Judgment D.P.S.Choudhary, J. 1. These three appeals were heard together and this common judgment shall dispose of all the appeals. The sole appellants of criminal appeal No. 467 of 1986 Mahendra Singh died during the pendency of the appeal as reported by the Superintendent of Police, Nawadah by his letter No. 1203, dated 7th of April, 1999. Hence, this appeal has abated. 2. All the appellants were charged under Sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and appellant Mahendra Singh (since dead) was also charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nawadah by his judgment dated 11th of August, 1986 in Sessions Trial No. 5/86/521/84 acquitted all the accused-persons of charge under Sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code but convicted all of them under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. Appellant Mahendra Singh (since deceased) was found guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was sentenced to imprisonment for life. 3. The brief fact of the prosecution case is that on 4.4.1979 at about 11.00 a.m. the informant Bhagirath Singh (PW 9) and other villagers were attending the inquiry being made by ASI of Narhat P.S. with respect to a petition of Kapil Singh. Six accused-persons, namely, Mahendra Singh (since dead), Sitaram Singh, Khelawan Singh, Bachu Singh, Balmiki Singh and Siya Singh, all of village Tete came there. They were opposite party in the said inquiry. Accused Bachu Singh started abusing the informant and others. The ASI tried to pacify them but the accused-persons did not listen to him. Accused Mahendra Singh picked up a dhela from the field and hit Baleshwar Singh a co-villager on his right "Kanchappar" who fell down and became unconscious. The informant and other members of his party ran for their safety. Accused-persons started throwing brick bats and chased them. In the meantime, other accused-persons and several villagers variously armed with, came near the house of Narain Mahto and started throwing stones. Several persons of the informants party were injured. Thereafter accused-persons ran away. The informant and others went near injured Baleshwar Singh but found him dead. The fardbeyan of the informant Bhagirath Singh (PW 9) was recorded by the ASI on the spot at 11.30 a.m. and the formal FIR was drawn up at the Police Station. Several persons of the informants party were injured. Thereafter accused-persons ran away. The informant and others went near injured Baleshwar Singh but found him dead. The fardbeyan of the informant Bhagirath Singh (PW 9) was recorded by the ASI on the spot at 11.30 a.m. and the formal FIR was drawn up at the Police Station. The motive of the occurrence alleged is old land dispute and enmity in between the party. 4. During trial the prosecution has examined in all 13 witnesses. Dr. Jawahar Lal (PW 10) held the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Baleshwar Singh on 5.4.1979 at 9.30 a.m. who found one bruise with swelling extending from right temporal bone to upper part of right side of neck and up to angle of right mandible beside abrasion and swelling. In the opinion of the Doctor, the injuries were ante-mortem in nature caused by hard blunt substance such as dhela. He further opined that injuries on the right temporal reason was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. His post-mortem report has been marked Ext. 3. The time elapsed since death was between 6 to 36 hours. The said dhela has been produced in the Court and marked material Ext. 1. The Investigating Officer has described the place of occurrence as the field of Dwaraka Singh where the dead body was lying. The inquest report prepared by the Investigating Officer has been marked Ext. 5. The learned trial Court after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that prosecution has been able to prove that accused Mahendra Singh has inflicted injury on the temporal region of Baleshwar Singh which caused his death and accordingly found him guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the learned trial Court held that other appellants who had assembled at the place of occurrence had no intention to cause death or to assault Baleshwar Singh. The learned Court further held that at best they were members of an unlawful assembly, the common object of which was to scare away the prosecution party from the place of enquiry. Accordingly, the learned trial Court acquitted all the appellants under Sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code but convicted them under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Accordingly, the learned trial Court acquitted all the appellants under Sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code but convicted them under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. The learned Lawyer appearing oh behalf of the appellants submitted that conviction of the appellants under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code is not in accordance with law. The appellants were not charged under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court has wrongly held that the offence under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code is a minor offence, hence no separate charge under this section is required. The offence under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code is a substantive offence and not a minor offence of Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, a separate charge under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code is essential while convicting the appellants. In absence of a charge under this section, the conviction is bad in law and not sustainable. 