JUDGMENT : S. C. Jain, J. 1. Appellants Raj Bahadur, Hari Shanker, Prem Chand, Tulsi Ram, Gyan Chand, Har Govind and Laxmi Prasad have challenged the judgment and order passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Orai at Jalaun dated 3.7.79 whereby they were found guilty of committing offences punishable under Section 147, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years each, under Section 148, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years each, under Section 307, I.P.C. read with Section 149, I.P.C. and to undergo for 7 years each: Appellant Hari Shanker was also found guilty for committing the murder of Mangal Singh individually under Section 302, I.P.C. and was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and appellants Raj Bahadur, Prem Chand, Tulsi Ram, Gyan Chand, Har Govind and Laxmi Prasad were found guilty under Section 302, read with Section 149, I.P.C. and were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. As the facts and law involved in both these appeals are common so both these appeals are hereby disposed of by this single order. During the pendency of those appeals, appellants Hari Shanker, Har Govind and Gyan Chand died and as such appeal filed by them stand abated. 3. Sri A.D. Giri, learned counsel for the appellants argued on behalf of the remaining four appellants namely Raj Bahadur, Prem Chand, Tulsi Ram and Laxmi Prasad and learned A.G.A. argued for the State. 4. The facts giving rise to these appeals are as under : On 28.3.1975 it was Holi festival. At about 6 p.m. Gaya Prasad P.W. alongwith his brother Mangal Singh deceased was sitting on the Chabutara of his cattle shed near their residential house. At a distance of about 15 paces, children were playing Holi. At that time, the appellants Raj Bahadur, Prem Chand, Hari Shanker, Tulsi Ram, Laxmi Prasad, Har Govind and Cyan Chand who were armed with guns and country made pistol came there and formed an unlawful assembly with the common object to kill Gaya Prasad. They opened fire on Gaya Prasad and Mangal Singh but they escaped and ran towards their residential house for shelter. They were chased and while chasing caused injuries to Ram Saran, a boy who was playing near the house of Gaya Prasad and Mangal Singh. They opened fire on Gaya Prasad and Mangal Singh but they escaped and ran towards their residential house for shelter. They were chased and while chasing caused injuries to Ram Saran, a boy who was playing near the house of Gaya Prasad and Mangal Singh. Gaya Prasad succeeded in entering his house but Mangal Singh while closing the main door of the house was shot dead by Hari Shanker accused by climbing on the heap of bricks. All these appellants were tried and convicted and sentenced under Sections 147, 148, 307/149 and 302/149, I.P.C. Learned counsel for the appellants challenged the judgment and order passed by Additional Sessions Judge on various counts. His first submission is that Hari Shanker the alleged assailant has since died and at the most his act of killing Mangal Singh was his individual act and the other appellants cannot be held responsible for the act of Hari Shanker. who allegedly killed Mangal Singh. According to him. the common object of killing Gaya Prasad came to an end when Hari Shanker allegedly climbed the heap of bricks and fired at Mangal Singh. The common object of the unlawful assembly was not to kill Mangal Singh, but according to the prosecution, the common object was that of killing Gaya Prasad. 5. The next argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the place of occurrence is also not established and the place as well as the manner in which this incident took place has not been proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. He drew our attention towards the injury reports of Mahipat and Jailal and the cross-report Ext. Kha-1 lodged by Cyan Chand son of Sri Gauri Shanker being Dastandaji No. 41 as Crime No. 38-A under Sections 147, 148, 149/307, I.P.C. According to him on that day and time Cyan Chand appellant alongwith his companions was sitting in front of the house of Natthu Ram and while they were playing Fag, Siddha Gopal, Sheo Narain, Ram Lakhan, Gulab, Udai Bhan and Bhanu Pratap armed with deadly weapons came there and opened fire on Jai Lai and Mahlpat. Mahipat and Jailal were injured as a result of firing. Mahipat and Jailal were injured as a result of firing. All the persons present there started running and Mangal Singh who was there also started running and in that process received gun shot injuries on his chest and he fell down on the Chabutara in front of his residential house, he died as a result of these injuries. According to learned counsel, the gun fires and its pellets were found Imbedded on the wooden planks of the cattle shed and all around the door of Natthu. The presence of these pellets marks on the outer door of Natthu have not been explained by the prosecution. 6. Relying upon the three decisions of Supreme Court Sarwan Singh and others v. State of Punjab, (1978) 4 SCC 111 , Santosh Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh. (1975) 7 SCC 727 and Kshudiram Majhi v. State of West Bengal. AIR 1972 SC 221 , the learned counsel for the appellants argued that the members of unlawful assembly may have a community of object only up to a certain point, beyond which they may differ in their objects, and the knowledge possessed by each member of what is likely to be committed in prosecution of their common object will vary, not only according to the information at his command, but also according to the extent to which he shares the community of object and as a consequence of this the effect of this section may be different on different members of the same unlawful assembly. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, when Gaya Prasad had already entered the house and Hari Shanker accused opened fire and killed Mangal Singh, the common object had come to an end and Hari Shanker accused, if at all, was liable for killing Mangal Singh. The other appellants cannot be held guilty for the offence of murder of Mangal Singh by invoking the provisions of Section 149, I.P.C. Regarding the injuries allegedly received by Ram Saran, a boy who was playing there, the learned counsel for the appellants stated that those injuries were found simple in nature and there was no intention to cause such bodily injury and the same were not sufficient to cause his death. There is also no evidence worth reliance that the appellants caused those injuries. There is also no evidence worth reliance that the appellants caused those injuries. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the conviction of the appellants under Section 307 read with Section 149, I.P.C. is also illegal. According to the learned counsel these appellants have been falsely implicated on account of the party faction in the village. 7. Learned Government counsel strongly opposed the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants and submitted that from the evidence led by the prosecution, it has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt that more than five persons shared the common object for killing Gaya Prasad and in prosecution of their common object they fired to kill Gaya Prasad and when Gaya Prasad and Mangal Singh ran towards their house for shelter, they were chased by these members of the unlawful assembly and in that process a boy, who was playing nearby was injured and then Mangal Singh was shot dead when he tried to close the main door of the house. According to learned State Counsel, the common object had not come to an end when Mangal Singh was shot dead. He relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court Lalji and others v. State of U. P.. (1989) 1 SCC 437 , in support of his contention. According to the learned State Counsel, common object of the unlawful assembly can be gathered from the nature of the assembly, arms used by them and the behaviour of the assembly at or before scene of occurrence. It is an inference to be deduced from the facts and circumstances of each case. 8. Regarding the F.I.R. lodged by Gyan Chand of this occurrence, the learned counsel for the State argued that this report was lodged on the next day and it was delayed. He also pointed out that the accused mentioned in that report were acquitted after long trial and theory put up by the appellants in defence cannot be accepted in view of the judicial decision which has not been challenged in appeal or revision. The fact which remains is that the incident took place and these appellants had formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of killing Gaya Prasad and in prosecution of that common object they killed Mangal Singh and as such every appellant being a member of the unlawful assembly is liable for that offence. The fact which remains is that the incident took place and these appellants had formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of killing Gaya Prasad and in prosecution of that common object they killed Mangal Singh and as such every appellant being a member of the unlawful assembly is liable for that offence. According to the learned Government Counsel, there are two essential ingredients of Section 149 viz., (1) Commission of an offence by any member of an unlawful assembly and (2) such offence must have been committed in prosecution of the common object of that assembly or must be such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed. Once the Court finds that these two ingredients are fulfilled, every person who at the time of committing of that offence was a member of the assembly is to be held guilty of that offence. After such a finding it would not be open to the court to see as to who actually did the offensive act or require the prosecution to prove which of the members did which of the offensive acts. The prosecution would have no obligation to prove it. Regarding the injuries received by Ram Saran a boy, who was playing there, doctor who examined the injured and gave the injury report which is Ext. Ka-5 opined that the injuries could have been caused by fire arm. It suggests that all the members of the unlawful assembly while chasing Gaya Prasad and Mangal Singh fired as a result of which, this boy received injuries. It was all in prosecution of the common object. 9. A perusal of Section 149, I.P.C. shows that it is not intended to subject a member of an unlawful assembly to punishment for every offence which is committed by one of its members during the time they are engaged in the prosecution of the common object. It is divided into two parts : (1) an offence committed by a member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly; and (2) an offence such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object. It is divided into two parts : (1) an offence committed by a member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly; and (2) an offence such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object. In order to bring a case within the purview of this section, the act must be done with a view to accomplish the common object of the unlawful assembly, or it must be proved that the offence though not committed in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly is one which the accused knew would be likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object. This section applies equally in case where offences are committed by single member of the assembly and in case where offences are committed by two or more members of the assembly acting in furtherance of a common intention. If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object every person who at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence. 10. Common object of the unlawful assembly can be gathered from the nature of the assembly, arms used by them and the behaviour of the assembly at or before scene of occurrence. It is an inference to be deduced from the facts and circumstances of each case. In this case, the learned trial court after appreciating the evidence on record came to a conclusive finding that all these appellants numbering seven were armed with deadly weapons and they formed an unlawful assembly on that day and time and their common object was to kill Gaya Prasad. It has also been proved on record that in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly, they fired at Gaya Prasad and his brother Mangal Singh who were sitting on the Chabutara of the cattle shed. It has also been proved on record that in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly, they fired at Gaya Prasad and his brother Mangal Singh who were sitting on the Chabutara of the cattle shed. It is also on record which stands conclusively proved that when they ran for safety towards their house, they were chased by the members of the unlawful assembly and that on account of the firing by Hari Shanker, Mangal Singh died while closing the door of the house. 