JUDGMENT AFTAB ALAM, J. The criminal appeal in this batch of three cases is filed by a single appellant Damodar Mahto. He stands convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under section 302 of the Penal Code. Facing trial with him there were seven other accused persons he alone was charged' under section 302 while the rest of the accused were charged under section 302 read with section 149 of the Penal Code. At the end of the trial the court below held that against Damodar Mahto the charge of committing murder was fully established but the prosecution had not been able to prove that it was not his individual act but the commission of murder was part of the shared common object of the unlawful assembly comprising the other accused persons. The other seven accused were accordingly acquitted of the charge. Against that part of the judgment the State preferred Government appeal, the other case in this batch which on admission was directed to be heard along with the criminal appeal. The informant then filed the criminal revision which was too was admitted to be heard along with the other two cases. During the pendency of the cases, two of the seven accused against whom the Government appeal was filed, namely, Ramdeo Mahto (respondent no.1) and Shyam Narain Prasad (respondent no.7) were reported to be dead. The Government appeal, therefore, abated against them as recorded in the order, dated 14.7.2004 passed in that case. 2. All the three •cases were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The appellant and the rest of the accused on the one hand and the deceased and the members of the prosecution party on the other have a Common ancestor and a dispute over the daughters share in the family property lies at the root of the occurrence. It will be therefore convenient to take a look at the out-set at the geneology of the accused and the prosecution party. One Mangru Mahto had four sons, (i) Chhotu, (ii) Tunnu, (iii) Govind and (iv) Dahu Tunnu died unmarried. Chhotu had three daughters, namely, (i) Dhaneshwari, (ii) Sukhiya and (iii) Sandbarti. Sukhiya's husband Damodar Mahto is the appellant in the criminal appeal. Dhaneshwari's husband Shyam Narain was one of the accused who is now dead. One Mangru Mahto had four sons, (i) Chhotu, (ii) Tunnu, (iii) Govind and (iv) Dahu Tunnu died unmarried. Chhotu had three daughters, namely, (i) Dhaneshwari, (ii) Sukhiya and (iii) Sandbarti. Sukhiya's husband Damodar Mahto is the appellant in the criminal appeal. Dhaneshwari's husband Shyam Narain was one of the accused who is now dead. Bindeshwar, the son of Damodar Mahto and Sukhiya and Ashwini, the son of Sandbarti are the other two accused. Ganauri Prasad, Arjun Prasad and Ramjee Prasad, the remaining three accused do not belong to the family. They are covillagers who had purchased part of the disputed property from the family members of the accused. Sadhu Sharan, another son of Damodar and Sukhiya though named as an accused in the F.I.R. was not before the trial court. It is, thus, clear that the accused are in the line of Chhotu. 4. The children of Govind and Oahu, the two other sons of Mangru Mahto are on the prosecution side. Govind had four sons, Dwarika Prasad (the deceased) Baleshwar Prasad (PW 1), Rajendra Prasad, (PW 2) and Bhagwat Prasad (informant-PW 6). Oahu, the other son of Mangru Mahto who is the uncle of the deceased and the uncle-in-law of the appellant Damodar was examined by the prosecution as PW 5. His two sons Arjun and Umesh and Arjun's daughter Gita did not come as witnesses before the trial court. 5. From the materials on record, it is evident that the three daughters of Chhotu, Dhaneshwari, Sukhiya and Sandbarti and their men were claiming their share in the properties of Mangru Mahto and in that regard court cases were going on between the parties. The accused were apparently able to have their rights and title recognized in the dispute~ property and from the consolidation Khatiyan (Ext. 0) it appears that the names of the three daughters of Chhotu were jointly recorded along with Govind Mahto and Oahu Mahto as raiyats of the disputed properties. But the actual physical possession of the properties still seemed to elude the accused. At the end it appears that they ran out of patience and instead of securing possession of their share in the disputed property through the process of court they took the short cut of violence and tried to take over control and possession of a part of the property by force. 6. At the end it appears that they ran out of patience and instead of securing possession of their share in the disputed property through the process of court they took the short cut of violence and tried to take over control and possession of a part of the property by force. 