K. C. BHANU, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal under Section 374 (2) of the code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment in S. C. 16 of 2001 on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, Fast track Court-l, Khammam where under A-1 to A-11 were found guilty under Section 148 ipc and sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment, A-1 to A-3 are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month under Section 302 IPC, A-4 to A-11 are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to undergo S. I. for one month under Sec. 302 read with 149ipc and further A-1 to A-11 are sentenced to undergo R-1. for three years under Section 324 r/w 149 IPC and that all the sentences are directed to run concurrently. ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution as unfolded by the witnesses examined may be delineated as follows. ( 3 ) ALL the accused were the coolies under the deceased Vemula Peda Venkaiah. On 11-3-1997 all the accused and some of the relatives of the deceased cut a pig and shared among them. At about 7. 30 p. m. in the night a-1 picked up a quarrel with Vemula Nadipi venkaiah. Then the deceased admonished both of them and sometime thereafter all the accused went to the street in which the deceased was residing and A-2 called the deceased outside. There upon A-1 sprinkled chilli powder on his face. A-2 hacked the deceased with an axe on his head. Then a-1 beat the deceased on his head with stick. Then A-3 beat with a pestle on his head. When PWs. 1, 4, 7 and 9 intervened, they were also beaten by the accused. Then the deceased Venkaiah fell down. There upon he was shifted to Government hospital, khammam in an auto. By that time the deceased died. The injured persons were also brought to the Government hospital, khammam by the police. Basing on the report given by P. W. 1, P. W. 14 registered a case in cr. No. 41/97 under Sections 147,148, 302, 307, 324 r/w 149 IPC on 11-3-1997. By that time the deceased died. The injured persons were also brought to the Government hospital, khammam by the police. Basing on the report given by P. W. 1, P. W. 14 registered a case in cr. No. 41/97 under Sections 147,148, 302, 307, 324 r/w 149 IPC on 11-3-1997. After recording the statement from P. W. 1 at 10 p. m. in the Government hospital, Khammam he informed about registration of the case to the C. I. of Police - P. W. 18, who took up the investigation. He posted the guard at the scene of offence. He examined P. Ws. 1 to 5 and others at Government Headquarters hospital, Khammam on 12-3-1997. He observed the scene of occurrence in the presence of P. W. 11 and others and seized m. O. 1 bloodstained earth and M. O. 2 control earth and prepared rough sketch Ex. P-2. He got the photographs Exs. P-6 to P-12 taken. He also got the photographs taken on the dead body of the deceased through P. W. 15. He held inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P. W. 12 and another. After inquest, the dead body was sent to post mortem examination. P. W. 14 is the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body and found 5 lacerated injuries and two contusions and opined that the cause of the death was due to injuries on the vital organs. On 31-3-1997 at about6p. m. P. W. 18 arrested A-1 to A-4 at the house of A-2. In pursuance of the confessional statement given by A-1 bloodstained stick M. O. 5, on confessional statement of A-2 bloodstained axe M. O. 6 and on the confessional statement of A-3 bloodstained pestle and on the confessional statements of A-4 to A-6 three sticks were seized under mediators report. The accused were sent to judicial custody. The material objects were sent to Forensic science Laboratory. After receipt of F. S. L. report and after completion of investigation, p. W. 18 filed the charge sheet before the II additional Judicial First Class magistrate, khammam. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, it was committed to the Court of Sessions by the learned Magistrate. The case was taken on file by the learned Sessions Judge in S. C. 16 of 2001. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, it was committed to the Court of Sessions by the learned Magistrate. The case was taken on file by the learned Sessions Judge in S. C. 16 of 2001. After hearing both sides and considering the material on record, charges under Sections 147,148,302, 307 and 324 r/w 149 IPC were framed against the accused. When the charges were read over and explained to the accused, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. ( 4 ) TO substantiate the case of the prosecution, it has examined PWs. 1 to 18 and marked Exs. P-1 to P-19 besides marking of case properties M. Os. 1 to 9. On behalf of the accused, D. W. 1 examined and Exs. D-1 to D-10 were marked. The learned Sessions judge having accepted the prosecution