6. The appellants lawyer further submitted that in paragraph 16 of the judgment the learned trial Court has held that from the evidence of the witnesses it is not proved that originally six accused-persons who were present at the time of inquiry conducted by the ASI of Police, were present there as members of an unlawful assembly at that time. The learned trial Court has further held that evidences of the witnesses indicated that they were present at the spot in connection with the inquiry being held by the ASI of Police. In that course of inquiry it was the individual act of accused Mahendra Singh to cause bodily injury to Baleshwar Singh, who died on the spot. The other accused had not assembled there with an intention to cause bodily injury to Baleshwar Singh or any one else. Therefore the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court while convicting the appellants under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code that they were members of the unlawful assembly the common object of which was to commit rioting. This finding is contrary to its own conclusion arrived at after considering the evidence on record. 7. Therefore the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court while convicting the appellants under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code that they were members of the unlawful assembly the common object of which was to commit rioting. This finding is contrary to its own conclusion arrived at after considering the evidence on record. 7. It was further submitted on behalf of the appellants that while recording the statement of accused-persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned trial Court has not asked them question whether they were members of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of common object of such assembly was to commit rioting by throwing brick-bats on the prosecution and Police party. Without asking any question regarding this fact, the appellants should not have been convicted for the offence of rioting. This has caused prejudice to them because they were not given an opportunity to explain regarding this allegation for which they were convicted. In support of this contention, the learned appellants Lawyer relied on a decision Binay Kumar and others V/s. State of Bihar, 1999 1 PLJR 633. 8. In reply to the above submission, the learned APP submitted that the learned trial Court has not committed error in law while convicting the appellants under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code because they were already charged under Sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code for being members of unlawful assembly the common object of which was to commit murder of Baleshwar Singh. Therefore, the offence under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code is a minor offence to the offence for which they were already charged for. Hence a conviction under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code is not bad in law. The learned APP further submitted that the trial Court has asked a general question while recording the statement of accused-persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it is not required that for every act there should be a separate and pointed question put by the Court to the accused. Therefore, the requirements as laid down under Section 313, Cr PC was complied with. As such the conviction under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code is not bad-in-law. Therefore, the requirements as laid down under Section 313, Cr PC was complied with. As such the conviction under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code is not bad-in-law. In support of this contention the learned APP relied on a decision Shobhit Chamar and another V/s. State of Bihar, AIR 1998 SC 1693 : 1998 (1) East Cr C 867. 9. Taking into view all the submissions made on behalf of the parties and after considering the facts and circumstances and the evidence on record, it is difficult to accept the contention raised on behalf of the learned APP. The offence under Section 147 of Indian Penal Code is not a minor offence of Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. It is altogether a distinct offence, hence a separate charge under this section is essential. There could be no conviction under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, unless a charge has been framed thereunder. Hence, the trial Court has committed error of law in convicting the appellants without framing a charge under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code. 10. I find substance in this contention of the learned appellants lawyer that while the trial Court has come to the conclusion (para 16) that there was no evidence that accused-persons had assembled at the place of occurrence as members of an unlawful assembly, then he should not have convicted them for the offence under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code. I also find substance in this contention of the learned appellants Lawyer that while examining the accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the questions put to them by the trial Court not specific regarding unlawful assembly and rioting so that the accused could give a clear reply to it. Hence it has caused serious prejudice to the appellants. Therefore, the conviction of the appellants under Section 147, IPC is not maintainable. The decision relied on by the APP (AIR 1998 SC page 1693 : 1998 (1) East Cr C 867 (SC)) has got no application with the facts of this case. There the relevant question with reference to such evidence were put to the accused. Thus the Supreme Court held that no prejudice was caused to accused-persons nor the trial vitiated. 11. There the relevant question with reference to such evidence were put to the accused. Thus the Supreme Court held that no prejudice was caused to accused-persons nor the trial vitiated. 11. Thus on consideration as discussed above, I find that the conviction of the appellants under Section 147 of Indian Penal Code is not in accordance with law and is fit to be set aside. Accordingly these appeals are allowed and the appellants are set at liberty. N.N.Singh, J. 11 I agree.