R. D. SHUKLA, J. ( 1 ) THIS order shall also dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 736/87 (State of M. P. v. Salim Khan and others ). ( 2 ) BOTH these appeals are directed against the Judgment and order dated 9. 9. 80 of the lind Addi. Sessions Judge, Shajapur Camp Agar passed in S. T. Nos. 19 and 21 of 1985. Whereby while acquitting 8 other accused persons, accused Salim Khan has been convicted u/sec. 324 of IPC for having caused injuries to Mushtaq Khan by sword a dangerous weapon and sentenced him to imprisonment for three years. ( 3 ) THE brief history of the case is that prior to the incident there was women altercation between Gaffarkhan and Yunus Khan at about 7. 00 p. m. as the latter had burnt the Handkerchief of Gaffarkhan probably to insult and insinuate him. As such Gaffar Khan alongwith Mushtaq Khan, Rajjaq, Ishaq and Latif had gone to lodge the report about the incident They were inside the Police Station. The Police Officer was busy in. taking the report. ( 4 ) MEANWHILE, Salim Khim armed with sword alongwith 8 other accused persons who have been acquitted viz. Sajan Khan, Bahram Khan, Kamil Khan, Ehasan Khan, Adit Khan, Isub Khan, Amin Khan and Yunus Khan, came to the Police Station having sticks in their hands. They entered the room where a report was being written by Head Constable. ( 5 ) SALIM Khan caused injuries to Mushtaq Khan, Latif and Gaffar. The others caused injuries by means of sticks. The Police Officers intervened and snatched the sword from the hand of Latif Khan. The report of this incident was immediately taken. The same was lodged by Latifkhan at about 7. 50 p. m. As such crime No. 108/84 was registered. As the accused persons had committed criminal trespass in the Police Station, a separate case i. e. Crime No. 109/84 was registered. The Police Officer sent the injured for medical examination. Dr. O. P. Tripathi P. W. 2 examined an of them. He found four incised wounds on the left and right phalynx and other fingers and one abrasion on the right side of the neck on the body of Mushtaqkhan (vide Ex. P/2-A ). He examined Latif and found abrasion on the right fore-arm vide Ex. Dr. O. P. Tripathi P. W. 2 examined an of them. He found four incised wounds on the left and right phalynx and other fingers and one abrasion on the right side of the neck on the body of Mushtaqkhan (vide Ex. P/2-A ). He examined Latif and found abrasion on the right fore-arm vide Ex. P/3- He further examined Gaffar Khan and found incised wound on the palmer region of left hand and two abrasions on the left shoulders and left front of the skull. ( 6 ) CHALLAN against nine accused persons were filed u/secs. 148,307 read with 149 of IPC. On the basis of Crime No. 108/84 (as the same was committed to the Court of Sessions vide Criminal Case No. 580/84 and was registered as S. T. No. 21/85), separate challan on the basis of Crime N9. 109/84 was filed and the same was committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 18. 1. 85 passed in Criminal Case No. 581/84 and the same was registered as Sessions Trial No. J 9/85. Learned Sessions Judge vide Order dated 15. 3. 85 amalgamated both the Sessions Trials and framed charges u/secs. 148,307 r/w 149 of IPC in S. T. No. 21/85 vide order dated 12. 4. 85 similarly charges u/sec. 450 were framed in S. T. No. 19/85 on the same day. The accused persons abjured the guilt and pleaded innocence with statements that they have been falsely implicated. ( 7 ) BOTH the Sessions Trials were held together and were disposed of by a common judgment. Learned Trial Judge has acquitted all the accused persons u/secs. 148,307r/w 149 and 450 of IPC, but has convicted accused appellant Saligkhan u/sec. 324 of IPC and sentenced him as above for causing injury to Mushtaqkhan. Hence these two appeals. ( 8 ) ACCUSED appellant Salimkhan has filed an appeal against his conviction which is registered: as Cri. A. No. 537/86 and the State has filed Appeal against the acquittal of the accused persons and the same has been registered as Cri. Appeal No. 736/87. The arguments in both the appeals were heard together. As such they are being disposed of with a common judgment. A. No. 537/86 and the State has filed Appeal against the acquittal of the accused persons and the same has been registered as Cri. Appeal No. 736/87. The arguments in both the appeals were heard together. As such they are being disposed of with a common judgment. ( 9 ) THE contention of learned Counsel for the appellant Salimkhan is that he was charged alongwith other co-accused persons with the aid of Section 149 of IPC and since others have been acquitted he could not be convicted for the substantive offence of Section 324 of IPC. As against it