Honble PRASAD, J.–The present two appeals arise out of a judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur in Sessions Case No.25/74. In that case, 28 accused persons were tried. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found that five accused persons, namely, Sher Mohammed, Muazzam, Ismail, Ishak Mohd. and Inayat Khan are involved in various crimes and they have been convicted and sen- tenced as under:- ``1. Under Section 302/149 I.P.C.-Life imprisonment. 2. Under Section 323/149 I.P.C.-R.I. for three months and a fine of Rs. 100/-each. 3. Under Section 324/149 I.P.C.-R.I. for six months and a fine of Rs. 200/- each. 4. Under Section 148 I.P.C.-R.I. for three months and a fine of Rs.100/- each. (2). The other 23 accused persons were not held guilty of any of the offences levelled against them. Aggrieved by this judgment, the aforesaid five persons have filed appeal. The State of Rajasthan has also filed an appeal against the acquittal of accused persons Lal Mohammed, Ataullah, Dilawar Khan and Siraj out of the 23 acquitted persons. Against 19 remaining accused persons, no appeal has been preferred by the State of Rajasthan. We propose to decide both the appeals by a common judgment as they arise out of the same judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur. (3). The prosecution was set at motion with Ex.P/1, a written report being handed over to the S.H.O., Salumbar. According to this report, on 31st of March, 1973 at about noon, one Kishan Lal Dangi, who has been produced as P.W.11 and accused Muazzam quarrelled with each other. The outcome of this quarrel was that the feelings of Muazzam were enraged and he went to his locality and talked to his community people. On the fateful day, there were torrential rain and the river which goes by the side of the locality of Salumber was in spate. Curiously, the villagers were visiting the river to see the water. One Ram Gopal in the company of Jai Singh, Manohar Singh and Ram Lal had also gone to see the rising water and while they were returning after seeing the river, they saw the accused Muazzam with a Dhariya in his hand. Muazzam was accompanied by 23 other persons of his community. All of them were currying weapons like Dhariyas, Swords, Sticks and Guns. The crowd was shouting that kafirs are going, kill them. Muazzam was accompanied by 23 other persons of his community. All of them were currying weapons like Dhariyas, Swords, Sticks and Guns. The crowd was shouting that kafirs are going, kill them. This crowd surrounded Madan Lal (since deceased). Accused Sher Mohammad and Muazzam inflicted dhariya blows on the body of Madan Lal. Thereafter, Madan Lal fell on the ground. Two accused persons Hasan Khan and Gani Mohammed, from the roof of Gani Mohammeds house were also shouting kill the kafirs. Accused Hasan Khan is said to have also fired a gun shot. Simultaneously, another gun shot report was noticed from the side of the Tehsil. On hearing the gun shot report, the crowd dispersed. Madan Lal, who was assaulted by the crowed, died on the sport. One Bhanwar Lal Soni also received injuries in this occurrence. (4). This written report was lodged by the aforesaid Ram Gopal and on the basis of this a formal F.I.R. was drawn which is Ex.P/10 on the record of the case. (5). Thereafter, investigation was conducted. During investigation, accused persons were arrested and evidence was collected. After that, charge sheet was filed against 28 accused persons. Charges were framed under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, 307/149, 323/149, 324/149 and 153-A/149 I.P.C. against the accused persons. All the accused persons denied charges and claimed trial. (6). At the trial, the prosecution produced oral as well as documentary evidence. After the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge considered the evidence of the prosecution. According to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, PW1 Ram Gopal, who had lodged the written first information report Ex.P/1 which ultim- ately was formally recorded as Ex.P/10, is a witness, who has exaggerated the ver- sion of the prosecution and he has not been considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge to be a witness, who can be put in the category of a reliable witness. The learned trial Court was of the opinion that he can be a partly reliable witness. (7). Evidence of another witness of the prosecution P.W.2 Kishori Lal has been considered by the learned trial Court. This witness, according to the learned trial Court, had seen the five armed accused persons, namely, Sher Mohammed, Muazzam, Ishak, Ismail