A. PASAYAT, J. ( 1 ) TWENTY-FIVE persons faced trial, out of whom twenty were acquitted and the present appellants, each of whom is hereinafter described as the accused, were convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Balangir for direct and/or constructive role played role the murder of one Smt. Nira Sahu (here in after referred to as the deceased ). Accused Bahadul, and Isu have been convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short I. P. C.) while the other three accused, namely, Han, Daya and Rupadhar stand convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 149, I. P. C. ( 2 ) GHASIRAM Sahu, the, husband of the deceased was in litigating terms with accused Bahadul for nearly decade. The dispute was settled on account of intervention of well wishers It surfaced again when Bahadul picked up quarrel with Ghasiram in relation to land of one Sukabasi Debasnyana Sahu. Said Sukabasi had reclaimed some forestland and was in possession thereof after reclamation. Bahadul got the land, situated near the land of Ghasiram, recorded in his name in the year 1981. When there was some dispute in respect of that land, accused Bahadul approached Ghasiram to give evidence in his favour. But letter declined his request stating that he was a believer of truth. A proceeding was initiated by Bahadul under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, the Code), and Ghasiram was impleaded in the proceeding, and since then their hostility towards each other increased. Severa cases were initiated by Ghasiram and Bahadul against each other. On 21. 11. 1988 in the afternoon, six of the accused persons who have been acquitted came with sickles to the land of Ghasiram and started cutting unripe paddy. At that time Ghasiram and his wife (the deccased) were tending their bullocks and goats on their land. On seeing the persons cutting unripe paddy, the deceased protested and told them not to cut the paddy, and also did not a blow them to cut paddy. At that time accused Han and Isu armed with a spear each and Bahadul with an axe arrived along with accused Rupadhar and Daya each of whom was carrying a athi. Accused Han directed those persons who were cutting paddy to continue the operation, to which the deceased protested. At that time accused Han and Isu armed with a spear each and Bahadul with an axe arrived along with accused Rupadhar and Daya each of whom was carrying a athi. Accused Han directed those persons who were cutting paddy to continue the operation, to which the deceased protested. Isu dealt a spear blow on the abdomen of the deceased as a result of which she fell down, and thereafter accused Bahadul dealt an axe blow on her neck as a result of which she died at the spot. Ghasiram shouted and cried for help. Some of the acquitted accused persons armed with lathis chased Ghasiram, who fled away. In the evening Ghasiram appeared at Agalpur outpost and orally reported the incident before the A. S. I. of Police, upon which investigation was undertaken and on completion thereof charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons to face trial under different provisions of the I. P. C. ( 3 ) THE accused persons denied the allegations. In his statement recorded under section 313, of the Code accused Bahadul claimed that the Jamduli land belonged to him, and he was in possession thereof. ( 4 ) NINE witnesses were examined to further prosecution case. Placing reliance on the evidence of Ghasiram (P. W. 5) the learned trial Judge found the present accused-appellant guilty, convicted and sentenced them to imprisonment for life, while acquitting the other accused persons. ( 5 ) IN support of the appeal, learned counsel has urged that the evidence of Ghasiram (P. W. 5), which is tainted with interestedness and hostility, should not have formed the basis of conviction. Additionally it is submitted that the prosecution has not been able to bring home the charge of sharing of common project, which is the sine qua non for application of section 149, I. P. C. so far as Han, Rupadhar, and Daya are concerned. The learned counsel for Some on the other hand contended that the common object can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances and the very fact that all the five accused-appellants came armed with deadly weapons at a point of time when there was culling of paddy by the other accused persons who have been acquitted sufficiently establishes their common object. ( 6 ) SO far as evidence of P. W. 5 is concerned, we find that his evidence is clear and cogent. ( 6 ) SO far as evidence of P. W. 5 is concerned, we find that his evidence is clear and cogent. Where hostility and animosity of a witness and the deceased on one hand with the accused on the other is more or less accepted, the Court has a duty to make a deeper scrutiny to find out whether the evidence is tainted on account of hostility. If the evidence is credible and cogent even when tested on the touchstone of accepubitily there is no reason to discard the same. It can form foundation of