 1 on the back on both sides of the vertebrae. ( 8 ) LACERATEND wound 2 x 1/4 on the exterior part of the left ear, ( 9 ) LACERATED wound 3 x 2 x 1/2 on the dorsal aspect of the left hand. All the injuries were caused within 24 hours and were simple in nature excepting injury No. 9 Injuries No. 1 and 2 were caused by sharp edged and pointed weapon. Injuries No. 8 and 9 were caused by hard and blunt object The Report Ex. P/2 was prepared by Dr. Palsule (P. W. 1) and the X-ray examination was also advised. The X-ray examination of Bhagwansingh was done on the same day by the same doctor and as per X-ray photo Ex. P/7 and report Exh. P/8 fracture was found on the distal end of 4th and 5th metacarpal bone of left hand. Bhagwansingh was admitted in the hospital for treatment vide Ex. P19 and it appears that he was discharged on 29th May, 1985 vide Ex. P1 10. 6. Umraosingh was also examined the same day and as per Report of Dr. Palsule Ex. P/3 following injuries were found on his body: 1. Contusion on the left side of the back 2 x 1". 2. Abrasion on the right fore-arm by the side of the wrist 1" x 1/2. 3. Contusion on the right thigh in the middle 3 x 1. 4. Contusion on the exterior aspect of her left knee 1 x 1". All the injuries were simple in nature and were caused by hard and blunt object within 23 hours from the examination. 7. It appears accused Lalsingh was also examined the same day and one incised wound of the size of 1 x 1/4" x 1/4" was found on the head with cloated blood beneath the hair. The report (Ex. P/6) was prepared by Dr. Palsule. 8. During the investigation the site-map Ex. P/35 of the place of incident was prepared by Sub- Inspector Dhakad (P. W. 12) at the instance of Umraosingh. The accused person were arrested and memoes of arrests Ex. P/12, Ex. P115 and Ex. P/32 were prepared. 9. One lathi was recovered at the instance of accused Shavsingh (Ex. P/13) and the same was seized by Ex. P/35 of the place of incident was prepared by Sub- Inspector Dhakad (P. W. 12) at the instance of Umraosingh. The accused person were arrested and memoes of arrests Ex. P/12, Ex. P115 and Ex. P/32 were prepared. 9. One lathi was recovered at the instance of accused Shavsingh (Ex. P/13) and the same was seized by Ex. P/31, one lathi was seized at the instance of accused Lalsingh and was seized vide Ex. P/29. Accused Bhanwarsingh gave information about the lathi vide Ex. P/16 and the same was seized vide Ex. P/22. Accused Arjunsingh gave information about the Dhariya vide Ex. P/17 and the same was seized vide Ex. P/27. The lathis were seized from accused Prabhu, Kalusingh vide Ex. P/23 and Ex. P/25 respectively. Similarly accused Gangaram and Bhuwan also gave information about the lathis. The same were seized vide Ex. P/26 and P124 respectively. ( 10 ) AFTER investigation the Challan was filed and the same was committed to the Court of Session in due course. ( 11 ) CHARGES under Sections 148, 307 read with Sections 149 and 323, I. P. C. were framed against all of them. ( 12 ) ACCUSED persons abjured the guilt and pleaded that they have been falsely implicated. Accused Bhanwarsingh has stated that Bhagwansingh assaulted him and caused injuries by stone and stick. ( 13 ) AFTER trial learned Judge has convicted and sentenced them as above. Hence this appeal. ( 14 ) IN the memo of appeal and during the course of argument it was submitted on behalf of the accused-appellants that the prosecution witnesses are not reliable as they are interested witnesses to has also been submitted that the formation of unlawful assemble and the common object has not been proved. Thereafter a clemency in the sentences has been pleaded on the ground that the incident has taken place seven years before, and the accused persons are agriculturists. ( 15 ) AS against it learned counsel for the State has supported the case of the prosecution and further submitted that even if Bhagwansingh has acted as an informer to the Excise Officer or the Police, he was within his rights and the accused has no right to cause injuries to law-abiding persons: ( 16 ) THE prosecution has examined P. W. 1 Dr. S. N. Palsule, P. W. 2 Juwansingh, P. W. 3 Kailaschandra, P. W. 4 Nagulal, P. W. 5 Balusingh, P. W. 6 Bhaggulal, P. W. 7 Bhagwansingh, P. W. 8 Dulesingh, P. W. 9 Umraosingh, P. W. 10 Parwatsingh, P. W. 11 Ratanlaland P. W. 12 Omprakash Dhaked in support of its contention. ( 17 ) SO far as the back-ground of the incident is concerned, the same has been proved by not only Bhagwansingh (P. W. 7) and Umraosingh (P. W. 9) but has also been proved by P. W. 8 Dulesingh, P. W. 10 - Parwatsingh and the same finds place in Ex. P/33 which has been proved by P. W. 12 Omprakash