and Inayat going towards the scene of occurrence. Sometime after these accused persons went towards Tehsil, he received the information that Madan Lal has been killed. This witness, according to the learned trial Court, had seen the five armed accused persons, namely, Sher Mohammed, Muazzam, Ishak, Ismail and Inayat going towards the scene of occurrence. Sometime after these accused persons went towards Tehsil, he received the information that Madan Lal has been killed. Regarding this witness, the learned trial Court has held that the statement of this witness could not throw much light as to whether these five persons participated in the actual incident, but whatever he has stated, according to the learned trial Court, he was a truthful witness. (8). Next prosecution witness was P.W.3 Manohar Singh. He has been produ- ced as an eye witness. Regarding this witness, the learned trial Court has observed that during cross examination he has been completely shaken. He has even denied part of his committal Court statement. He has denied various other parts of his police statement. Regarding this witness, the learned trial Court has given a finding that he is a false witness. (9). Another witness of the occurrence produced by the prosecution is P.W.4 Ram Lal. Regarding this witness, the learned trial Court has observed that it appears that this witness indulged in making many improvements on material points of his police statement. The learned trial Court has said that even the names of Ismail, Ataullah and Dilavar were also not mentioned in his police statement, but he has made omnibus accusation against these accused persons including the others. However, the learned trial court felt that this witness would not fall under the category of wholly reliable witnesses and can only be partly relied. (10). Another witness of the occurrence produced by the prosecution is P.W.5 Bheru Lal. Regarding his testimony, the learned trial Court has observed that this witness has also indulged in making material improvements from his police statement. However, the learned trial Court felt that notwithstanding the improvements made by this witness, by his testimony, it can be held that the prosecution has succeeded in proving that accused Sher Mohammed and Muazzam were the assailants of deceased Madan Lal. (11). Next eye witness produced by the prosecution is P.W.6 Shiv Singh. However, the learned trial Court felt that notwithstanding the improvements made by this witness, by his testimony, it can be held that the prosecution has succeeded in proving that accused Sher Mohammed and Muazzam were the assailants of deceased Madan Lal. (11). Next eye witness produced by the prosecution is P.W.6 Shiv Singh. From the testimony of this witness, the learned trial court has held that the accused persons Sher Mohammed, Muazzam, Lalu and Siraj have been deposed by this witness as the assailants of the deceased Madan Lal and from his deposition, he placed this witness in the category of partly reliable witnesses. (12). P.W.7 Dalji is the next eye witness produced by the prosecution. Regarding his testimony, the learned trial Court has held that this witness has forfeited his claim to be believed as a truthful witness. (13). Next witness produced by the prosecution is P.W.8 Jai Singh. According to the learned trial Court, the testimony of this witness is of a general type. He has not deposed anything in particular. In this light of the matter, it has been observed by the learned trial Court that the prosecution gets no strength from his testimony. (14). Next witness produced by the prosecution is P.W.9 Bhanwar Lal Soni. After discussing the testimony of this witness, the learned trial Court has come to the conclusion that this witness has freely indulged in making improvements from his earlier statements. He admits that he knew the names of only six persons, though in examination-in-chief he names nine persons. This witness has been held to be only partly reliable witness. (15). P.W.10 Bhagwti Lal is a motbir witness. (16). P.W.11 is Kishan Lal. This witness was the person with whom accused Muazzam quarrelled and the incident started with their encounter. From the evidence of this witness, the learned trial Court held that it will rely on this witness only to the extent that he saw Muazzam and his party holding arms near about the scene of occurrence. It has been categorically found regarding the evidence of this witness that who actually participated in the incident relating to Madan Lal could not be seen by this witness. According to the learned trial Court, only that part of portion of his evidence