conviction. Even though the panics have been in litigating terms and there was dispute over the land that by itself is not sufficient to discard the evidence of P. W. 5, who was elaborately and categorically stated about the role played by various accused persons. The learned trial Judge was, therefore, justified in placing reliance on his evidence. ( 7 ) THE residual question is whether after acceptance of P. W. 5 evidence the same is sufficient to fasten guilt on each of the accused. So far as Isu and Bahadul are concerned, we find that each one of them was attributed with specific role. P. W. 5 has specifically indicated the manner of assault given by each of them. The doctor P. W. has found the following injuries: (1) One incised wound over right side of the neck extending from mid line over thyroid cartilage towards right side of the next laterally and slightly upward over stern mastoid muscle. The size of the wound width 3/4 depth bone depth. (2) Punctured wound alliptical shape over the epigastrium above the umbilicus in the mid line The size of the wound was length 1/4 width 1/4, depth 1/4. These are clearly linked with the assaults made by accused Isu and Bahadul. Thereafter, we find no infirmity in the conclusion of the learned trial Judge in arriving at the guilt of the said two accused for the offence punishable under section 302, I. P. C. What remains to be decided is whether the circumstances establish common object which is to be established for bringing in application of section 149, I. P. C. A common object is to be definitely found and is not to be a matter of conjecture or inference. The basis of constructive guilt under section 149 is mere membership of unlawful assembly with the requisite common object or knowledge. The section makes every member of an unlawful assembly at the time of commission of the offence guilty of that offence. The section creates a constructive or vicarious liability of the members of the unlawful assembly for unlawful acts committed pursuant to common object by any other member of that assembly. However, vicarious liability of the members of unlawful assembly extends only to acts done in pursuance of the common object of the unlawful assembly, or to such offences, as embers of the unlawful assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object. If it is proved that a member of an unlawful assembly shared the common object, a mere fact that he did not do any offensive act would make no difference and his liability would be absolute. This position has been succinctly indicated by the Apex Court in Lalji and Ors. v. State of U. P. . In fastening constructive liability the importance of the common object is great, and it is on this basis alone that an accused is punished for the act of his associates. The emphasis is on common object and not on common intention. Mere presence in an unlawful assembly cannot render a person liable unless (a) there was a common object, (b) he was actuated by that common object, and (c) that object is one of those set out in section 141, I. P. C. (See Musa Khan and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Roshan and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra ). The expression used in the first part of section 149 is in prosecution of the common object of that assembly. Prosecution means following up of pursuit There must be proximate and not remote connection between the offence and the common object. The commission of the offence must have been in contemplation of the unlawful assembly directly or impliedly these aspects were highlighted by us in Paresh Naik v. State. In a given case, such object may develop at the spot and an accused may share it. ( 8 ) IN the case at hand, the materials on record are not sufficient to come to a conclusion about sharing of common object. In a given case, such object may develop at the spot and an accused may share it. ( 8 ) IN the case at hand, the materials on record are not sufficient to come to a conclusion about sharing of common object. The only evidence that has been led in regard to the role played by accused Han, Rupadhar and Daya is that, the last named two were armed with lathis and had come in the company of Bahadul, Isu and Han. So far as Han is concerned, the evidence of P. W. 5 is to the effect that he directed the other accused persons to assault the deceased. In the cross- examination, however, he has accepted that the said accused told others to cut paddy. In our considered opinion, the materials indicated above are not sufficient to prove that the offence was committed in prosecution of common object of accused Han, Rupadhar and Daya along with Isu and Bahadul. Therefore, we set aside the conviction of accused Rupadhar, Han and Daya, and consequentially set aside the sentence awarded against each one of them. The bail bonds so far as they are concerned stand discharged. The appeal so far as it relates to accused Isu and Bahadul stands dismissed. The appeal is allowed in part. D. M. Patnaik, J. I agree. Appeal allowed in part. .