6. According to the prosecution case the accused tried to forcibly capture the old house of the family. The old house was no longer used for residential purposes but it was used for keeping farming equipments and similar other things. The family members in the line of Govind and Oahu had their living quarters in another house referred to as the 'Zanani Qita' situate in the village at some distance from the old house. It is stated by the prosecution that on 22.2.1996 in the day-time Damodar Mahto and a number of other accused came variously armed to the old house. They broke the lock at the door of the house and entered into it, since it was day time practically all the male members in the family (from the line of Govind and Oahu) were out in the fields or were attending other out-door chores. Only Oahu, PW 5, the oldest member of the family happened to be near the house targeteed by the accused. At the time they came there, he was having his shave done by Krishnadeo Thakur, PW 3. He was, thus, the first among the family members to witness the assault on the house by the accused and he tried to raise hulla. Then the female members of the family in the Zanani Quita came to learn that the family house was being forcibly occupied by the accused and they came running to the place of occurrence. One by one other male members of the family also arrived there. An altercation took place between Bhagwat Prasad, PW 6 and Damodar Mahto, the appellant who fired a shot from his pistol, hitting Dwarika in the chest and causing his instant death on the spot. The accused then fled away. 7. The dead body of Dwarika was brought to Islampur P.S. on a tractor by Bhagwat Prasad along with his brother Rajendra Prasad, (PW 2) and two co-villagers Narendra Prasad and Surendra Prasad, (PW 7). Bhagwat Prasad lodged a F.I.R. (Ext. 2) giving rise to Islampur P.S. Case No. 15/1996. The accused then fled away. 7. The dead body of Dwarika was brought to Islampur P.S. on a tractor by Bhagwat Prasad along with his brother Rajendra Prasad, (PW 2) and two co-villagers Narendra Prasad and Surendra Prasad, (PW 7). Bhagwat Prasad lodged a F.I.R. (Ext. 2) giving rise to Islampur P.S. Case No. 15/1996. In the F.I.R. Bhagwat Prasad stated that at about 10 in the morning of 22.2.1996 he along with his deceased brother Dwarika Prasad had gone to the southern Khanda (the outlying land of the village) for cutting grass. There they heard some hulla coming from the village. Dwarika remarked that in the village there is bound to be hulla of some sort or the other. They, therefore, ignored it and continued with cutting grass. In the mean while their neice Gita Kumari (daughter of Arjun son of Dahu) came there running and said that Damodar Phoopha had raided the house with a number of persons and they were beating up every one. The two brothers then came running to the house and reached there at about 12 in the noon. There the informant found Damodar Mahto (describing him as Chachera Bahnoi) and ten other accused (each of whom is named in the F.I.R.) variously armed with lathies, Gadasa and other weapons. The accused were abusing the members of his family and saying that let everyone be turned out of the house. On this the informant asked why were they acting in that way and said that since cases were pending in court nothing would happen by fighting. Suddenly Damodar Mahto fired a shot from his pistol hitting his younger brother (Dwarika) on the left side of his chest who fell down on the spot and died instantly. The informant further stated that on the sound of gun shot and on hulla a number of villagers came there and also witnessed the occurrence. (He gave the names of four persons among the villagers who came to the P.O. but none of them were examined as witnesses before the trial Court). In the mean while all the accused persons fled away. In the end he said that a land dispute in regard to which cases were pending in the High Court and in consolidation court for several years, was the cause behind the occurrence. 8. In the mean while all the accused persons fled away. In the end he said that a land dispute in regard to which cases were pending in the High Court and in consolidation court for several years, was the cause behind the occurrence. 