can be relied which gets full corroboration through independent and reliable evidence on record. (17). It has been categorically found regarding the evidence of this witness that who actually participated in the incident relating to Madan Lal could not be seen by this witness. According to the learned trial Court, only that part of portion of his evidence can be relied which gets full corroboration through independent and reliable evidence on record. (17). Another witness relied upon by the prosecution is PW12 Sohan Lal, Advocate. According to this witness, there was crowd of 8-10 persons. Those who were present, according to this witness, were Mohammed, Muazzam, Ishak Mohammed and Ismail, During cross examination, this witness has categorically stated that 14 persons, namely, Gani Mohammed, Gani Mohammed second, Sher Mohammed S/o Fakir Mohammed, Fakir Mohammed, Latif Beg, Kale Khan, Chand Khan, Bashir Mohammed, Manjoor Ali, Gotu, Kamal Shaw, Amzad Beg, Zamil and Hussain Khan were not present on the scene of occurrence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has observed that this witness has deposed in a straight forward manner and there is no infirmity in his evidence. He has been held to be a truthful witness and on the strength of the testimony of this witness, the learned trial Court held that the above named 14 persons were not present on the sence of occurrence and did not participate in the incident. From his statement, the learned trial Court held that the prosecution has succeeded in proving that Sher Mohammed, Muazzam, Ishak and Ismail were present amongst the crowd of 8 to 10 accused persons, who proceeded towards the Tehsil in a threatening manner with weapons in their hands. (18). P.W.13 Dwarka Das is another eye witness, who has stated that there was crowd of 20-30 persons, but has named only 9 persons. As regards the incident involving Madan Lal, he has stated that only four accused persons were responsible and they have been named by him as Sher Mohammed, Muazzam, Siraj and Lalu. The learned trial Court has held that the only fact which survives for consideration from the testimony of this witness is the involvement of Sher Mohammed, Muazzam, Siraj and Lalu, who were seen surrounding Madan Lal by this witness. The statement of this witness was recorded after six days of the incident. The learned trial Court has held that it is highly improbable that this witness could see the inci- dent from the place from which he alleged to have seen it. The statement of this witness was recorded after six days of the incident. The learned trial Court has held that it is highly improbable that this witness could see the inci- dent from the place from which he alleged to have seen it. He has been held to be at best a partly reliable witness. (19). Another witness produced by the prosecution is P.W.14 Kurda Ram. He was the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Salumber on the day of occurrence. He alleged to have ordered Head Constable Zahiruddin who was standing guard to the Treas- ury to fire a gun shot. From his testimony, no help can be sought by the prosecution. So also is P.W.15 Zahiruddin, Head Constable, who made fire at the instance of P.W.14. Therefore, his testimony is of no consequence as far as fixing of identity of the accused persons is concerned. (20). Next witness is P.W. 16 Pukh Raj. This witness has stated that Sher Mohammed, Muazzam and Ishak were responsible for surrounding Madan Lal. Sher Mohammed had a Dhariya by which he inflicted an injury on the head of Madan Lal. Muazzam gave a Dhariya blow on the head of Madan Lal. The remaining accused persons thereafter inflicted injuries with sticks and lathies. Regarding this witness, the learned trial Court felt that he is the truthful witness and it has been found from the testimony of this witness that the prosecution has succeeded in proving that Sher Mohammed, Muazzam and Ishak were responsible for causing injuries to Madan Lal. (21). Next witness produced by the prosecution is P.W.17 Vijay Singh. This witness has stated that 12 persons constituted the crowd. Regarding this witness, the learned trial Court has opined that this witness fumbled badly when he was subjected to cross examination on the point of injury which was caused by accused Sher Mohammed. This witness has also been categorised as partly reliable witness. (22). P.W.18 Narendra Kumar, Advocate is the scribe of the FIR Ex.P/1. He does not go beyond this. (23). From P.W.19 to P.W. 26 are the witnesses of various stages of investigation like Motbirs and Investigation Officers. Therefore, they by their testimony