learned Counsel for the State has submitted that the prosecution has proved specific role of Salimkhan as he actually caused injuries and, therefore, the accused has rightly been convicted. ( 10 ) IN support of the appeal against acquittal learned Counsel for the State has submitted that incident has taken place inside the Police Station. All the accused persons including appellant Salimkhan entered the Police Station armed with sword and sticks and thereby all of them committed criminal trespass with intent to cause grievous injury and attempt to murder of Mushtaq and further injuries to Latif and Gaffar. In reply to this learned Counsel for accused-respondents who were acquitted has submitted that the learned Trial Judge has disbelieved that part of the story. The said finding cannot be termed to be perverse. As such the judgment of acquittal of other co-accused persons deserve to be maintained. ( 11 ) WE were taken to the evidence including charges framed by learned Trial Judge. There was a specific allegation of injury by sword having been caused to Mushtaq Khan, Latif and Gaffar including injuries by sticks. Thus apart from the charges of Sections 148, 307 read with Sec. 149 of IPC specific charge u/sec. 307 or 324 of I. P. C. are against appellant accused Salimkhan ought to have been framed. Similarly, in the other case which has also been amalgamated charges u/sec. 450 alongwith Sec. 353 of IPC also ought to have been framed as there was a clear allegation of assault on and causing of injury to Police Officers. It is noteworthy that while framing the charges the Trial Court should be liberal and charges under all the Sections of offence which were alleged with prima facie evidence ought to be framed. It is noteworthy that while framing the charges the Trial Court should be liberal and charges under all the Sections of offence which were alleged with prima facie evidence ought to be framed. ( 12 ) IN this case there is evidence of P. W. I Latif P. W. 4 Mushtaq Khan the accused Salimkhan has been convicted for causing simple injuries by sword to Mushtaqkhan last two lines of Para 30 of the Judgment) who have stated that Salimkhan has caused injuries by means of sword. Both these witnesses stand corroborated from we evidence of Dr. Om Prakash Tripathi (P. W. 2) who found four incised wounds on the body of Mushtaq, Latif as also corroborated the fact of injuries having been caused by Salimkhan to him and to Mushtaqkhan though he sustained only abrasions. He further stands corroborated from the FIR. The injuries were found simple. Thus, the fact of causing injuries by accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt. But to our surprise there is do specific charge u/sec. 307 of IPC, Accused Salimkhan has also been charged with the aid of Section 149 of IPC. Section 149 of IPC creates a specific offence. Though Section 34 of IPC does not create any specific offence. (See AIR 1955 S. C. 274, AIR 1966 S. C. 1742 and 1993 Cr1. L. J. 1387 ). ( 13 ) THOUGH it is true that a person has been charged with the aid of Section 149 and all other persons excepting one is convicted for the substantive offence, that cannot be maintained. Since Section 149 of IPC is a substantive offence and if other persons are acquitted of that offence a single accused cannot be convicted with the aid of Section 149 of IPC unless there was a specific charge of substantive offence. Reference may be had to AIR 1966 SC 1742 and 1993 Cr. L. J. 1387. ( 14 ) HOWEVER; there is an appeal by the, State against the acquittal of the present accused and ail other accused persons u/secs. 149 and 307 r/ws 149 and 148 and 450 of IPC and therefore it will have to be seen as to whether there is evidence to prove the criminal trespass having been committed by the present accused persons and other persons who have been acquitted of the offence charged with. 149 and 307 r/ws 149 and 148 and 450 of IPC and therefore it will have to be seen as to whether there is evidence to prove the criminal trespass having been committed by the present accused persons and other persons who have been acquitted of the offence charged with. Similarly it will have to be seen as to whether there is a sufficient proof to connect the accused persons with the offence of fanning unlawful assembly and being armed with deadly weapons and further for causing attempt to murderer causing injury in pursuance of the common object of their all. ( 15 ) P. W. 1 Latif Khan has stated that accused Salim, Bahram, Adil, Kamil, Yunus, Yusuf, Ahsan Khan and Amin came inside the Police Station. Salim was having sword and others were having sticks in their hands. There is no cross-examination challenging this aspect of coming to the