8. The statement made by him was read over to him in presence of his co-villagers and on finding it correctly recorded, the informant and two co-villagers Narendra Prasad and Surendra Prasad put their signature to it. 9. Here it is significant to note that in the F.I.R. the allegations against the accused other than Damodar Prasad and limited. They are definitely said to be variously armed, each carrying a lathi or spare or Gadasa or pistol in his hands and occupying the house forcibly, forming an unlawful assembly but beyond that not much is said against them. According to the informant, on arriving at the house, he found there the eleven accused variously armed. The accused persons were abusing the females of his family and were saying that let everyone of them be truned out of the house. He actual words in the F.I.R. are as follows: "TAB HUM DONO DAUR KAR KARIB 12 BAJE DIN GHAR PAR AAE TO DEKHA KI HAMARA CHACHERA BAHNOI (1) DAMODAR PRASAD, (2) SADHU SHARAN PRASAD HAATH MAIN PISTOL, (3) ....... (11) ....APNE HATH MAIN BHALA LIYE HUE HAMARE GHAR KE AURAT PARIVAR KO GAALI GALAUJ KAR RAHE HAIN TATHA BOL RAHE THE KI SAB KO GHAR SE NIKAL DO. IS PAR HUM BOLE KI KEYON AISA KAR RAHE HAIN JAB MOQADMA COURT MAIN CHAL RAHA HAI TO JHAGRA KARNE SE KEYA HO GA. ITNE MAIN DAMODAR PRASAD JO HAMARE CHACHERE BAHNOI HOTE HAI VE APNE HAATH MAIN LIYE PISTOL SE HAMARE CHHOTA BHAI KE OOPAR FIRE KAR DIVE." 10. In the F.I.R. 11 persons were named as accused. These included Sadhu Sharan Prasad, Sadhu Sharan Mukhiya and Asmania Prasad, apart from the appellant Damodar Mahto and the seven other accused who faced trial in the court below. The police, however, submitted charge sheet only against the eight persons and showed the investigation as pending in respect of the three other accused. 11. Before the trial court the prosecution examined nine witnesses in support of its case. PW 7 Surendra Prasad is a co-villager who had accompanied the informant to the PS. The police, however, submitted charge sheet only against the eight persons and showed the investigation as pending in respect of the three other accused. 11. Before the trial court the prosecution examined nine witnesses in support of its case. PW 7 Surendra Prasad is a co-villager who had accompanied the informant to the PS. He had put his signatures on the F.I.R. and the inquest report. He identified his signatures which were marked as Ext. 1/2 (on F.I.R.) and Ext. 1/4 (on the inques report). PW 3 is another co-villager who was shaving Oahu when the accused came to the house in question. He was declared hostile. PW 8 is the I.O. and PW 9 is the doctor who held post-mortem on the body of the deceased. The rest of the witnesses, PWs 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 are the eye witnesses of the occurrence. PWs 1, 2 and 6 are the brothers of the deceased. PW 4 is the wife of PW 2 who, along with other female members of the family, was among the first to arrive at the P.O. on hearing hulla that the accused were trying to forcibly enter the old house. PW 5 Oahu is the oldest member of the family. He is the uncle of the deceased and PWs 1, 2 and 6. He is also the uncle of Sukhiya, the wife of Damodar, the convicted appellant. From the witnesses statement it appears that he was the first among the family members to have witnessed the accused coming to the house in question and entering it after breaking open the lock. 12. The doctor, PW 9 stated before the court that on external examination of the deceased Dwarika Prasad, he recorded the following findings: "Rigor mortis present. Mouth was smeared with vomitted half digested rice and pulse. Blood smeared over the front of the chest. On external examination a wound of entry 1/2" x 1/2" x chest cavity over left third intercostal space 2" from mid external line with inverted margin. Black charred. Another wound of exit on the right side of 9th intercostal space 1" x 1" x chest cavity with everted margin with post auxiliary line." 13. On dissection he found the following injuries: "(i) Fracture of 3rd costal cartilage and 9th rib. (ii) Chest cavity was full of blood about 400 cc black colour. Black charred. Another wound of exit on the right side of 9th intercostal space 1" x 1" x chest cavity with everted margin with post auxiliary line." 13. On dissection he found the following injuries: "(i) Fracture of 3rd costal cartilage and 9th rib. (ii) Chest cavity was full of blood about 400 cc black colour. (iii) Heart, both lungs and liver was raptured. (iv) Other abdominal viscera was intact and pale. (v) Stomach contained half digested food about six ounce rice, pulse and vegetables. (vi) Urinary bladder was intact and empty." 14. He gave his opinion that death had occurred due to shock and haemorrhage, as a result of the injuries found by him, caused by a gun shot. 15. The medical evidence, thus, fully corroborates the prosecution case. 16. Coming now to the ocular evidence. PWs 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 narrated the occurrence fully before the court and said that they saw Damodar Mahto firing the shot at Dwarika and the shot hitting him in the chest, causing his instant death. 