case found the accused guilty and accordingly convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed. ( 5 ) LEARNED senior counsel appearing for the appellants Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy contended that there are number of circumstances to indicate that the incident did not take place in the manner spoken to by the prosecution witnesses; that the prosecution suppressed the genesis and origin of the attack and the prosecution did not explain the serious head injuries received by A-5, A-6 and A-10; that the medical evidence is not completely in corroboration with the ocular testimony in view of the fact that it is alleged by the prosecution that A-2 hacked the deceased with an axe but there was no cut injury on the head, and further contradiction is that the witnesses stated that they were beaten with sticks but the doctor who examined the injured witnesses noticed incised injuries; that there was no enmity of whatsoever existing between the accused and the deceased; that it is not a pre-planned attack or with a common object but in a drunken brawl and in the course of sudden quarrel both the groups attacked each other and therefore convicting the accused 4 to 11 with the aid of Section 149 IPC cannot be sustainable; that no specific overt acts are attributed against A-3 in the F. I. R. and therefore he prays to set aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned sessions Judge. ( 6 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State contended that all the accused went to the house of the deceased and the incident took place near the house of the deceased and after the incident all the accused ran away from the scene of occurrence; that all the accused were armed with sticks and other weapons and under those circumstances the common object of all the accused can be inferred and it is immaterial thata-4 to A-11 caused any injuries to the deceased once it is found that they were the members of unlawful assembly; that P. Ws. 1, 4, 7, 8 and 9 were the injured witnesses and unless there are compelling reasons, their testimony cannot be disbelieved. Since there is no enmity for the witnesses against the accused, the false implication does notarise. The eye witnesses account of the incident insofar as A-1 to A-3 in causing the death of the deceased is concerned, it is consistent and hence A-4 to a-11 though not caused any injuries to the deceased, they were rightly convicted with the aid of Section 149 IPC as they have shared the common object with accused 1 to 3 and therefore there are no grounds to interfere with the conviction and sentence recorded against the accused. Hence he prays to dismiss the appeal. ( 7 ) MOTIVE in a criminal trial, especially in a murder case, is always relevant. There must be reasons which provoke or motivate a man to commit the serious crime of murder. The motive being the state of mind, there may not be able to know as to what was the motive for a particular offence. Failure of prosecution to prove the motive in a criminal trial is not always fatal, especially when there is eyewitnesses account for the occurrence and the evidence of the witnesses inspires confidence and can be placed in the category of wholly reliable evidence. ( 8 ) EVEN according to the prosecution, there is no enmity between the prosecution witnesses and the accused. P. Ws. 1,3 and 9 have categorically stated that they had no disputes with the accused. So also, it is in the evidence that there are no political or property or personal disputes between the witnesses and the accused. Prosecution could not show any motive for the attack. P. Ws. 1,3 and 9 have categorically stated that they had no disputes with the accused. So also, it is in the evidence that there are no political or property or personal disputes between the witnesses and the accused. Prosecution could not show any motive for the attack. Simply because the prosecution could not adduce any evidence to show the immediate motive for the incident, that does not mean that no incident has taken place and on that ground alone the accused cannot be said to be entitled for acquittal. ( 9 ) THERE is no dispute about the scene of occurrence. The incident that has taken place is in between H. Nos. 2-68 and 2-66 of Vaddera colony, Ballipalli. It is suggested to the witnesses that the prosecution witnesses and the accused quarreled among themselves over sharing of balance of liquor and nobody knows who received injuries at whose hands and both the groups sustained injuries, thereby the accused also admitted the scene of occurrence. According to them there was a free fight between the two groups and it is not possible to conclude as to who received injuries at whose hands. ( 10 ) THE incident has taken place at about 8. 