11. The theory put forward by the learned counsel for the appellants that Mangal Singh died on account of the firing made by some other persons, who had opened fire near the house of Natthu and caused injuries to Jai Lal and Mahipal. has rightly been rejected by the learned trial court. The accused in that case were acquitted by the trial court after a long trial and that those findings show that no such incident as alleged by the appellants did take place. Alleged pellets marks on the wooden planks outerside the house of Natthu are not sufficient to give credibility to the defence version. The incident did take place on that date and time at the house of Mangal Singh and Gaya Prasad. The dead body of Mangal Singh was found at the Chabutara outside their residential house. 12. The only question which requires determination in this case, is, whether the death of Mangal Singh is an individual act of Hari Shanker or it can be said that the other appellants are also liable for that act of Hari Shanker accused in view of the provision of Section 149, I.P.C. Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court while discussing the provision of Section 149, l.P.C. in the case of Allauddin Mian and others v. The State of Bihar, 1989 (26) ACC (SC) 400 observed : "what is important in each case is to find out if the offence was committed to accomplish the common object of the assembly or was one which the members knew to be likely to be committed. There must be nexus between the common object and the offence committed and if it is found that the same was committed to accomplish the common object every member of the assembly will become liable for the same." 13. There must be nexus between the common object and the offence committed and if it is found that the same was committed to accomplish the common object every member of the assembly will become liable for the same." 13. In another decision Lalji and others v. State of U. P., (1989) 1 SCC 437 , Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court observed that common object of the unlawful assembly can be gathered from the nature of the assembly, arms used by them and the behaviour of the assembly at or before scene of occurrence. It is an inference to be deduced from the facts and circumstances of each case. 14. From the evidence on record it is apparent that on 28.3.1975 at about 6 p.m. all the appellants seven in number were armed with deadly weapons and were present in village Jaisari Kala police station Dakore in front of the cattle shed of Gaya Prasad and his brother Mangal Singh and formed an unlawful assembly. On Seeing Gaya Prasad one of the appellant Raj Bahadur, who was the member of unlawful assembly exhorted the other members of the unlawful assembly by saying Appellant Tulsi Ram responded and said thereafter all the appellants forming the unlawful assembly opened fire on Gaya Prasad and Mangal Singh who ran towards their house to save themselves. The said gun fires and its pellets were found imbedded on the wooden planks of the cattle shed and all around the door causing pellets marks. It has also came on record that they were caused by all the appellants and while chasing caused gun shot injury to Ram Saran, a boy who was playing near the house of Gaya Prasad and Mangal Singh. It is also in the evidence that Gaya Prasad had succeeded in entering in house but Mangal Singh while closing the door of the house was shot dead by Hari Shanker one of the appellant. In the presence of such evidence, how can it be argued that the unlawful assembly had come to an end at the time when Hari Shanker shot dead Mangal Singh. In the presence of such evidence, how can it be argued that the unlawful assembly had come to an end at the time when Hari Shanker shot dead Mangal Singh. In view of this evidence, circumstances, and from the conduct of the appellants, it is apparent that the members of the unlawful assembly were in the know of the fact that in prosecution of the common object, i.e. to kill Gaya Prasad, the death of Mangal Singh, his brother could also take place. There is a nexus between the common object and the offence committed. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants do not help the appellants in the present circumstances of the case. The facts in those cases are different from the facts of the present case. 15. Similarly, the injuries received by Ram Saran were opined by the doctor to have been caused by fire arms. The injury was caused in prosecution of the common object while chasing Gaya Prasad and Mangal Singh. 16. The essential ingredients of Section 149, I.P.C, i.e. commission of an offence by any member of an unlawful assembly and such offence having been committed in prosecution of the common object of that assembly or that the members of the unlawful assembly knew likely to be committed, have been proved. Once the court finds that these two ingredients are fulfilled, every person who at the time of committing of that offence was a member of the assembly is to be held guilty of that offence. After such a finding it would not be open to the court to see as to who actually did the offensive act or require the prosecution to prove which of the members did which of the offensive acts. The prosecution would have no obligation to prove it. Section 149 created a constructive or vicarious liability of the members of the unlawful assembly for the unlawful acts committed pursuant to the common object by any other member of that assembly. The trial court has correctly appreciated the facts and law while holding the appellants guilty of these offences and we find no ground to interfere in the judicial findings of the trial court. 17. In view of our discussions and findings, both these appeals having no merits, are hereby dismissed. The trial court has correctly appreciated the facts and law while holding the appellants guilty of these offences and we find no ground to interfere in the judicial findings of the trial court. 17. In view of our discussions and findings, both these appeals having no merits, are hereby dismissed. The surviving appellants Raj Bahadur, Prem Chand, Tulsi Ram and Laxmi Prasad who are on bail, be taken into custody forthwith for undergoing the sentences awarded to them. Appeal dismissed.