17. PW 1 stated that on hulla being raised by the people of the village he went running to the P.O. that when the female members of his family came there the accused beat them with slaps and said that the house belonged to them. In the mean while his two brothers, the deceased Dwarika Prasad and Bhagwat also came there and an altercation started between the two sides. Then on being urged by the other accused Damodar Mahto fired a shot at his brother Dwarika Prasad that hit him in the chest. Further, while identifying the accused in the dock, he pointed at Damodar stating that he had fired the shot and identified the other three accused present on that date as being among those who urged Damodar (to fire the shot). 18. Mr. Krishna Prasad, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant in the criminal appeal and the respondents in the Government appeal strongly criticised PW 1 and submitted that his evidence was full of inconsistencies. According to this witness he saw the appellant Damodar and the other accused coming from the west, passing by his living quarters, the Zanani Quita and going to the house in question. There they entered the house after breaking open its lock. According to this witness he saw the appellant Damodar and the other accused coming from the west, passing by his living quarters, the Zanani Quita and going to the house in question. There they entered the house after breaking open its lock. He then said that he came to the O.O. on the hulla raised by the villagers; that, at the time the hulla was raised, he was working in his Khalihan which is towards north from the place of occurrence. In his cross examination he said that he was working in the Khalihan when his sister-in-law Kauleshwari Devi (PW 4) came and informed him that the accused had entered into his house and then he went to the P.O. But PW 4 in her evidence clearly denied having gone to the Khalihan to inform PW 1 in regard to the occurrence. These inconsistencies are indeed there in evidence of PW 1 but on that basis I shall not go to the extent of holding that he may not be an eye witness of the occurrence or that he was lying or making a false statement before the trial court. It appears that he got somewhat rattled under the stress of cross examination and some discrepancies crept into his statements before the court. Nevertheless I think it will not be wholly prudent and safe to rely upon his evidence in a serious case of murder and I accordingly propose to keep him out of consideration. 19. But that still leaves the testimonies of PWs 2, 4, 5 and 6 and their evidence fully establishes the prosecution• case on all material points. All the four witnesses are very consistent and appear to be fully reliable in regard to every part of the prosecution case; that •the accused, variously armed, raided the house and tried to take its forcible possession; then the family members of the informant/deceased arrived there, the accused stopped them on the door, forcibly preventing them from entering the house. They abused and man-handled the female members of the family; that on the arrival of PW 6 and the deceased, an altercation took place in course of which the appellant fired a shot hitting Dwarika on his chest and killing him on the spot. 20. Mr. They abused and man-handled the female members of the family; that on the arrival of PW 6 and the deceased, an altercation took place in course of which the appellant fired a shot hitting Dwarika on his chest and killing him on the spot. 20. Mr. Krishna Prasad submitted that PW 2, on his own statement, is a chance witness and no reliance should, therefore, be placed on his evidence. I am unable to accept the submission. PW 2 said that in the morning he had gone to a neighbouring village for taking repayment of a loan given to someone in that village. Around 12 in the noon he was coming back to his village when on reaching near his old house he found that its lock was broken and the accused had entered into it. A chance witness is a person whose presence at the place of occurrence is the result of pure chance; in normal course his presence at the place of occurrence and it time of occurrence is not expected. But someone who goes away from his house on business and comes back to it to find some occurrence taking place there can hardly be described as a chance witness. He come back to his house in the normal course of events. 