30 p. m. The prosecution witnesses did not speak about the source of light or as to how they could be in a position to identify the accused. But as seen from the crime details form, there is an electric pole situated at a distance of 20 yards from the occurrence. If that is the case, it must be fitted with a bulb and in the illumination of the light there is every possibility for the witnesses to identify the accused in view of the fact that except a-2, A-7 and A-10 al other accused are residing in the same street in which the prosecution witnesses are residing. Even otherwise, it is not the case of the accused that at the time of the incident there was dark and there was no possibility for the witnesses to identify the accused. ( 11 ) P. W. 12 is one of the inquest mediators who stated that on 12-3-1997 the police conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased under Ex. P-3 on 12-3-1997. M. Os. 3 and 4 were recovered during the inquest. ( 11 ) P. W. 12 is one of the inquest mediators who stated that on 12-3-1997 the police conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased under Ex. P-3 on 12-3-1997. M. Os. 3 and 4 were recovered during the inquest. Except suggesting that he attested the inquest report in the police station, nothing has been elicited to discredit the testimony of p. W. 12. P. W. 18 is the Inspector of Police who conducted inquest. The inquest mediators opined that the deceased died as a result of injuries sustained by him. ( 12 ) P. W. 14 is the doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased on 12-3-1997 at 12. 15 p. m. on the requisition of P. W. 18 and found the following injuries: 1. Laceration 6 x 2 x cm. on left frontal region. 2. Laceration 2 x 1 x cm. on left parietal region. 3. Laceration 3 x 1 x 1 cm. on right temporal region. 4. Laceration 2 x 1 cm. on right occipital region. 5. Laceration 2 x 1 x 1 cm. on right occipital region. 6. Contusion 6 x 4 cm. on right scapula. 7. Contusion 2 x 1 cm. on right deltaoid. ( 13 ) SHE further stated that all the injuries were caused by blunt object and all the injuries were ante mortem in nature. There was a fracture on the base of the skull and there was a laceration of the brain on the temporal region. The cause of death according to her was due to the injuries on the vital organ i. e. brain. The time of death was 12 to 24 hours prior to post mortem examination. Ex. P-5 is the Post mortem examination report issued by her. When a suggestion was given that all the lacerated injuries are possible by a blunt object but not like M. O. 6 axe, the same was denied. No doubt, in general the lacerated injuries will be caused with blunt object but at the same time the possibility of causing lacerated injuries with an axe or sharp edged weapon may also be possible when the injuries are caused on bony part of the body. Therefore, the evidence of P. W. 14 doctor is very clear that the deceased died as a result of injuries on the head. Therefore, the evidence of P. W. 14 doctor is very clear that the deceased died as a result of injuries on the head. Injuries on the head of the deceased are bone deep and grievous in nature. The medical evidence leaves no doubt to conclude that the death of the deceased is homicidal. ( 14 ) PWS. 1, 4, 7, 8 and 9 are the injured eyewitnesses. P. W. 16 is the doctor who examined P. W. 9 on 11 -3-1997 at 10. 30 p. m. and found the following injuries:1. Incised (laceration) injury 1" x " x " over the upper lip. 2. Incised (laceration) 2" x " x " over the root of the nose. 3. Incised (laceration) injury 1" x " x " over the right eye brow. 4. Laceration 3 " x " x " over the left parietal region of scalp. 5. Two contusions 3" x " each over the left side of the chest. 6. Contusion 3" x 2" over the right side of the chest. 7. Contusion 3" x 2" over the right parietal region of scalp. 8. Losening of central two canine of premolar one, molar two over the left upper jaw. ( 15 ) ACCORDING to the doctor, they are simple in nature and injuries 1 to 4 could have been caused by a sharp weapon and injuries 5 to 8 would have been caused by a blunt weapon. ( 16 ) ON the same day, he examined P. W. 8 and found the following injuries:1. Incised (laceration) 1"x "x "over the left occipital region of scalp. 2. Incised (laceration) 1" " x " over the right parietal region of scalp. 3. Incised (laceration) 2" x " x " over the lateral to left eye. 4. Contusion 3" x 3" over the left eye. 5. 3 contusions 8" x 1", 4" x 2", " x 1" over the back left side. 6. Incised (laceration) 1" x " x " over the left arm. 7. Two contusions 2" x 1" each over the left lumbar region of the abdomen. 8. Laceration (incised) 1" x " x " over the right elbow joint. 9. Two abrasions " x " over lateral to right eye. 10. Abrasion " x " over the right ear. ( 17 ) INJURY Nos. 7. Two contusions 2" x 1" each over the left lumbar region of the abdomen. 8. Laceration (incised) 1" x " x " over the right elbow joint. 