Judgment D.N.Prasad, J. 1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the First Addl. Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, convicted the appellants sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offences under Sections 302/149, IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief as stated is that on 22-3-1987 at about 3 p.m. when the people of the village has assembled near Sarna tree on the occasion of Sarhul pooja, the villagers suggested for the change of pahan. This was supported by the father of the informant (deceased) and at the relevant time the accused Churgun was the pahan of the village since long. When the change of pahan was supported by the deceased, the accused Churgun became excited and he along with his brothers and six others, ordered for killing the deceased saying that he is the root cause of all evils and he wants to snatch his pahanai. On the order of the accused Churgun, the accused-persons lifted wooden log which was kept there for fuel (chaila) for cooking food and all of them started beating the informants father Udayram Baraik and his younger brother Jitendra Baraik as a result of which both the deceased sustained head injuries and died on the spot. The accused-persons assaulted both the deceased with chaila until their death. The accused-persons also tried to catch hold of the informant, but he could somehow manage to escape and raised alarm and thereafter the villagers rushed to the spot, but they could not say out of fear and after killing the father and brother of the informant the accused-persons celebrated it by beating of drum and lunch. The informant rushed to the construction state of Harihar Singh and also brought some of his colleagues and succeeded in catching hold of seven accused-persons from the place of the occurrence. Accordingly, the FIR was lodged and the police investigated into the case and submitted charge-sheet against all the appellants. The learned Judicial Commissioner framed charge against all the appellants for the offences under Sections 302/149, IPC and they were also charged under Section 302, IPC in the alternative. 3. The defence as advanced from the side of the appellants that they have been falsely implicated in this case out of enmity. The learned Judicial Commissioner framed charge against all the appellants for the offences under Sections 302/149, IPC and they were also charged under Section 302, IPC in the alternative. 3. The defence as advanced from the side of the appellants that they have been falsely implicated in this case out of enmity. The witnesses were examined in the lower Court and after hearing both the sides, the learned Court below convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner as stated above by the impugned judgment dated 27-7-1989. 4. On being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellants preferred this appeal. 5. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the learned Court below has committed error in passing the judgment of conviction against all the appellants without appreciating the evidence on the record properly and there is no eye-witness to the occurrence. It is further argued that there is no specific evidence against all the appellants for assaulting the deceased for there was any common object from before for committing the offence by all the appellants and, as such, Section 149, IPC is not applicable in the instant case as there was no any unlawful assembly from before with a common object for committing the murder, rather the incident took place at the spur of the moment when Sarhul Pooja was being celebrated and all the villagers were taking drinks at the relevant time. It is also submitted that lunch was going on as well as the doctor did not find any injury caused by any deadly weapon and there is nothing specific or direct evidence against the appellants for assaulting the deceased. 6. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the State contended that at the instance of the appellant, Churgun all the appellants took wooden log in their hands and started assaulting both the deceased jn discriminately till the time they died and so there was obvious common intention as well as common object for doing away the life of the deceased after forming unlawful assembly and there is specific and direct allegation against the appellants for assaulting the deceased and the witnesses are also consistent in deposing about the assault by the appellants. 7. 7. Before appreciating the contention of the learned Counsel for both the sides, it would be appropriate to look into the evidence on record. 8. It is an admitted position that father of the informant Uday Ram Baraik and his younger brother Jitendra Bariak died due to assault at the relevant time. It is also an admitted position that all the appellants were already present at the spot at the time of occurrence when the Sarhul Pooja was being celebrated. 