21. In regard to PW 2, Mr. Krishna Prasad submitted that his statement was recorded by the I.O. on the day following the date of occurrence. He stated that P.W.2 had accompanied the informant to the P.S. and submitted that if he were an eye witness, the I.O. would have recorded his statement at the P.S. itself or at least on the same day when he came to the village and the fact that his statement was recorded on the next day clearly showed that he was in fact not an eye witness. This to mind means nothing. If the I.O. was not sufficiently prompt in taking the statements of all the eye witnesses on the date of occurrence, no fault should attach to the witness and his testimony cannot be doubted for the lapse on the part of the I.O. 22. Mr. Krishna Pd. This to mind means nothing. If the I.O. was not sufficiently prompt in taking the statements of all the eye witnesses on the date of occurrence, no fault should attach to the witness and his testimony cannot be doubted for the lapse on the part of the I.O. 22. Mr. Krishna Pd. next submitted that no one among PWs 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 could be seriously taken as eye witness because none of them was described as such in the F.I.R. He pointed out that from the F.I.R. it appeared that the informant had gone to the police station with the dead body of his brother Dwarika and his brother Rajendra Prasad and two other co-villagers had accompanied him. But Rajendra Prasad was not described in the F.I.R. as an eye witness to the occurrence. PWs 1, 4 and 5 were not even mentioned as witnesses in the F.I.R. He further pointed out that in the F.I.R. it was stated that on the sound of gun-shot and on hulla a number of villagers came there who witnessed the occurrence. The names of four villagers were stated then but none of them was examined as prosecution witness. 23. I am unable to accept this submission either. It is true that in the F.I.R. the informant has not named any of his family members as witness to the occurrence. But that can hardly affect their position as competent and credible witnesses. From the F.I.R. it is evident that among the family members the informant and the deceased were practically the last ones to come to the P.O. At the material time they were working in the Khanda (the outlying field in the village). When the house was raided by the accused, on hulla being raised the females of the family apart from PW 5 who happened to be in Closer proximity of the house, were the first to arrive at the P.O. The other family members and villagers came one after the other. The informant could learn about the occurrence only when Gita, her neice went to the Khanda and informed him. It is,' therefore, perfectly natural and understandable that before the informant and the deceased arrived at the P.O., the other family members would be there from before and they would naturally witness the entire occurrence from beginning to end. 24. Mr. The informant could learn about the occurrence only when Gita, her neice went to the Khanda and informed him. It is,' therefore, perfectly natural and understandable that before the informant and the deceased arrived at the P.O., the other family members would be there from before and they would naturally witness the entire occurrence from beginning to end. 24. Mr. Krishna Prasad submitted that in view of the deposition of PW 5 (Oahu) the position of the informant himself as an eye witness was not free from doubt. He pointed out that PW 5, in course of his cross examination, had stated that Bhagwat (informant, PW 6) had arrived after the shot was fired and Baleshwar (PW 1) had come before Bhagwat. To my mind this again means nothing more than a slip of tongue on the part of a very old person deposing in court. Immediately after making that statement PW 5 corrected himself and said that Bhagwat and Baleshwar had come running one after the other and they had arrived before the shot was fired. The trial court after taking down the statement of the witness recorded its own observation that the witness did not answer the questions directly but made a long rambling reply; that this was apparently due to his very old age. At the time of deposition his age was recorded by the court as 90 years and thus he was about 87 years old at the time of occurrence. Just a slip of tongue by a very old person (which he immediately corrected) can not be used to discredit his own evidence and/or the evidence of the informant. 