do not throw any light on the manner of occurrence. (24). Regarding the recoveries of weapons, the learned trial Court has obser- ved that since no human blood was found on any of the weapons, these recoveries are of no consequence. Therefore, they by their testimony do not throw any light on the manner of occurrence. (24). Regarding the recoveries of weapons, the learned trial Court has obser- ved that since no human blood was found on any of the weapons, these recoveries are of no consequence. (25). Discussing the value of the FIR, the learned trial Court was of the opinion that the FIR was lodged at 2.15 p.m. two hours after the incident. Much before that, the investigation had started. Therefore, it is a post-investigation document. That being the position, the prosecution was held to be based on FIR which was a tainted one. From the discussion of the evidence, the learned trial Court was of the opinion that the offence under Section 153-A I.P.C. could not be invoked as the evidence led could not indicate that there was any attempt to promote the feelings of enmity and hatred in between the two communities. It was also held by the learned trial Court that the gun shot report heard during the occurrence was not intended to kill anybody and, therefore, from the gun shot report, no offence under section 307 IPC can be said to be made out. (26). The learned trial Court categorised the prosecution witnesses in three different categories, whereby PW 2 Kishori Lal, PW.12 Sohan Lal Bhatnagar, Advo- cate and P.W. 16 Pukhraj were held to be truthful witnesses. P.W.1 Ram Gopal, P.W.4 Ram Lal, P.W. 5 Bherulal, P.W.6 Shiv Singh, P.W.9 Bhanwarlal Soni, P.W.11 Kishan Lal, P.W.13 Dwarka Das and P.W.17 Vijay Singh were held to be partly reliable witnesses and P.W.3 Manohar Singh and P.W.7 Dalji were treated as wholly unreliable witnesses. (27). From the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses, the learned trial Court held that Sher Mohammed, Muazzam, Inayat, Ishak and Ismail participated in the crime and were responsible for causing injuries to the deceased Madan Lal. (28). (27). From the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses, the learned trial Court held that Sher Mohammed, Muazzam, Inayat, Ishak and Ismail participated in the crime and were responsible for causing injuries to the deceased Madan Lal. (28). Regarding the rest of the accused persons, the learned trial Court felt that the evidence is not sufficient to bring home any specific overt act against these ac- cused persons or there is no sufficient evidence to convict these accused persons and, therefore, acquitted the remaining 23 accused persons, namely, Fakir Mohammed, Gani Mohammed, Sher Mohammed S/o Fakir Mohammed, Gani Mohammed, S/o Kale Khan, Latif Beg, Kale Khan, Chand Khan, Bashir Mohammed, Manjoor Ali, Mohammed Sadiq alias Gotu, Kamal Shaw, Amzad Beg, Zamil, Hussain Khan, Moh- ammed Yunis, Ataullah, Abdul Rehman, Noor Mohammed, Dilavar Khan, Hakimuddin, Istiaq Mohammed, Lal Mohammed alias Lalu and Siraj. (29). The learned trial Court used the evidence of P.W.2 Kishori Lal, P.W.12 Sohan Lal Bhatnagar, Advocate and P.W.16 Pukhraj to convict the accused appellants Sher Mohammed, Muazzam, Ismail, Ishak Mohd. and Inayat Khan and sought help from the other partly reliable witnesses. (30). The learned counsel for the accused appellants has urged that the case of the prosecution as seen by the learned trial Court was not as deposed by the prosecution witnesses. The prosecution has come with the case that P.W.11 Kishan Lal and accused Muazzam quarrelled with each other. According to the prosecution, witness Kishan Lal was very much around the scene of occurrence when incident occurred. If the basis of the unlawful assembly was the incident, which started with quarrel of Kishan Lal and Muazzam, then, Kishan Lal should have been the first target and the object of those who were instigated by Muazzam was to cause harm to kishan Lal, but nothing such has been done. (31). The deceased Madan Lal at the beginning of the incident was no where in the picture and by no stretch of imagination it can be said that at the time when Muazzam talked to his people, he talked keeping in view that madan Lal is to be done away with. No such evidence is coming forth that Muazzan or any of the accused persons ever pre-conceived thought causing death of Madan Lal. In this background, there could not be an unlawful assembly constituted to cause death of Madan Lal. No such evidence is coming forth that Muazzan or any of the accused persons ever pre-conceived thought causing death of Madan Lal. In this background, there