9. PW-2, Somra Oraon claimed to be the eye-witness to the occurrence and he was present at the time of occurrence. According to him, the father of the informant suggested for change of Pahanai, but in the meantime the appellants started assaulting Jitendra Baraik and Uday Ram Baraik by the wooden chaila and both of them died instantaneously. He claimed to have put his signature on the seizure list, Ext. 2 as the Chaila and utensil were seized by the police. He deposed in his cross-examination that chicken used to be given on sacrifice on the occasion of pooja and after celebration of pooja they had also taken Haria (a kind of liqour). He also admitted in paragraph 10 that Jitendra Braik, the deceased was helping in the matter of change of Pahanai. He further stated that the assault took place suddenly at the time of altercation. 10. PW-3 claimed in his evidence that on the matter of change of Pahanai they started assaulting both the deceased with chaila. He. stated in his cross-examination that the deceased were not assaulting anybody. 11. PW-4 is also an eye-witness and claimed that on the matter of change of Pahanai at the instance of the appellant Churgun other appellants started assaulting Jitendra Baraik and Uday Ram, Baraik with the wooden chaila as a result of which they fell down and died. He further claimed that Udayram Baraik and Jitendra were found to be dead at the spot. 12. PW-5 is also an eye-witness to the occurrence and according to him the deceased Jitendra Baraik also suggested for the change of the Pahanai as a result of which all the appellants started assaulting Uday Ram Baraik and Jitendra Baraik and due to which they died at the place of occurrence. 12. PW-5 is also an eye-witness to the occurrence and according to him the deceased Jitendra Baraik also suggested for the change of the Pahanai as a result of which all the appellants started assaulting Uday Ram Baraik and Jitendra Baraik and due to which they died at the place of occurrence. He clearly deposed that on the occasion of Surhul Pooja the villagers being the Advasis used to take part in the said pooja and on the day of occurrence Jitu Sukra and Haura were beating the drum. According to him they were in understanding that the Pahan would be changed on the occasion of Sarhul Pooja and for which they were assembled there on the occasion of pooja. He further claimed that the incident took place when Pooja was being celebrated. He also stated that when the assault took place they were standing nearby. 13. PW-6, the informant stated that they had assembled for celebrating Sarhul Pooja and they were also of the opinion to change the Pahan on the occasion of Sarhul Pooja. His father (deceased) suggested for chance of Pahan and his brother deceased also supported his suggestion, but in the meantime, the appellants, namely, Puna, Jitu Sukra, Haura, Budhu and Somra started assaulting his brother with chaila whereas the appellants, Churgun, Dalua, Dahru Haura and Chanda started assaulting to his father with the wooden chaila as a result of which both his brother and his father died instantaneously. He further stated that the accused-person were beating drum after taking wine at the relevant time. Accordingly, he reported the matter to the police and the FIR, Ext. 1 was registered. He claimed in his cross-examination that there was already talk in the village for the change of Pahan from before and due to which his father insisted for changing the Pahanship at the relevant time, as a result of which the appellant became excited and they started assaulting with wooden chila. 14. PW-7, Shivnath Lohara also claimed to be an eye-witness to the alleged occurrence and according to him, all the appellants started assaulting the deceased when they insisted to change the Pahanship and all the appellants continued in assaulting till the time both the deceased died. He deposed in his cross-examination that the incident took place when Sarhul Pooja was being celebrated. He deposed in his cross-examination that the incident took place when Sarhul Pooja was being celebrated. He did not flee away at the time of assault rather he was present and had seen the incident from nearby. 15. PW-8 Dr. B.P. Chaurasia held the post-mortem on the dead body of Uday Ram Bariak and found the following ante-mortem injuries : A. Lacerated wound : (i) 3 cm x 1 1/2 " X soft tissues deep on the left eye-brow. (ii) 1 cm x 1/2 cm x soft tissue deep on the left cheek near lateral angle of the left eye. (iii) 5 cm x 1 1/2 cm x scalp deep on the left frontal head. (iv) 6 cm x 1 1/2 cm x scalp deep on the vortex of head. (v) 4 cm X 1 cm X scalp deep on the left occipital region of head. (vi) 1 cm x 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm on the medival side of left great toe. B. Internal injuries : There was diffused contusion of left frontal parietal temporal occipital scalp. There was crace fracture of left temporal parietal occipital bone and laceration of bone underneath. There was presence of so-lodoral blood and