25. Apart from making separate criticisms in regard to individual prosecution witnesses (dealt with in the preceding part of the judgment) Mr. Krishna Prasad assailed the prosecution evidence in general terms too. He submitted that the prosecution had been able to examine only two independent witnesses before the trial court who were co-villagers and not family members of the informant/deceased. They were PWs 3 and 7. PW 3 was declared hostile and PW 7 though he had put his signatures on the F.I.R. and the inquest report said that on hearing hulla when he came to the place of occurrence, he found Dwarika Pd. They were PWs 3 and 7. PW 3 was declared hostile and PW 7 though he had put his signatures on the F.I.R. and the inquest report said that on hearing hulla when he came to the place of occurrence, he found Dwarika Pd. lying dead; and that no one told him how Dwarika died or who killed him and he never came to learn about his assailant. This is indeed extra ordinary and unbelievable. But it is clear to me that PW 7 was suppressing the truth and was trying to help the defence and it is surprising why he was not declared hostile on this aspect of the matter. 26. Mr. Krishna Prasad laid great stress on the absence of any independent witnesses on the prosecution side. He submitted that the family members examined as prosecution witnesses were intrisictly not reliable. Long standing land dispute and litigation between the parties was evident from the record. Yet, the informant had tried to suppress the fact and had denied that the judgment of the High Court had gone against them and that the consolidation Khatiyan had recognized the three females on the defence side as co-sharers in the ancestral property. The prosecution witnesses were, thus, both interested and enmical to the accused. Though at least four co-villagers were named in the F.I.R. as having come to the P.O. on hulla being raised and having witnessed the occurrence, no one was examined before the trial court and the I.O. too had taken the statement of only one of them. There were also certain inconsistencies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses as to who came first and who came later to the P.O. Further there was clearly an attempt to improve the prosecution case at the stage of trial and to add the ingredients of section 149 of the Penal Code to involve the other accused, though the F.I.R. itself was completely silent on this point. Learned counsel submitted that in this back-ground the non-examination of any independent witness to support the prosecution case was fatal and the prosecution Case was liable to be thrown out on that score alone. 27. I am unable to accept the submission. A criminal trial cannot be viewed, purely in the abstract and completely divorced from the ground realities. Learned counsel submitted that in this back-ground the non-examination of any independent witness to support the prosecution case was fatal and the prosecution Case was liable to be thrown out on that score alone. 27. I am unable to accept the submission. A criminal trial cannot be viewed, purely in the abstract and completely divorced from the ground realities. It is well known how difficult it has become now-a-days to find independent support in criminal prosecution. In this case too it is not quite correct to say that no independent witnesses were examined. PWs 3 and 7 were independent co-villagers having no connection with the family. But as it is common now-a-days both turned hostile. PW 3 was declared hostile by the prosecution, but, the A.P.P. suprisingly took no step to declare PW 7 too as hostile in so far as he claimed ignorance as to who was the assailant of Dwarika Prasad. The settled law on this point is that the testimony of interested witness must be examined with greater care and caution. It is not the law that in a prosecution case family members and interested witnesses must necessarily be taken as untruthful. 28. On a most rigorous scrutiny of PWs 2, 4, 5 and 6, I fail to see any serious inconsistency in their testimonies either internally or with each other so as to make their evidence unworthy of reliance. I find that their testimonies are perfectly natural and truthful and I find their evidence fully worthy of reliance. The ocular evidence is further corroborated by the medical evidence and the objective findings of the I.O. I, therefore, find that the prosecution case is established beyond all reasonable doubt that Damodar fired the shot hitting Dwarika Pd on his chest and causing his instant death. 29. I, thus, find and hold that the trial court rightly passed the judgment of conviction and sentence against the appellant, Damodar and that judgment does not warrant any interference by this court in appeal. 30. Coming now to the Government Appeal and the charge against the other accused under sections 302/149 of the Penal Code, the trial court held that the charge was not established against them primarily because there was no allegation of any overt act against them Both Mr. Jayaswal appearing in the Govt. appeal and Mr. Mahesh Pd. 30. Coming now to the Government Appeal and the charge against the other accused under sections 302/149 of the Penal Code, the trial court held that the charge was not established against them primarily because there was no allegation of any overt act against them Both Mr. Jayaswal appearing in the Govt. appeal and Mr. Mahesh Pd. NO.2 appearing for the informant in the criminal revision contended that a charge under section 149 of the Penal Code could very well be sustained even in the absence of any overt act committed by the accused. In support of his submission Mr. Mahesh Prasad relied upon a Supreme Court decision in State of Maharastra Vs. Kashirao & Others, 2003 AIR SCW 4492. 31. It is true that in order to show that the other members of the unlawful assembly had shared the object to commit the offence committed by anyone of them it is not necessary that the other members should do some overt act. But what the trial court actually meant was that neither the other accused committed any overt act nor was there sufficient and credible evidence on record to show that the other accused, members of the unlawful assembly shared a common object to commit the murder of Dwarika or anyone else. It is evident that the accused had formed an unlawful assembly with the object of taking forcible possession of the disputed house and this court finds it amazing that the trial court did not frame charges against them under sections 141, 144, 148 and 441 of the Penal Code. Evidence against the other accused in support of these charges is quite overwhelming and they escaped conviction and punishment for those offences simply because the trial court omitted to frame charges against them under these sections. But the question is whether the unlawful assembly had the common object of committing murder too in course of taking forcible possession of the house. The evidence is that they were variously armed but the object may only be to intimidate the other side into submission. The presence of arms alone would not conclusively establish the object to commit murder. 32. As seen above, the F.I.R. does not indicate that the other accused shared the object to kill anyone. In fact it is stated that while the informant was speaking to Damodar, he suddenly fired the shot hitting and killing Dwarika Prasad. The presence of arms alone would not conclusively establish the object to commit murder. 32. As seen above, the F.I.R. does not indicate that the other accused shared the object to kill anyone. In fact it is stated that while the informant was speaking to Damodar, he suddenly fired the shot hitting and killing Dwarika Prasad. Before the trial court PWs 1 and 2 stated that the other accused had urged Damodar Prasad to fire the shot. PW 1 had identified Damodar in the dock as the accused who fired the shot and the other three accused who were present in court at the time of his deposition as those who were urging him to fire (the shot). Similarly PW 2 had identified Ramji Mahto and Bindeshwari Prasad and said they along with other accused (not present in court on the day of his deposition) were exhorting Damodar to fire (at the informant/his family members). PW 1, I have kept out of consideration and that leaves only the evidence of PW 2. PWs 5 and 6 stated that someone shouted from inside the house urging Damodar to open fire on which he fired the shot. 33. As against this there is the statement of PW 4 where she said that the rest of the accused were simply standing and they were doing nothing. PW 5 stated that while the altercation was going on between the two sides, he was neither nervous nor apprehensive because he never thought that any shots would be fired. At that time he believed that at the most there would be some exchange of blows. It appears, therefore, that while an altercation was going on between the informant and the appellant, he individually, quite suddenly raised the pistol and fired the shot killing Dwarika Prasad at the spot. It therefore cannot be said conclusively that the unlawful assembly comprising the other accused had the common object of killing Dwarika or anyone else. The other accused are, thus reasonably entitled to the benefit of doubt. I am, therefore, of the view that they were rightly acquitted by the trial court though that portion of the judgment may not be very happily worded and might appear to give a wrong reason for the acquittal. 34. For the reasons discussed above, I find no merit either in the Government appeal or the criminal revision filed by the informant. 34. For the reasons discussed above, I find no merit either in the Government appeal or the criminal revision filed by the informant. As a result all the three cases, i.e. the criminal appeal by Damodar Mahto, the Government appeal and the criminal revision are dismissed.