9. Two abrasions " x " over lateral to right eye. 10. Abrasion " x " over the right ear. ( 17 ) INJURY Nos. 1,2,3,6 and 8 are caused by sharp weapon and rest of the injuries are caused by blunt weapon. All the injuries are simple in nature. ( 18 ) HE also examined P. W. 7 and found the following two injuries:1. Incised (laceration) 2" x " x " over the left parietal region of scalp. 2. Incised (laceration) 4" x " x " over the right eye brow. ( 19 ) HE also examined P. W. 4 and found the following injuries:1. Laceration (incised) 3" x " x " over the left parietal region of the scalp. 2. Laceration (incised) above the left eye brow lateral 1/3rd. 3. Contusion 6" x 1" over the left shoulder. ( 20 ) HE opined that injuries 2 and 3 were simple in nature and no opinion could be given insofar as 1st injury is concerned. Injuries 1 and 2 might have been caused with a sharp weapon and 3rd injury by a blunt weapon. ( 21 ) HE also examined P. W. 1 and found the following injuries:1. Laceration "x " x "overthe left parietal region of the scalp. 2. Complaining injury over the right arm, but there is no external injury. There is tenderness. ( 22 ) NOTHING has been elicited to discredit the testimony of P. W. 16 and Exs. P-13 to p-17 are the wound certificates. Some of the injured received injuries on the head which were serious in nature. He admitted that according to Modi Medical Jurisprudence all the lacerated wounds invariably would be caused by blunt object, but at the same time he did not eliminate the possibility of causing incised wound with a blunt object. ( 23 ) BEFORE accepting and relying upon the evidence of an injured witness, it has got to be closely scrutinized by examining it from the following angles: (1) Whether the alleged injury was received in the course of same transaction/incident only? (2) Whetherthe accused was previously known to the injured? (3) Whether there was sufficient light at the time and place of the incident to identify the accused? (2) Whetherthe accused was previously known to the injured? (3) Whether there was sufficient light at the time and place of the incident to identify the accused? (4) Whether the injury so received on the person of a witness rules out the case of self-inflicted injury? ( 24 ) THE evidence of injured witnesses is entitled to weight. An injured witness in any case would not easily substitute a wrong person for his actual assailant, but his evidence should be scrutinized by applying the test of probability. It is relevant to mention here a decision of the apex court in State of m. P. v. Man Singh, wherein it is held "the evidence of injured witnesses has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly". ( 25 ) MERELY because there was no mention of knife used in the commission of offence by the assailants of the injured witnesses in their statements, that does not wash away the evidence tendered by the injured witnesses. According to Modi Medical jurisprudence, in India most injuries are homicidal and are generally produced by a blunt weapon and occasionally by a cutting instrument such as axe orsword. The injuries are mostly contusions and lacerated wounds as well as incised and punctured wounds. A skull wound by a blunt weapon may presumably be an incised one. Hence the adjacent ends of the wounds must be clearly seen to make out a torn edge from a cut and also to distinguish a crush air bulb from one cut or torn. ( 26 ) THE presence of P. Ws. 1, 4, 7, 8 and 9 who are injured witnesses at the relevant point of time at the incident has not been specifically denied or disputed. It is an admitted fact that they received injuries in the same transaction even according to the accused but the accused say that in the scuffle or a free fight they received the injuries at the hands of the unknown persons. P. W. 1 stated that A-4 beat on his head with a stick whereas A-5 beat P. W. 8 (LW. 12) on the forehead with a stick whereas A-6 beat P. W. 7 (L. W. 11) with a stick on the forehead. P. W. 1 stated that A-4 beat on his head with a stick whereas A-5 beat P. W. 8 (LW. 12) on the forehead with a stick whereas A-6 beat P. W. 7 (L. W. 11) with a stick on the forehead. The other accused beat P. W. 9 and M. China lingaiah, whereas P. W. 4 stated that A-1 and a-6 beat P. W. 7, A-4 beat him with a stick on his head, A-3 beat him with a pestle on eyebrow and A-8 beat him on left shoulder and A-9 beat P. W. 9 on the mouth. P. W. 7 is another injured witness who has categorically stated that A-7 beat him with a stick on his shoulder, A-6 beat him with a stick on his forehead and A-8 beat him on the backside of head. P. W. 8 has categorically stated that a-4 beat P. W. 1 with a stick on his head, A-5 beat him with a stick on his left eye, A-6 beat him with a stick on his head and A-11 beat him with a stick on the back side of his head. Whereas P. W. 9 stated that A-4 beat P. W. 1, a-9 