could not be an unlawful assembly constituted to cause death of Madan Lal. For that matter, the unlawful assembly was not even for causing the death of Kishan Lal because according to the prosecution he was very much there around the scene of occurrence and was not hurt. Therefore, it cannot be said that the object of the assembly was to cause death of Madan Lal or for that matter death of any other person. (32). The learned trial Court has not placed full reliance on the injured eye witnesses. The learned counsel for the accused appellants has argued that the learned trial Court has placed full reliance on the three witnesses, namely, P.W.2 Kishorilal, P.W.12 Sohanlal Bhatnagar and P.W.16 Pukhraj. (33). P.W.-2 Kishorilal and P.W.12 Sohanlal Bhatnagar are not the witnesses of the actual assault. They are the witnesses, who at best can say, that they had seen the accused armed and agitated, proceeding towards the scene of occurrence. Beyond this their testimony is of no consequence. If these witnesses were not the witnesses of actual occurrence of killing of Madan Lal, then by mere fact that they were seen armed and going towards the scene of occurrence, they cannot be considered to be witnesses of death of Madan Lal. (34). The only other witness which the learned trial Court has pressed into service is the witness P.W. 16 Pukh Raj, Head Constable. A look at the testimony of P.W.16 Pukhraj would show that in his court statement he has stated that his place of posting is Chungi Naka. The first quarrel in between Kishan Lal and Muazzam took place near Chungi Naka. He described that particular incident as if he had seen it as an eye witness, but in his cross-examination he has admitted that he did not see that occurrence. Thus, this witness has the tendency of posing himself to be an eye witness, when he had not seen the occurrence and describes the incident in such a fashion as if he was the eye witness. This approach of the witness is a dangerous approach and in the same fashion, this witness has styled himself to be the witness of actual occurrence of killing of Madan Lal. This approach of the witness is a dangerous approach and in the same fashion, this witness has styled himself to be the witness of actual occurrence of killing of Madan Lal. He has not deposed that he has shifted himself from the place of his assignment i.e. Chungi Naka and Chungi Naka is not near the place of occurrence. If he had not shifted himself from the place of his posting, then how could he see the actual occurrence is a million dollar question. If this witness could not be available and could not see the actual occurrence, then the learned trial Court can be said to have gone wrong in placing reliance on the testimony of this witness. (35). According to the learned counsel for the accused appellants, it was a case where there was a melee. No person could observe as to who actually assaulted. Five accused appellants have been singled out by the prosecution as they have been considered to be the leaders of their community. They have been falsely implicated. The prosecution has not been able to substantiate its case, and, therefore, the conviction of the accused appellants was wrong. (36). The learned Public Prosecutor replying the arguments of the learned co- unsel for the accused appellants urged that the accused appellants on a very small reason have tried to create a social problem. A trifle incident has been converted into an incident where Madan Lal lost his life and the peace and harmony of the two communities in the town of Salumbar has been disturbed. Such incidents are required to be taken seriously and those involved deserve to be dealt with stern consequences. In such a situation, the prosecution could establish its case by a number of witnesses and their testimony has to be read for whatever worth they are because it is in pieces and bits that each witness had seen the occurrence and, therefore, the case has to be build up by appreciation of evidence of each and every witness and due weightage has to be given to whatever he has stated in his depo- sition. Those who have been acquitted have been wrongly acquitted and those who have convicted have been rightly convicted. (37). We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record. (38). Those who have been acquitted have been wrongly acquitted and those who have convicted have been rightly convicted. (37). We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record. (38). The learned trial Court has based its order of conviction on the testimony of three witnesses P.W.2 Kishorilal. P.W.12 Sohanlal Bhatnagar and