bloodclot in the cranial cavity. There was contusion of the whole blood. PW-8 Dr. B.P. Chaurasia also held the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Jitendra Braik and found the following ante-mortem injuries : A. Lacerated would : (i) 5 cm X 1 1/2 cm x soft tissue deep on the chin with fracture of mandable bone. (ii) 1 cm x 1/2 cm X on the inner side of lower lip. (iii) 3 cm x 1 cm x soft tissue deep on the left eye-brow B. Abrasion : (i) 4 cm x 3 cm on the right cheek. (ii) 3 cm x 1 cm on the right lateral neck. (iii) 3 cm X 2 cm on the right side of chin. (iv) 1 1/2x1/2 cm on the nose roof. (v) 1 cm X 1 cm on the left side of forehead. (vi) 1 cm X 1 1/2 cm on the left cheek. C. Internal injuries : There was diffused contusion of temporal parietal scalp on both sides of frontal scalp. There was crack fracture of both temporal and perital bones. There was contusion of whole brain. (v) 1 cm X 1 cm on the left side of forehead. (vi) 1 cm X 1 1/2 cm on the left cheek. C. Internal injuries : There was diffused contusion of temporal parietal scalp on both sides of frontal scalp. There was crack fracture of both temporal and perital bones. There was contusion of whole brain. All the injuries were ante-mortem injuries caused by the hard blunt substance such as log of wood. The doctor proved Ext. 3 and 3/1 (Two post-mortem reports). 16. PW-9 Srinivas Chaube is the Investigating Officer and claimed to have visited the place of occurrence. He also claimed to have seized some articles at the place of occurrence and accordingly seizure list, Ext. 4, was prepared. He also examined the witnesses in connection with the occurrence. He stated in paragraph 10 that the witness Somra Oraon did not state before him that he had named all the appellants. The witness Dhir Singh told him that the villagers were busy in the Panchayati at Sarna tree. No any other witness has been examined on behalf of the prosecution and thereafter, all the appellants were examined under Section 313, Cr PC, and they had denied the allegation. 17. Altogether nine witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution in support of its prosecution case, of whom PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5, PW-6 (informant) & PW-7 are said to be the eye-witnesses of the occurrence and they are consistent in deposing that all the appellants assaulted Uday Ram Baraik and Jitendra Braik by means of wooden log, as a result of which both of them died instantaneously. PW-2, 4 and 5 specifically identified all the appellants for taking part in the occurrence, whereas PW-3 and 7 have named the appellants in the Court during trial as being the assailants as the Court below mentioned this fact in the deposition. No any witness has been examined from the side of defence to controvert the prosecution story. The witnesses examined by the prosecution are also independent and trustworthy as there as nothing specific against them to discard their testimony. 18. It is an admitted position that the appellant, Churgun was Pahan at the time of occurrence. No any witness has been examined from the side of defence to controvert the prosecution story. The witnesses examined by the prosecution are also independent and trustworthy as there as nothing specific against them to discard their testimony. 18. It is an admitted position that the appellant, Churgun was Pahan at the time of occurrence. The Sarpanch, Uday Ram Braik (deceased) had supported the decision of the people/villagers for the change of Pahanship which excited the Pahan Churgun and he had instigated his supports and said that let the generation of Sarpanch be wiped out and because of this statement the lawful assembly even, if turned into unlawful assembly by taking wooden log (chaila) in their hands and started assaulting and beating both the deceased till the time, they died. The doctor, PW-8, who held the post-mortem examination, also found as many as six injuries on the persons of the deceased Uday Ram Baraik. The injury Nos. 3, 4 and 5 were caused on the head which is a vital part of the body and the doctor found crack fracture of left parietal temporal occipital bone and there was contusion of whole brain. The doctor also found as many as three lacerated wounds and six abrasions on the person of the deceased, Jitendra Braik. The doctor found injury No. 5 being abrasion on the forehead. The doctor also found contusion of whole brain and there was crack fracture of both temporal and parietal bones. The doctor joined about the cause of death to both the deceased due to head injuries. 