beat him with a pestle on his mouth and a-10 beat him with stick on right eye. No doubt some of the injured witnesses stated that some of the accused beat them with sticks but none of the witnesses stated about using of sharp edged weapon by the accused. So on this ground the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants-accused contended that the genesis and origin of the occurrence has been suppressed by the prosecution. ( 27 ) IT is pertinent to refer to a decision in main Paul v. Slate of Haryana, wherein it is held:"if the eye witnesses version even though of the relatives, is found to be truthful and credible after deep scrutiny the opinionative evidence of the doctor cannot wipe out the effect of eye witnesses evidence. The opinion of the doctor cannot have any binding force and cannot be said to be the last word or what he deposes or meant for implicit acceptance. The opinion of the doctor cannot have any binding force and cannot be said to be the last word or what he deposes or meant for implicit acceptance. On the other hand, his evidence is liable to be sifted, analysed and tested in the same manner as that of any other witness, keeping in view only the fact that he has some experience and training in the nature of the functions discharged by him". ( 28 ) IT is a fact that when a person received head injury there was scope or possibility that the cut injuries or incised injuries could have been caused with a blunt object. Even it is not suggested to P. W. 16 that the incised injuries received by P. Ws. 8 and 9 could not have been possible by a blunt object. Therefore, the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 4, 7, 8 and 9 inspires confidence in view of the fact that they have no enmity or grouse against the accused admittedly even before the incident and therefore the question of false implication does not arise. ( 29 ) INSOFAR as receiving of injuries by the deceased Vemula Peda Venkaiah is concerned, the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 6 and p. W. 8 is very clear that A-1 hacked the deceased with an axe on the head, A-1 beat the deceased with a stick on the head and a-3 beat the deceased with a pestle on the head. There is no discrepancy of whatsoever insofar as causing of injuries to the deceased by A-1 to A-3 is concerned. No doubt, except p. W. 5 all the other witnesses are closely related to the deceased. In case an eyewitness is related or even interested, it becomes the duty of the Court to scrutinize his statement with great care and caution. It is material to mention the judgment of the supreme Court in Anwaruddin v. Shakoot, wherein it is held: "ordinarily close relations of the deceased would not allow the real culprits to escape of them. The possibility of their implicating others with the real offenders need to be kept in mind". ( 30 ) THOUGH all the witnesses except p. Ws. 5 and 9 are closely related to the deceased, but at the same time they have no grouse or enmity against the accused so as to implicate the accused falsely leaving the real assailants. The possibility of their implicating others with the real offenders need to be kept in mind". ( 30 ) THOUGH all the witnesses except p. Ws. 5 and 9 are closely related to the deceased, but at the same time they have no grouse or enmity against the accused so as to implicate the accused falsely leaving the real assailants. Since the incident has taken place near the house of the deceased, their presence at the relevant point of time of the incident is quite natural and convincing. Since their houses are also located near the scene of occurrence, on hearing the cries there is every possibility or scope for these witnesses to go to the scene of occurrence and witness the incident. Therefore, their evidence is convincing and trustworthy. Hence an implicit reliance can be placed upon their evidence. The defence has not succeeded in surfacing any material discrepancy during the course of cross-examination of P. Ws. 1 to 9. Their testimony thus being free from any material infirmity carries an intrinsic ring of truth about it. The presence of P. Ws. 1 to 9 at the time of occurrence is very natural. Nothing substantial has been brought out in the cross- examination of the prosecution witnesses 1 to 9 to doubt their testimony. ( 31 ) IT is only pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants-accused that no specific overt act is attributed to A-3 insofar as causing injuries to the deceased and therefore it is clearly an improvement. No doubt in the F. I. R. no specific overt act is attributed against A-3 insofar as the deceased is concerned but at the same time the presence of A-3 has been specifically mentioned as one of the accused who came along with the other accused. That may be an improvement insofar as P. W. 1 is concerned but at the same time P. Ws. 2 to 6 and 8 have