Police Station armed with sword. It is pertinent to note that sword is a weapon which is visible and, therefore everybody who is a member of the assembly would be deemed to have knowledge of being armed with sword. P. W. 3 Rajjaq has also stated that when they were getting their report recorded Salim, Kamil, Adil, Ahsan, Amin and Yusuf came in the Police Station. Salimkhan was armed with sword others were also having weapons and all of them hurled abuses to them. He has further stated that Mushtaq sustained injuries of sword. Similarly, Latif also sustained injuries of sword. P. W. 4 Mushtaqkhan bas also stated that when they were getting their report recorded Sajan Khah, Bahram Khan, Salim Adil; Kamil Yusuf, Yunus, Ahsankhan and Aminkhan came on the spot. Salim khan was armed with sword and others were armed with sticks. It is pertinent to note that the name of Sajan Khan does not find place in the evidence of Latif. Similarly the name of Sajan Khan, Bahram and Yunus does not find place in the statement of Rajjaq (P. W. 3 ). Mukundram (P. W. 7) has stated that while the complainant party Latif, Mushtaqkhan and Gaffar etc were getting their report recorded Salim Khan armed with sword, Bahram Khan, Adil Khan, Sajan Khan, Yunus, Ahsan and Kadil Khan armed with sticks came inside the Police Station and they assaulted Latif and Mushtaqkhan. Shivji Singh snatched the sword from the hand of Salimkhan. Shivji Singh snatched the sword from the hand of Salimkhan. The other accused persons caused injuries by sticks. P. W. 8 Shivji Singh Head Constable has also stated that Salim Khan was armed with sword. Bahram, Adil, Kamii, Sajan, Yusuf, Yunus, Ahsan Khan and Amin Khan armed with sticks came inside the Police Station. Salim Khan entered the room and caused injuries to Latif and thereaftert to Mushtaq. He alongwith Umashankar, Mukundram, Sishupal Singh tried to intervene and in the intervention he sustained, injury by a sword of Salim Khan. Learned Judge has noted the marks of injuries by sword in the left hand of this witness. He has further stated that Umashankar and Sishupal Singh snatched the sticks from the accused persons. P. W. 9 Umashankar other Head Constable has stated that while the complainant party was getting their report recorded Salim Khan, Sajan Khan, Ahsan, Kamil Khan, Bahram Khan, Adil Khan and Yunus Khan came to the Police Station. Salim Khan was armed with sword and the others were armed with sticks. He has further stated about the injuries having been caused and the intervention by the Police employees and snatching of sword and sticks. It may further be noted that Shivjisingh has stated the, names of all the accused persons but the name of Amin and Isub does not find place in the statement of Mukundram. Similarly, the name of Bahram does not find place in the statement of Umashankar. ( 16 ) FROM the evidence above it appears that there is some inconsistency in the statements of prosecution witnesses about the presence of the accused persons at the time of the incident. Latif and Rajjaq have not stated about the presence of Sajankhan. Similarly Rajjaq and Umashankar has not stated about the presence of Bahramkhan. Though it is possible that in that melee all the witnesses could not have seen the overtact of all the accused persons present there as they were nearly nine in number but the accused who have not been named by the two of the prosecution witnesses they are entitled for the benefit of doubt. In our, opinion, therefore the presence of Sajankhan and Bahram cannot be accepted. Accused Yusuf has died and his name has been deleted, but his presence has been stated by all the witnesses excepting Mukundram (P. W. 7) who intervened after the quarrel had started. In our, opinion, therefore the presence of Sajankhan and Bahram cannot be accepted. Accused Yusuf has died and his name has been deleted, but his presence has been stated by all the witnesses excepting Mukundram (P. W. 7) who intervened after the quarrel had started. It is evident from the discussion above that accused respondents Salim Khan, Kalilil Khan, Ahsan Khan, Adil Khan, (Isub) Yusuf Khan, Amin Khan and Yunus Khan formed unlawful assembly. Salim Khan was armed with sword others were keeping sticks and they came to the Police Station with an intent to assault and causing, injuries to the complainant party specially, Mushtaqkhan and Latifkhan since the sword was open and visible and therefore it will be deemed that they all shared the common object and all of them would be liable for the offence committed by any one. ( 17 ) IT has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that one of the members of the unlawful assembly Salim Khan caused injuries by means of sword