Dhaked. The back-ground of the incident that the accused-persons were making allegation against Bhagwansingh for having acted as an informer which lead to the raid in their house and seizure of the illicit liquor has not been seriously challenged. Similarly, the fact of assembly of persons in the temple has also not been seriously challenged. Thus, from the evidence referred to above, the motive behind the whole dispute has rightly been found proved by the learned Trial Judge. ( 18 ) BHAGWANSINGH (P. W. 7) has stated that accused Bhanwarsingh Sb Bapusingh assaulted by means of Dhariya and caused injuries by the side of the ears. Bhanwarsingh Sb Udaisingh assaulted by means of lathi fitted with iron-pipe and caused injuries on the left wrist. Bhuwan Singh caused injuries by lathi on the left hand. Thereafter all the accused persons begin besting and caused injuries by lathis. Bhagwansingh stands corroborated from the statement of Dr. Palsule (P. W. 1) who has testified about the injuries and proved his report Ex. P/2, P/8 and P19. P. W. 8 Dulesingh has also supported the statement of Bhagwansingh and has stated that all the accused person caused injuries by lathi to Bhagwansingh. He feel down Umraosingh tried to save him. He was also assaulted. He has further stated that he was not in a position to state as to what injury has been caused by which accused. The statement of Dulesingh appears to be natural as immense like this it is difficult to state. The specific role of each of the accused in all its exactitude. He was also assaulted. He has further stated that he was not in a position to state as to what injury has been caused by which accused. The statement of Dulesingh appears to be natural as immense like this it is difficult to state. The specific role of each of the accused in all its exactitude. ( 19 ) P. W. 9 Umraosingh has also stated that Bhanwarsingh Sb Bapusingh caused injuries to Bhagwansingh by means of Dhariya and thereafter all the accused persons caused injuries to him by means of lathi. He has further stated that he tried to save Bhagwansingh but he was also assaulted. ( 20 ) THIS witness has also sustained injuries and the same has been proved by Dr. Palsule in paragraph 3 of his statement The presence of this witness cannot be doubted. P. W. 10. Parwatsingh has also corroborated the story of the prosecution and has stated that all the accused persons surrounded Bhagwansingh and caused injuries to him. Umraosingh tried to save him. He also sustained injuries in that attempt. This witness has stated about the presence of all the accused persons but could not state about the specific act of each of the accused. F. I. R. Ex. P/33 which has been proved by P. W. 11 Om Prakash Dhakad contains the name of all the nine persons. Thus, presence of all the accused persons at the time of incident and causing of injuries to Bhagwansingh and Umraosingh has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and had rightly been so. ( 21 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants at the earlier pan of his arguments tried to challenge the credibility and reliability of the prosecution witnesses but later on gave up this argument and made submissions that all the accused persons cannot be held liable for sharing the common object as they has earlier assembled for the purpose of Panchayat. As observed above the presence of all the accused persons at the time of the -incident has rightly been found proved. However, this will have to be seen as to whether all of them shared the common object of assaulting and causing injuries to Bhagwansingh and Umraosingh. As observed above the presence of all the accused persons at the time of the -incident has rightly been found proved. However, this will have to be seen as to whether all of them shared the common object of assaulting and causing injuries to Bhagwansingh and Umraosingh. ( 22 ) THOUGH it is true that normally premeditation or prior meeting of mind for proving the common object of an unlawful assembly is required to proved but the same can be developed at the spot as well. In this case it was on the exhortation of Bhagwansingh Sb Udaisingh that all the accused persons surrounded Bhagwansingh and begin beating. The weapon of assault i. e. Dhariya and latili were open and visual. As such, all those persons who participated in that incident will be deemed to have shared the common object. The moment all of them surrounded Bhagwansingh for the purpose of wrongfully confining him and assaulting him, the unlawfull assembly will be deemed to have been formed as the weapons used i. e Dhariya and lathis were open and visible. Therefore, it will also be deemed