categorically stated that A-3 beat the deceased on the head of the deceased with a pestle. Their evidence is consistent insofar as A-3 causing injury with a pestle on the head of the deceased is concerned and the same is corroborated by the medical evidence. Therefore, the said omission cannot be taken as a circumstance so as to doubt the prosecution case. Their evidence is consistent insofar as A-3 causing injury with a pestle on the head of the deceased is concerned and the same is corroborated by the medical evidence. Therefore, the said omission cannot be taken as a circumstance so as to doubt the prosecution case. ( 32 ) IT is vehemently contended by the learned senior counsel for the appellants- accused that A-4 to A-11 did not try to cause any injuries to the deceased and as a matter of fact none of the witnesses stated that A-4 to A-11 caused any injuries to the deceased and in view of the fact that there was no prior enmity between the accused and the deceased, convicting them under Sec. 302 i PC with the aid of Section 149 IPC cannot be sustainable. ( 33 ) SECTION 149 IPC creates a specific and distinct offence. The vicarious liability of the members of the unlawful assembly will extend only to (1) the acts done in pursuance of the common object of the unlawful assembly or (2) such offences as the members of the unlawful assembly knew to be likely to be in prosecution of that object. ( 34 ) LEARNED senior counsel for the appellants-accused placed strong reliance on a decision of the apex court in Parsuram pandey v. State of Bihar, wherein it is stated:"by virture of Section 149, IPC every member of an unlawful assembly at the time of the commission of the offence is guilty of an offence committed by any member of the unlawful assembly. The section creates constructive or vicarious liability of the members of the unlawful assembly for unlawful acts committed pursuant to the common object by any other member of that assembly. The basis of constructive guilt under section 149 is mere membership of an unlawful assembly. In a case under section 149 the accused if is a member of the unlawful assembly, the common object of which is to commit a certain crime and if that crime is committed by one or more members of that assembly every person who happened to be a member of that assembly would be liable for that criminal act by virtue of his being a member of it, irrespective of the fact whether he actually committed the act or not. To attract Section 149 of the ipc the prosecution must prove that the commission of the offence was by any member of an unlawful assembly and such offence must have been committed in prosecution of the common object of the assembly knew that it was likely to be committed. Unless these three elements are satisfied by the prosecution the accused cannot be convicted with the aid of Section". ( 35 ) IT is pertinent to refer to a decision in sunil Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, wherein it is held: "common object" is different from a common intention as it does not require a prior concert and a common meeting of minds before the attack. It is enough if each has the same object in view and their number is five or more and that they act as an assembly to achieve that object. The common object of an assembly is to be ascertained from the acts and language of the members composing it, and from a consideration of all the surrounding circumstances. It may be gathered from the course of conduct adopted by the members of the assembly. What the common object of the unlawful assembly is at a particular stage of the incident is essentially a question of fact to be determined, keeping in view the nature of the assembly, the arms carried by the members, and the behaviour of the members at or near the scene of the incident. It is not necessary under law that in all cases of unlawful assembly, with an unlawful common object, the same must be translated into action or be successful. Under the Explanation to Section 141, an assembly which was not unlawful when it was assembled, may subsequently become unlawful. It is not necessary that the intention or the purpose, which is necessary to render an assembly an unlawful one comes into existence at the outset. The time of forming an unlawful intent is not material. An assembly which, at its commencement or even from some time thereafter, is lawful, may subsequently become unlawful. In other words it can develop during the course of incident at the spot eo instante. The time of forming an unlawful intent is not material. An assembly which, at its commencement or even from some time thereafter, is lawful, may subsequently become unlawful. In other words it can develop during the course of incident at the spot eo instante. ( 36 ) FROM the above decision it is clear that once it is established that all the accused shared common