19. It is pertinent to note here that the evidence of the eye-witnesses are corroborative with the medical evidence. It may be mentioned here that no injury, if caused to Churgun, the appellant, has been produced by the defence nor any evidence to this effect has been adduced. There is no material to show that any injury report was ever prepared in respect of the appellant, Churgun as well as Churgun has not whispered a single word in his statement under Section 313, Cr PC, in respect of any injury caused to him during occurrence. Hence, such contention cannot be accepted at the belated stage which is also without evidence. Hence, such contention cannot be accepted at the belated stage which is also without evidence. Exception 4 of Section 300, IPC enumerates" culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight, in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offenders having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner." But, there is no doubt that all the eye-witnesses claimed in their evidence emphatically and consistently that the deceased were assaulted till the time they died which goes to show that the deceased were assaulted mercilessly and indiscriminately causing head injuries with the knowledge that the injuries and assault are sufficient to cause death. Even a single blow on the head with chaila is sufficient to cause death. It is true that the incident occurred at the spur of moment when the Sarhul Pooja was being celebrated, but on the instigation by the appellant, Churgun, the appellants who were in the assembly took the wooden log in their hands with a definite object to assault both the deceased. Thus, their conduct and behaviour by assaulting with wooden chila indiscriminately on the person of both the deceased will lead to come to conclusion that the appellants became the members of the unlawful assembly at the time of occurrence and their guilt and the offence committed in the said manner will certainly attract the offence under Section 149, IPC. The common object of the unlawful assembly can be collected from the nature of the assembly, arms used by them and the behaviour of the assembly at or before the scene of occurrence. It is well-settled that an assembly which lawful assembly in its inception may become unlawful by the subsequen. act of its members and it may turn unlawful all of a sudden and without previous concert among its members, vide Moti Das and Ors. V/s. The State of Bihar, AIR 1954 SC 657 . 20. There is a denial about the death of Uday Ram Baraik and Jitendra Braik at the place of occurrence due to injuries caused on their persons. 21. V/s. The State of Bihar, AIR 1954 SC 657 . 20. There is a denial about the death of Uday Ram Baraik and Jitendra Braik at the place of occurrence due to injuries caused on their persons. 21. It is quite evidence form the discussion made above that all the appellants assaulted both the deceased with chaila till the time both died at the spot which itself indicates about their cruelty and, as such, in my view, the Exception 4 of Section 300, IPC does not apply in the instant case, rather from the evidence of the eye-witnesses, who can be said to be the independent witnesses coupled with medical evidence, there is no doubt in holding that the appellants had assaulted both the deceased intentionally and with full knowledge causing their death. The injuries caused to both the deceased were also found to be sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. Admittedly, the injuries were inflicted indiscriminately on the persons of both the deceased including their head and the death was caused to both the deceased due to head injuries. Thus, as noticed here-in-before, the occular evidence has fully been corroborated by the medical evidence. 22. It is true that there might be minor contradiction in the evidence of witnesses who are admittedly Adivasis and, in fact, such discrepancies are inevitable. The whole prosecution case cannot be thrown away due to such discrepancies unless serious prejudice caused to the accused/appellants. In view of the discussions made here-in-before it is not evident that all the eye-witnesses being the independent witnesses, are intact in their testimony as they were present at the place of occurrence on the occasion of Sarhul Pooja. So their testimony cannot be disbelieved and discarded in absence of any cogent and solid rebuttal. 23. Thus, keeping in view the whole facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the evidence on record, there is no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has fully established the charge against all the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. In the result, I find that the learned Addl. Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149, IPC which does not require any interference. Hence the judgment of conviction and sentence, passed by the lower Court is hereby affirmed. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. In the result, I find that the learned Addl. Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149, IPC which does not require any interference. Hence the judgment of conviction and sentence, passed by the lower Court is hereby affirmed. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The bail-bonds of the appellants are cancelled and they are directed to be taken into custody for serving out their sentences.