to Mushtaq and Latif (Gaffar has not been examined by the prosecution and, therefore, injuries having been caused to him cannot be accepted ). ( 18 ) THOUGH, normally a site map is prepared on the information of the prosecution witness and information given by the prosecution witness to, the Police Officer under Sec. 161 of IPC but the fact found are seen at the spot at the time by the police officer will be relevant and will be admissible in evidence. In order to cross-check the statement of the prosecution witnesses as to whether all these accused persons entered the Police Station and assaulted the complainant party inside the Police Station. We had gone through the site map prepared by the Police Officer. That shows that the blood stains were found on the floor of the room. This further goes to show that the complainant party was assaulted inside the Police Station and tile accused persons, thereby committed criminal trespass with intent to cause injuries to the complainant party. ( 19 ) THE injuries found on the body of Mushtaq were not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and otherwise it was simple in nature. Similarly, the injuries found on the body of Latif was also simple in nature. ( 19 ) THE injuries found on the body of Mushtaq were not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and otherwise it was simple in nature. Similarly, the injuries found on the body of Latif was also simple in nature. As such the object of the accused persons would De deemed to be that of causing simple injuries by means of dangerous weapon and not attempt to murder, which is punishable with imprisonment for life. In that situation the accused can be convicted only u/sec. 452 of IPC and not under Section 450 of IPC. Consequently the accused persons are liable under Section 148 of IPC for having committed riot armed with deadly weapons. They are liable for committing house-trespass with intent to cause injuries to Latif and Mushtaq Khan which is punishable under Sec. 452 of IPC. They shall further be held liable for sharing the common object of causing simple injuries by dangerous weapon shall be punishable under Section 324 read with 149 of IPC. ( 20 ) THE last contention of the learned Counsel for respondents is that the incident happened somewhere in 1984. Nearly ten years have elapsed and, therefore, a lenient view in the matter may be taken. We do not agree with this contention of the learned Counsel as the Police Station is a Symbol of authority of the State and if a person or persons commit house trespass with intent to cause injuries and enter the Police Station with that intent the same cannot be taken lightly. If lenient view is taken in such matters the persons with muscle power will over-power the legal rights of the persons who want to take shelter by approaching the police for the help. ( 21 ) AS a result the acquittal of accused persons under Sections 450 and 307 read with Sections 149 of IPC is maintained and to that extent the appeal by the state is rejected. The appeal against the accused respondent Sajan Khan and Behram Khan is also rejected as their presence in the Police Station is doubtful because of the inconsistency in the statements of the prosecution witnesses as referred above. The appeal of the State is partly allowed and the accused respondents viz. The appeal against the accused respondent Sajan Khan and Behram Khan is also rejected as their presence in the Police Station is doubtful because of the inconsistency in the statements of the prosecution witnesses as referred above. The appeal of the State is partly allowed and the accused respondents viz. Salim Khan, Kamil Khan, Ahsan Khan, Adil Khan, Amin Khan, Yunus Khan, (Isub Khan, Yusuf Khan who died during the pendency of the appeal are held guilty under Sections 148, 452 and 324 read with Section 149 of IPC. Each of them are sentenced to R. I. for six months under Sec. 148 and R. I. for one year u/sec. 452 of I. P. C. and imprisonment for two years under Sec. 324 r/w 149 of I. P. C. The sentences are directed to run concurrently. ( 22 ) THE appeal filed by accused-appellant Salim Khan is partly accepted with respect to modification of sentence as above regarding sentence u/sec. 324 r/w 149 of I. P. C. All the above mentioned accused respondents are on bail. They shall surrender to their bail bonds and shall appear before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Susner on 30. 5. 94. A copy of this judgment should be sent to Shri R. S. Morya learned Addi. Sessions Judge as he then was, wherever he is posted. We hope that he shall be more careful while framing charges and appreciating the evidence. Appeal No. 537 allowed partly. State appeal allowed. .