that they all had knowledge of the injuries which are being caused. ( 23 ) IN the opinion of the Court, therefore, all the accused persons have rightly been held guilty for causing grievous injuries to Bhagwansingh in pursuance of the common object of their all and similarly for causing simple injuries to Umraosingh with the same object i. e. in pursuance of the common object of their all. They have, therefore, been rightly held guilty under Section 325 read with Section 1499 and Section 323 read with Section 149 of I. P. C. Since accused, Bhanwarsingh Sb Bapusingh was armed with a dangerous weapon he too has rightly been convicted under Section 148 I. P. C. ( 24 ) THE conviction of all the accused person under Section 147 of the I. P. C. for forming unlawful assembly is also well merited. ( 25 ) BHANWARSINGH S/c Bapusingh has caused incised wounds by means of sharp edged heavy weapon (Dhariya) but learned trial Judge has failed to convict him or either of them under Section 324 of I. P. C. ( 26 ) SINCE there is no appeal by the State, now, therefore, on the principle of deemed acquittal the accused persons cannot be convicted for that offence. ( 27 ) NOW so far as the sentence is concerned much leniency cannot be shown to those accused persons whose specific act has been assigned by injured Bhagwansingh. Even otherwise excepting the allegation of the accused persons that Bhagwansingh has acted as informer to the Police and Excise Department which resulted in the raid and seizure of illicit liquor cannot be accepted to be a ground for causing such injuries. Bhagwansingh was within has right to act as an informer for detection of the crime and if a person who helps the law and detection of crime is dealt with in such a way, the matter should be seriously viewed. ( 28 ) THE three persons i. e. appellant No. 3 Bhuwansingh Sb Parwatnigh, No. 8 Bhanwarsingh Sb Bapusingh and No. 9 Bhanwarsingh Sb Udaisingh have been assigned specific role of causing injuries by dangerous weapon i. e. Dhariya and iron-pipe fitted lathi. They are sufficiently grown-up persons as Bhuwansingh was aged about 3 years, and Bhanwarsingh Sb Udaisingh was aged about 30 years - on the date of incident. ( 29 ) SO far as the other accused persons i. e. Shavsingh, Lalsingh, Kalusingh, Arjunsingh, Prabhu and Gangaram are concerned, they were comparatively younger at the time of the incident. It appears they have all acted under the exhortation and direction of accused appellants No. 9 i. e. Bhanwarsingh Sb Udaisingh. The incident has taken place somewhere in April, 1985. Now nearly more than seven years have elapsed. There is every likelihood that they must be working as bread-earners of their families and therefore, a lenient view in respect of the sentence may be taken regarding them. ( 30 ) AS a result the appeal fails so far as the conviction of the accused persons under the specific offence referred to above, is concerned and the same (conviction) is hereby affirmed. ( 31 ) NOW so far as the sentence is concerned accused-appellants Bhuwansingh Sb Parwat Singh, Bhanwarsingh S/c Bapusingh and Bhanwarsingh Sb Udaisingh, deserve no leniency and therefore sentences apssed against them under each of the sections are maintained and no interference is made in that behalf. The appeal of the rest of the accused person regarding sentence is partly allowed. The sentences of rest of the accused- persons i. e. Shavsingh, Lalsingh, Kalusingh, Arjunsingh, Prabhu and Gangaram is modified as follows. The appeal of the rest of the accused person regarding sentence is partly allowed. The sentences of rest of the accused- persons i. e. Shavsingh, Lalsingh, Kalusingh, Arjunsingh, Prabhu and Gangaram is modified as follows. They are sentence to imprisonment till rising of the Court and fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rs. One thousand) each under Section 325 read with Section 149 I. P. C. indefault of payment of fine Rule II for five months. They are also sentenced to a fine of Rs. 200 (Two hundred) each under Section 323 read with Section 149 I. P. C. in default of payment of fine they shall suffer R. I. for one month. They are further sentenced to a fine of Rs. 300/- (Rs. Three hundred) each under Section 147 I. P. C. in default of payment of fine they shall suffer R. I. for 1-1/2 months each. Thus all of them cumulatively are sentenced to imprisonment till rising of the Court and a fine of Rs. 1,500/- (Rs. One thousand five hundred) each. Out of the amount of fine, if paid, Rs. 2,000/- (Rs. Two thousand) be paid to injured Bhagwansingh S/o Babusingh and Rs. 5001- (Rs. Five hundred) to Umraosingh S/o Fatesingh as compensation. Appeal allowed partly. .