P.W.16 Pukhraj. As regards the testimony of P.W.2 Kishorilal and P.W.12 Sohanlal Bhatnagar is concerned, that is only upto the extent that the accused appellants were seen armed and going agitated towards the scene of occurrence and sometime,thereafter, these witnesses heard that Madan Lal has been killed. Therefore, from the testimony of these two witnesses, the prosecution does not get any help as regards the offence of murder of Madan Lal is concerned. (39). For supporting the conviction of murder of Madan Lal, the learned trial Court has taken the help of P.W.16 Pukhraj, who is police witness. He was posted at Chungi Naka and earlier portion of his deposition shows first incident which took place in between P.W.11 Kishan Lal and the accused appellant Muazzam. The manner of deposition shows that this witness was present when the incident occurred, but in his cross examination he admitted that he was not present when the quarrel between P.W.11 Kishan Lal and accused Muazzam took place. Therefore, this witness has the tendency of deposing incident as an eye witness even though he was not an eye witness of quarrel between P.W.11 Kishan Lal and accused Muazzam. Thus, his evidence deserves to be scrutinized with caution. (40). P.W.16 Pukhraj has stated that while he was posted at his place of posting he saw a mob of accused persons coming shouting that kill Kishan Driver. At that time, S.H.O. Datar Singh also came there, who was accompanied by Vijay Singh, Ram Chandra, Ratan Singh and one other Constable and he tried to pacify them by saying that Kishan will be proceeded against in terms of law. This part of the story is not given by the........... He has not stated that he had at all done anything what this witness has stated. Therefore, on this count also, this witness has the tendency of creating such a situation which is not supported by those who are in- volved in the created situation. (41). This part of the story is not given by the........... He has not stated that he had at all done anything what this witness has stated. Therefore, on this count also, this witness has the tendency of creating such a situation which is not supported by those who are in- volved in the created situation. (41). In his deposition he has further stated that after 20 minutes of this sequel he heard the shout that Hindu Kafirs be killed. Then he alongwith Zapta ran towards Tehsil, where the mob of 25-30 Mohammedan were engaged in pelting stones. They were armed also. Then, witnesses Kishorilal, Sohan Lal and Bheru Lal came and they also tried to pacify. P.W.2 Kishorilal has not stated that at the time when he got engaged with the rioteers, any police official was around. Therefore, once again it is doubtful that while this witness asserts that he was there with Zapta he really was there. (42). Similar is the statement of PW 12 Sohan Lal Bhatnagar. This witness also does not say that the witness P.W.16 Pukhraj was anywhere around. This witness states that after he noticed the murder of Madan Lal, police came thereafter and then he left. Therefore, these two witnesses to whom P.W.16 Pukhraj has named to have indulged into pacifying the crowd do not say that this witness was present there at all. (43). Then, regarding the real incident of assault of Madan Lal, P.W.16 Pukhraj has said that he saw the incident and, thereafter, S.D.M. and S.H.O. reached on the scene of occurrence. Coming of S.D.M. and S.H.O., according to this witness, was soon after Madan Lal became unconscious, but neither the S.D.M. P.W.14 Kurda Ram reached at the scene of occurrence at such a point of time nor the S.H.O. Datar Singh reached there at that time as none of these witnesses claim so. Therefore, for judging the testimony of this witness that he had seen the occurrence of beating Madan Lal, the testimony of P.W.2 Kishorilal, P.W.12 Sohan Lal Bhatnagar, P.W.14 Kurda Ram and P.W.24 Datar Singh is important. They do not support him. It does not appear that he had seen the occurrence at all. He in his cross examination has admitted that because of the density of the crowd it was not clearly visible as to who were the assailants of Madan Lal. They do not support him. It does not appear that he had seen the occurrence at all. He in his cross examination has admitted that because of the density of the crowd it was not clearly visible as to who were the assailants of Madan Lal. This again strengthens the doubt against the inference that he was present at the scene of occurrence. (44). Further, his statements were not recorded on the day of occurrence. He was a police official. He did not say that he tried to intervene