object and they were the members of the unlawful assembly, the question of causing any injuries to the deceased by which of the accused does not arise. Whether all the members shared the common object or not is essentially a question of fact which can be ascertained by the evidence adduced by the prosecution. The common object of the unlawful assembly can be gathered from the nature of the assembly, arms used by them and on behalf of the assembly at or before the scene of occurrence. Unless A-4 to A-11 shared the common object with the other accused to commit the murder of the deceased, they are not liable to be convicted under Section 302 r/w 149 IPC. The incident took place in the village and it is not unnatural to hold a stick by the villagers. Mere holding of a stick in the commission of offence by itself does not indicate that they shared the common object especially in view of the fact that there were no political, property or personal disputes between the prosecution witnesses and the accused. The attempt is not a preplanned attack. A-1 came to the house of P. W. 7 and called him to consume liquor. At that time the deceased admonished A-1 and sent him away and one hour thereafter the incident has taken place. Except admonishing A-1, the deceased did not provoke A-1 though he was the master of the accused and all the other accused were working as coolies under the deceased. Except that stray and trivial incident, there was absolutely no reason for all the accused to attack the deceased and the prosecution witnesses. As seen from the evidence of PWs. 4 and 8, they have categorically stated that along with the accused, 20 to 30 persons were present there. Except that stray and trivial incident, there was absolutely no reason for all the accused to attack the deceased and the prosecution witnesses. As seen from the evidence of PWs. 4 and 8, they have categorically stated that along with the accused, 20 to 30 persons were present there. The presence of all the accused except a-2, A-7 and A-10 cannot be said to be unnatural or unusual in view of the fact that their houses are also located in the same street in which the deceased was residing. Therefore the presence of A-4 to A-6, A-8, a-9 and A-11 cannot be said to be enough to conclude that they have shared the common object with the other accused. So also the presence of A-7 and A-10 also does not lead to irresistible conclusion that they have shared the common object with the other accused because there is no relationship with A-1 to a-3 except the fact that all the accused were working as coolies under the deceased. Therefore, under those circumstances it is not possible to arrive at a conclusion that a-4 to A-11 shared the common object in committing the murder of the deceased with the aid of A-1 to A-3. There were no factions or disputes of whatsoever and furthermore, the accused and the prosecution witnesses belong to the same caste and as a matter of fact P. W. 2 also admitted that he was having good terms with the accused prior to the incident. In such view of the matter it is not possible to draw any inference with regard to sharing of common object by A-4 to A-11. Without considering these aspects the learned Sessions Judge simply convicted the accused under Section 302 I PC with the aid of Section 149 I PC. No reasons of whatsoever have been stated whether A-4 to a-11 shared the common object of A-1 to a-3 and what are the inferences to be drawn from their conduct so as to brand them as the members of the unlawful assembly. Therefore, the conviction of all the accused under Section 148 IPC and the conviction and sentence of A-4 to A-11 under Sec. 302 r/w 149 IPC and also 324 r/w 149 IPC are not sustainable. Therefore, they are liable for punishment under the individual overt acts as stated by the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the conviction of all the accused under Section 148 IPC and the conviction and sentence of A-4 to A-11 under Sec. 302 r/w 149 IPC and also 324 r/w 149 IPC are not sustainable. Therefore, they are liable for punishment under the individual overt acts as stated by the prosecution witnesses. ( 37 ) THE prosecution further relied upon the recovery of M. Os. 5 to 9 at the instance of some of the accused. M. Os. 5 to 7 contained human bloodstains though the blood group of the stains could not be determined by the serologist. Therefore, this is yet another circumstance to conclude that M. Os. 5 to 7 were used by the accused 1 to 3 in the commission of offence in causing the death of the deceased. ( 38 ) IT is vehemently contended by the learned senior counsel that the origin and the genesis of the occurrence has been shrouded in mystery in view of the fact that the prosecution is not able to explain the injuries sustained by A-5, A-6 and A-10. It is not disputed that in the same transaction A-5, a-6 and A-10 received injuries. D. W. 1 is the doctor who examined A-10 and found the following injuries:1. Laceration over the right side of the scalp 3" x " x " and 2. Contusion over the right scalp region 5" x 3". ( 39 ) SO also, he examined A-5 and found one laceration over the left parietal region of scalp 1" x " x ". He also examined A-6 and found the following injuries:1. Laceration over the left parietal region of scalp 1" x " x 1/4". 