JUDGMENT D. S. Dhaliwal, J. The petitioners herein along with six others was tried for offences under Sections 147, 325 and 323 I.P.C. in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Dumka. The trial court although acquitted the petitioners and their co-accused of the offence under section 325 I.P.C. but convicted all the accused under section 147 I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and also convicted petitioner nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 under section 323 I.P.C. vide order dated 14th May 1980 and sentenced each one of them to under go imprisonment for six months. The petitioners and their co-accused preferred appeal and the 2nd Assistant Sessions Judge, Dumka vide order dated 17th July, 1984 acquitted all the accused of the offence under section 323 I.P.C. but maintained their conviction as recorded by the trial court under section 147 I.P.C. 2. The prosecution case, In brief, is that on 8.7.1973 at about 6 A.M. Nunamati Majhiain (first informant) had gone to her field to get plot no. 124 ploughed through her nephew Jainarain Manjhi and Ram Rekh Mandal. The petitioners and their co-accused came there armed with lathis and assaulted the first informant and the aforesaid persons. An alarm was raised which attracted Mostt. Hari Mandalain, Shobha Rautain and Laxmi Devi, the sisters of the first informant. They too were assaulted by the petitioners and their companions. Nunamati Majhiain went to the police station in the company of Jainarain Manjhi and lodged first information report on the same day in the evening. Investigation started and the petitioners along with six others were sent up to stand for trial for the offences under sections 147, 325 and 323 I.P.C. At trial the prosecution examined Bishundeo Prasad (P. W. 1), Laxmi Devi (P. W. 2), Hari Mukhlain (P. W. 3) Ram Rekh Mandal (P. W. 4), Shobha Devi (P. W. 5), Jainarain Manjhi (P. W. 6), Nunamati Devi (P.W. 7), Jagnarain Manjhi (P. W. 8) and Suresh Prasad Yadav (P. W. 9). The accused denied the allegations and claimed false implication. Trial ended in conviction and sentence which was modified by the appellate court as noticed earlier. Feeling aggrieved the petitioners have come to this Court by filing revision petition under sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. The accused denied the allegations and claimed false implication. Trial ended in conviction and sentence which was modified by the appellate court as noticed earlier. Feeling aggrieved the petitioners have come to this Court by filing revision petition under sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, Additional P. P. for the State and have perused the records with their assistance. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that according to the prosecution the common object of the unlawful assembly was to assault the complainant party and since the petitioners have been acquitted of the charge under section 223 I.P.C. the conviction under the other charge, under section 147 I.P.C. cannot be sustained. 5. I find sufficient merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Section 147 provides punishment for riot which offence has been defined in section 146 I.P.C. as follows:- “Whenever force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly, or by any member thereof in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, every member of such assembly is guilty of the offence of rioting.” Thus, there are two essentials which make every member of an unlawful assembly guilty of riot. These are firstly use of force or violence by an unlawful assembly or by any member thereof; secondly, such force or violence should have been in prosecution of the common object of such an assembly. As per the prosecution allegations the common object of the assembly said to have been formed by the petitioners was to cause hurt to the complainant and the witness. The first appellate court has negatived the charge of hurt not only for the reason that the Doctor who medically examined the P.Ws. was not cross-examined but also taking into account the discrepancies with regard to number and the seat of the injuries in the statement of the complainant and the eye witnesses. The petitioners were thus acquitted of the charge under section 323 IPC. With the failure of that charge it cannot be said that force used by the petitioners was in prosecution of the common object of such an assembly. The petitioners were thus acquitted of the charge under section 323 IPC. With the failure of that charge it cannot be said that force used by the petitioners was in prosecution of the common object of such an assembly. In this situation the charge under section 147 IPC against the petitioners cannot be sustained and has to fail because the offence which was said to be the common object of the unlawful assembly has not been established. 6. As a result of the discus on above the revision petition is allowed and the conviction recorded against and sentence passed upon the petitioners are hereby set aside. Revision allowed.