in the incident though he asserts that he was present with Zapta. Thus, the evidence of this witness cannot establish that those who assaulted the deceased included the accused appellants. If the testimony of this witness cannot be considered to identify the assailants, then going back to those witnesses to who the learned trial Court has held that they are partly reliable witnesses would be hazardous, because for all those witnesses the learned trial Court has observed that they have made improvements from their poli- ce statement and have not deposed a correct account of the sequence of events. (45). The learned trial Judge has given bonus to them by saying that they are partly reliable witnesses, but when these witnesses have tried to exaggerate and improve upon their earlier statements, then, their evidence if accepted can result into miscarriage of justice, more particularly when there is no such evidence available on record which lends assurance to the mind of the Court that in fact Madan Lal was assaulted by such persons. All the witnesses have faultered badly in their depositions and have become infirm witnesses. No independent corrobo- ration is coming forth and one infirm witness cannot be used to corroborate the testimony of another infirm witness. In this back ground, there remains no witness on whose testimony it can be said wit certainty that it were the appellants alone who were responsible for causing injuries on the person of the deceased. (46). That being the position, it is not safe to sustain the conviction of the accu- sed appellants for the murder of Madan Lal, because PW 16 Pukhraj is not the witness worth reliance. P.W.2 and P.W.12 are not the witnesses of actual occurrence and all other witnesses have been held by the learned trial Court to be half truthful witnesses. We also concur with that. P.W.2 and P.W.12 are not the witnesses of actual occurrence and all other witnesses have been held by the learned trial Court to be half truthful witnesses. We also concur with that. No independent corroboration from circumstantial evidence is available and, therefore, the conviction of the accused appellants under section 302/149 IPC is held to be unsustainable. (47). By setting aside the conviction of the accused appellants under section 302/149 IPC, the other offences for which the accused appellants have been convicted with the aid of Section 149 IPC also fall to the ground because no definite object of the unlawful assembly could be established by the prosecution. The accu- sed appellants are, therefore, acquitted of the offences under section 323/149 IPC and 324/149 IPC. (48). The accused appellants have been convicted under section 148 IPC also. As regards this offence, it can be safely said that P.W.2 Kishorilal and P.W.12 Sohanlal Bhatnagar have deposed that accused appellants were armed and were part of the crowd which had used violence and in that violence Madan Lal was killed. Though the accused have not been convicted for causing any injury to Madan Lal, but then that does not mean that the crowd had not used violence. Since the accused appellants were part of the crowd and were armed, it can be said that they have committed the offence of rioting and therefore, their conviction under Section 148 IPC is maintained because to the extent of using violence the common object of all those who gathered and created unrest can be said to be on their head and behaviour. Therefore, on the strength of testimony of PW.2 Kishorilal and P.W.12 Sohanlal Bhatnagar, the conviction of the accused appellants under Section 148 IPC is maintained. (49). As regards the State appeal against the four accused persons, there is no sufficient evidence to sustain any charges against them. The State appeal is, therefore, dismissed. (50). In the result, the State appeal is dismissed. The appeal filed by the appellants is accepted in part. The conviction and sentences passed against the accused appellants under Sections 302/149 IPC, 323/149 IPC and 324/149 IPC are set aside. However, the conviction of the accused appellants under Section 148 IPC is maintained. The trial Court sentenced them under Section 148 IPC for three months R.I., which they have already undergone. The conviction and sentences passed against the accused appellants under Sections 302/149 IPC, 323/149 IPC and 324/149 IPC are set aside. However, the conviction of the accused appellants under Section 148 IPC is maintained. The trial Court sentenced them under Section 148 IPC for three months R.I., which they have already undergone. Hence, they need not to surrender their bail bonds which stand discharged.