2. Contusion over the left forearm 3" x 3". 3. Contusion over the left shoulder 2"x 2". 4. Abrasion over the upper 1/3rd of right forearm " x ". ( 40 ) HE issued Exs. D-8, D-9 and D-10 wound certificates. There was no cross- examination by the Public Prosecutor. Therefore, from the evidence of D. W. 1 it is established beyond doubt that A-5, A-6 and a-10 received injuries. When the injuries are found on the accused, it is obligatory on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries so as to satisfy the Court as to the circumstances under which the occurrence originated. Therefore, from the evidence of D. W. 1 it is established beyond doubt that A-5, A-6 and a-10 received injuries. When the injuries are found on the accused, it is obligatory on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries so as to satisfy the Court as to the circumstances under which the occurrence originated. Before that, however, two conditions must be satisfied, (1) that the injuries on the person of the accused must be shown to be very serious and not superficial and (2) that the injuries must be shown to have been caused at the time of occurrence. This has been held so in Jagdish v. State of bihar. In a recent decision the apex Court in chacko v. State of Kerala held:"undisputedly, there were injuries found on the body of the accused persons on medical evidence. That per se cannot be a ground to totally discard the prosecution version. This is a factor which has to be weighed along with other materials to see whether the prosecution version is reliable, cogent and trustworthy. When the case of the prosecution, is supported by an eyewitness who is found to be truthful, as well, mere non-explanation of the injuries on the accused persons cannot be a foundation for discarding the prosecution version. " ( 41 ) EVEN the doctor D. W. 1 who examined the injured accused, did not give any opinion as to the serious nature of the injuries. It is also not elicited by the accused that the injuries are very severe and grievous in nature. No doubt some of the accused received injuries on the heads, but there is no indication that they are serious or grievous in nature. It is not specifically suggested to any of the prosecution witnesses that all the injuries on accused were caused by the prosecution witnesses. Under those circumstances the non-explanation of the injuries by the prosecution witnesses does not lead to an irresistible conclusion that the prosecution suppressed the genesis and origin of the incident. ( 42 ) THEREFORE, from the evidence on record it is clear that A-1 to A-3 caused injuries on the head of the deceased. There cannot be any dispute that head is a vulnerable part and there was a fracture to the head. Within few minutes after the receipt of injuries the deceased died. ( 42 ) THEREFORE, from the evidence on record it is clear that A-1 to A-3 caused injuries on the head of the deceased. There cannot be any dispute that head is a vulnerable part and there was a fracture to the head. Within few minutes after the receipt of injuries the deceased died. Therefore, the intention of the accused is to cause the death of the deceased. Hence the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court under section 302 IPC against A-1 to A-3 are sustainable. In view of the fact that the prosecution failed to establish the common object of A-4 to A-11 in causing the death of the deceased, they cannot be convicted under section 302 r/w 149 IPC. So also, the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court under Section 148 IPC is unsustainable. So also, the conviction and sentence recorded against A-1 to A-11 under Section 324 r/w 149 IPC is unsustainable, but, however, a-1 to A-11 are liable for punishment under section 324 in view of the individual overt acts attributed against them by the prosecution witnesses. ( 43 ) ACCORDINGLY the appeal is partly allowed confirming the conviction and sentence against A-1 to A-3 under Sec. 302 ipc. The conviction and sentence against a-1 to A-11 under Section 148 IPC and the conviction and sentence against A-4 to A-11 under Section 302 r/w 149 IPC and the conviction and sentence against A-1 to A-11 under Section 302 r/w 149 IPC are set aside. A-1 to A-11 are found guilty under Sec. 324 ipc are they are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment forthree years. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently.