Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2155 (PNJ)

Karam Singh v. State Of Haryana

2006-05-16

MEHTAB S.GILL, T.P.S.MANN

body2006
Judgment 1. By this common judgment, we are disposing of Criminal Appeal No. 524-DB of 2003 filed by Karam Singh and nine others and Criminal Appeal No. 727-DB of 2003 filed by Prem Singh and two others, whereby they have challenged the judgment dated 26.5.2003 and order dated 28.5.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala while convicting and sentencing them. 2. The aforementioned thirteen appellants along with one Nirmal Singh were initially arraigned as accused on the allegations that on 1.12.1995 they committed the murder of Bhim Singh, Ram Partap and Kusum, besides giving injuries to Rajpal, Udham Singh, Satish Kumar, Nasib Singh and Angrej Singh. Before the case was taken up for consideration on the question of charge, Nirmal Singh accused died. Charge were framed against the present 13 appellants under Sections 302, 307, 324, 323 read with Sections 149 and 148 IPC. Charge under Section 27 of the Arms Act was also framed against Karam Singh appellant. 3. After the conclusion of the trial, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala convicted Karam Singh-appellant under Section 302 IPC and the remaining appellants under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each. In default of payment of fine, the defaulting accused was directed to undergo further RI for 3 months. Karam Singh-appellant was also convicted under Section 326 IPC and the remaining appellants under Sections 326 read with Section 149 IPC in respect of injuries of Raj Pal PW-10 and sentence of RI for five years and a fine of Rs. 300/- was imposed upon each of the 13 appellants. In default of payment of fine, the defaulting accused was directed to undergo further RI for two months. All the 13 appellants were also convicted under Sections 324 IPC read with Section 149 IPC, 323 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and 148 IPC for which they were sentenced to undergo RI for one year each, RI for 6 months each and RI for 2 years each respectively. For the charge under Section 27 of the Arms Act, Karam Singh-appellant was held guilty and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/-. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo further RI for 2 months. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 4. For the charge under Section 27 of the Arms Act, Karam Singh-appellant was held guilty and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/-. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo further RI for 2 months. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 4. The facts giving rise to the present case are that on 1.12.1995 at 7.00 A.M., Bhim Singh, Raj Pal, Udham Singh and Angrej Singh were proceeding on a tractor-trolley towards their fields. They were taking manure in the trolley. Bhim Singh was driving the tractor. All the appellants along with Nirmal Singh-accused were found present on their way. While Karam Singh was standing with a gun in his hands, the other accused were having gandasis and lathis in their hands. On seeing the tractor-trolley, the accused raised a Lalkara while abusing and proclaimed that it was an appropriate chance to catch them, referring to the persons, who were proceeding on the tractor-trolley to the fields. Saying so, Karam Singh opened fire with the gun, which hit Bhim Singh on his neck. On hearing the noise of the fire shot, Hakam Singh, Ram Partap, Angrej Singh, Jaswant Singh, Satish Kumar, Nasib Singh and Kusum, daughter of Balbir, arrived at the spot. All of them started rescuing Bhim Singh etc. from Prem Singh and others. In the meantime, Karam Singh accused fired many shots from his gun, which hit Bhim Singh, Ram Partap, Raj Pal, Udham Singh and Kusam. As a result of the firing, Bhim Singh and Ram Partap succumbed to their injuries at the spot. Prem Singh etc., who were having lathis and gandasis in their hands, gave injuries to Angrej Singh, Nasib Singh, Jaswant Singh and Satish Kumar, who were, thereafter, sent to Civil Hospital, Naraingarh for treatment. The persons of the complainant side, also inflicted injuries to Prem Singh and Ramji Lal in their defence. Accused Karam Singh and others were also saying that Jagdish and Ishwar should also be brought out as they were to be killed. However, both of them were not present in the house. At that very moment, accused Karam Singh and others fled from the spot with their weapons. 5. After the accused left the spot, Hakam Singh gave a telephonic message to the police, on receipt of which, a report was entered in Daily Dairy Register. However, both of them were not present in the house. At that very moment, accused Karam Singh and others fled from the spot with their weapons. 5. After the accused left the spot, Hakam Singh gave a telephonic message to the police, on receipt of which, a report was entered in Daily Dairy Register. Thereafter, SI Jagmal Singh, along with his fellow officials, reached the spot in village Kakkar Majra, where he came across Hakam Singh, who made the statement as mentioned above. The said statement Ex. PJJ was signed by Hakam Singh. As the same, prima facie, disclosed commission of offences under Sections 148/149/302/34 IPC, SI Jagmal made an endorsement Ex. PJJ/1 and sent the same to Police Station Raipur Rani for registration of case. Accordingly, FIR No. 84 dated 1.12.1995 was registered at Police Station Raipur Rani on 1.12.1995 at 10.15 A.M. 6. While making the statement Ex. PJJ, Hakam Singh also given the reasons as to why Karam Singh and others launched a murderous assault in which three persons killed and five person received injuries. According to him, he had three brothers, namely, Nasib Singh, Angrej Singh and accused Prem Singh. Said Prem Singh lived separate from his other brothers. He was keeping a grudge against Hakam Singh that he had given nothing to him. Accused Karam Singh, who was also their co-villager, resided with accused Prem Singh. Consequently, accused Karam Singh also started nursing similar grudge against Hakam Singh and others. It may not be out of place to mention here that accused Karam Singh was related to Hakam Singh PW as his nephew being cousins sons. Hakam Singh further stated in his statement Ex. PJJ that about one month before the present occurrence, he purchased one acre of land from Guljar regarding which Prem Singh and Karam Singh felt bad as to why he had purchased that land. They used to say that they would get that land returned from Hakam Singh and others. Bhim Singh s/o of Hakam Singh became President of Co-operative Societies Bank and he employed his cousin Raj Pal as a Salesman about two months ago. The accused wanted to remove Raj Pal from service also. They used to say that they would get that land returned from Hakam Singh and others. Bhim Singh s/o of Hakam Singh became President of Co-operative Societies Bank and he employed his cousin Raj Pal as a Salesman about two months ago. The accused wanted to remove Raj Pal from service also. Apart from the aforementioned reasons behind the occurrence, it was also mentioned that on 30.11.1995, at about 10.00 P.M. accused Prem Singh and his two sons Sandeep and Sanjiv started breaking the handle of the hand-pump belonging to Ram Pratap, cousin of Hakam Singh. Ram Partap asked them as to why they were doing so, upon which, Prem Singh and his sons hurled abuses upon them. On hearing the noise, Hakam Singh went there and after making Ram Partap understand, brought him back to the house. 7. SI Jagmal Singh PW17, took up the investigation of the case. He prepared inquest reports in respect of the dead bodies of Ram Partap and Bhim Singh. Rough site plan Ex.PZZ was also prepared by him in respect of the place of occurrence. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. Three empty cartridges were taken into possession from the spot vide recovery memo Ex.PEE. Similarly one turban was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PBB. Handle of hand-pump was also taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PCC. Blood- stained earth lifted from the spot was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PDD. Draftsman was summoned at the spot, who prepared scaled site plan. On the same day i.e. 1.12.1995, SI Jagmal Singh arrested Karam Singh and Prem Singh in the case. At the time of his arrest, Karam Singh produced a gun and a live cartridge, which were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PKK. On the next day i.e. 2.12.1995, Prem Singh accused got recovered gandasi, in pursuance to his disclosure statement, which was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PHH. Kusum, who was a young child of about 5 years of age and had received fire-arm injuries in the occurrence was taken to PGI, Chandigarh, but she died on the way. Inquest proceedings regarding her dead body were also conducted by SI Jagmal Singh. During further investigation of the case, other 12 accused were also arrested. Kusum, who was a young child of about 5 years of age and had received fire-arm injuries in the occurrence was taken to PGI, Chandigarh, but she died on the way. Inquest proceedings regarding her dead body were also conducted by SI Jagmal Singh. During further investigation of the case, other 12 accused were also arrested. Gandasis were recovered from Ramji Lal, Dharam Singh and Jai Mal Singh, at their instance, while from the remaining appellants, namely, Sukhdev, Zile Singh, Rajbir Singh alias Raj Singh, Satbir Singh, lathis were recovered. After completion of the investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted in the Court of learned Illqa Magistrate. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where charges against the accused were framed on 26.8.1996. The charges were read over and explained to the accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 8. At the trial of the case, the prosecution examined Dr. Nirmal Parkash PW1, who deposed about conducting medico-legal examination in respect of Satish Kumar, Nasib Singh, Udham Singh and Angrej Singh. Dr. Vimal Shori, PW7 proved the post-mortem reports in respect of Ram Partap, Bhim Singh and Kusum deceased. Dr. Shridhar PW14 proved the original record of the treatment of injured Raj Pal which was prepared by Dr. Raman Abrol. As per the same, the patient had a bullet injury on left eye and left half of the face. Nature of the injury was grievous in nature. Dr. Naresh Panda PW16 deposed about the impairment of vision in the left eye of Raj Pal. He also deposed about the fact that CT scan of Raj Pal showed multiple pellets in the region of left maxillary sinus left orbit. He also proved case notes Ex.PYY prepared by Dr. Ritu Neeta. Injuries on the person of Raj Pal were grievous in nature. Medico-legal case summary was Ex.PRR. HC Ved Parkash PW2, HC Kehar Singh PW3 and C. Lajja Ram PW4 were formal witnesses examined by the prosecution. Site plan Ex.PX was proved by Arvind Kumar, Draftsman PW5. Ved Parkash, Photographer PW6 proved photographs which he had taken at the spot negatives of which were Ex.P11 to Ex.P19, while the positives were Ex.P2 to Ex.P10. Sham Singh PW8 deposed about the recoveries effected by the police from the spot. Hakam Singh PW9, Raj Pal PW10 and Udham Singh PW11 deposed about the ocular count. Ved Parkash, Photographer PW6 proved photographs which he had taken at the spot negatives of which were Ex.P11 to Ex.P19, while the positives were Ex.P2 to Ex.P10. Sham Singh PW8 deposed about the recoveries effected by the police from the spot. Hakam Singh PW9, Raj Pal PW10 and Udham Singh PW11 deposed about the ocular count. ASI Mange Ram PW12 was a formal witness. Recoveries of weapons from accused were proved by the testimonies of Bhagat Singh PW13 and Surjeet Singh PW15. The investigation part of the case was deposed to by SI Jagmal Singh PW17. 9. After tendering in evidence Ex. PAAA, report of Ballistics Expert and Ex. PBBB report of FSL, learned Public Prosecutor closed the evidence of the prosecution. 10. The case of the prosecution was put to each of the thirteen appellants, who denied prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication. All of them stated that they were innocent and involved falsely in the case. According to them, the alleged occurrence had taken place in the darkness and some unknown persons committed the murders. It was alleged that the accused were involved only on suspicion. 11. Learned trial Court after believing the prosecution evidence, especially, the ocular count given by Hakam Singh PW9, Raj Pal PW10, Udham Singh PW11, which evidence was corroborated by the testimonies of Dr. Nirmal Parkash PW1, Dr. Vimal Shori PW7, Dr. Shridhar PW14 and Dr. Naresh Panda PW16, convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above. Hence, the present appeal. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants, while challenging the judgment of conviction and sentences has submitted that the origin and genesis of the occurrence as divulged by the prosecution was doubtful. Vague and omnibus allegations were levelled by the prosecution against the accused. There was an attempt to implicate all male members of the families of the accused. There was an inordinate delay in receipt of special report by the Magistrate, which would show that the FIR was registered not at the time it purports to have been written, but at a very late stage. All this while there were due deliberations and consultations amongst the members of the complainant party to rope in a large number of people. All this while there were due deliberations and consultations amongst the members of the complainant party to rope in a large number of people. It was submitted that the reasons for which the accused were said to have committed the murder of three persons and gave injuries to five persons were all imaginary and in any case the evidence given by the witnesses regarding the same was contradictory and discrepant. 13. Learned counsel appearing for State of Haryana has refuted the above mentioned arguments raised by the defence by submitting that the accused party nursed a grudge against the complainant party and thereafter, an attack was opened in which three persons were shot dead and injuries were also caused to five persons. The ocular count given by the three witnesses in respect of injuries of the deceased and injured persons was fully corroborated by the medical evidence. Moreover, no suggestion was given by the defence to any of the witnesses regarding the accused being not present at the spot at the time of the occurrence. All the accused were specially mentioned in the FIR, as well as in the statements made by the PWs in the Court. 14. We have perused the records of the case minutely with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. 15. The occurrence in the present case had taken place at 7.00 A.M. on 1.12.1995 in village Kakkar Majra. Fourteen accused started assaulting the complainant party. At that time Karam Singh accused was holding a gun in his hand, while the remaining thirteen accused were armed with gandasis and lathis. As a result of firing by Karam Singh, Bhim Singh was hit. On hearing the gun shot being fired, Hakam Singh complainant along with Ram Pratap, Jaswant Singh, Kusum, Satish Kumar and Nasib Singh arrived at the spot. Their houses were not far off from the place where Bhim Singh was attacked. It has come in the evidence that the distance was only 100 feet from the main gate of the house of the complainant party. Karam Singh accused again started firing, as a result of which Bhim Singh was again hit and so were Ram Partap, Raj Pal, Udham Singh and Kusum. The other accused, who were armed with lathis and gandasis inflicted injuries to Angrej Singh, Nasib Singh, Jaswant Singh, Satish Kumar with their respective weapons. Karam Singh accused again started firing, as a result of which Bhim Singh was again hit and so were Ram Partap, Raj Pal, Udham Singh and Kusum. The other accused, who were armed with lathis and gandasis inflicted injuries to Angrej Singh, Nasib Singh, Jaswant Singh, Satish Kumar with their respective weapons. While all this was going on, Hakam Singh gave a telephonic call to Police Station Raipur Rani. Upon receiving the information, SI Jagmal Singh along with other police officials, reached the spot, where he recorded statement Ex. PJJ at the instance of Hakam Singh PW9. The said statement was sent to Police Station Raipur Rani, which was at distance of 18 kilometers. Formal FIR Ex. PJJ/2 was recorded at 10.15 A.M. on 1.12.1995. Special reports were, thereafter, entrusted to Constable Khalil Ahmed, who delivered the same to SP, DSP and Illqa Magistrate. It was at 6 PM, when Illqa Magistrate, Ambala City received the same. Distance between Police Station Raipur Rani and Ambala City is about 40 kilometers. Under these circumstances, there was no inordinate delay in the delivery of special report to the Magistrate. Constable Khalil Ahmad had tendered his affidavit Ex.PB in evidence, as per which he had handed over the special reports on the same day to the aforesaid officers. No effort was made by the defence to cross-examine Constable Khalil Ahmad with a view to alleging that he was entrusted with the special report late in the evening and it was entrusted with the special report late in the evening and it was thereafter that he delivered the same to the Illqa Magistrate at 6.00 P.M. 16. It was a case where fourteen accused persons were assaulting about ten persons of the complainant party. One out of the fourteen accused, was carrying a gun with him, whereas the others were holding lathis and gandasis. It would have been well nigh impossible for the witnesses to remember exactly as to who was armed with what weapon and who had caused injury to whom. At the time of making statement Ex.PJJ, the anxiety of Hakam Singh was to put machinery of law into motion. The details of the weapons carried by the accused individually and causing of injuries could come during the investigation of the case. At the time of making statement Ex.PJJ, the anxiety of Hakam Singh was to put machinery of law into motion. The details of the weapons carried by the accused individually and causing of injuries could come during the investigation of the case. For that reason, Raj Pal PW-10 and Udham Singh PW- 11 also did not state the detailed manner in which the injuries were caused by the accused other than Karam Singh accused to the complainant party. Karam Singh being armed with a fire arm could be easily pin-pointed and so about his act of firing at three deceased persons, besides causing injuries to Raj Pal PW10. After 10/15 days, Udham Singh PW11 made a detailed statement wherein he mentioned as to who, out of the accused other than accused Karam Singh, was armed with what weapon and given injuries to whom. 17. Coming to the motive of the case, both Raj Pal PW10 and Udham Singh PW11 deposed that there was no enmity between the parties. Only Hakam Singh PW9, while lodging the FIR and also while deposing in the Court, stated about the earlier instances, which according to him provided motive for the accused to open the assault and cause injuries to the complainant party. However, to our mind, the testimony of Hakam as PW9, is not sufficient to prove that the accused had motive to commit the crime. Though Raj Pal PW10 was employed as a Salesman by Bhim Singh, President of the Co-operative Society, yet Hakam Singh admitted that Karam Singh accused was supporting Bhim Singh. If that be the position, then accused would not feel perturbed over the employment of Raj Pal as a Salesman. Regarding the instance of 30.11.1995, in which Prem Singh accused and his two sons Sandeep and Sanjiv were said to have broken the handle of the hand-pump belonging to Ram Partap deceased, the best evidence was to be that of Satish Kumar, who was an injured in the present case. However, he was not examined as a witness. Said Satish Kumar was son of Ram Partap (deceased). Coming to the third instance of buying of one acre plot, belonging to Gurdial Singh, the allegations by the prosecution are nothing but a figment of imagination. No documentary evidence was led which could show that Hakam Singh had purchased one acre of land from Gurdial. 18. Said Satish Kumar was son of Ram Partap (deceased). Coming to the third instance of buying of one acre plot, belonging to Gurdial Singh, the allegations by the prosecution are nothing but a figment of imagination. No documentary evidence was led which could show that Hakam Singh had purchased one acre of land from Gurdial. 18. The story of prosecution that Bhim Singh, Raj Pal, Udham Singh and Angrej Singh were going to their fields while taking manure on the tractor-trolley is also doubtful. Bhim Singh was said to be driving the tractor at that time, while the other persons were sitting on the trolley. It has come in the evidence that no pellet mark was found either on the tractor or on the trolley. 19. The question then arises as to whether the common object of the unlawful assembly was to commit the murder or it was only to cause hurt. 20. The scope of Section 149 IPC was explained in Mizaji v. State of U.P., 1959 Criminal Law Journal 777, which decision has been followed in many later cases, in the following manner 1. "The first part of Section 149 IPC means that the offence committed in prosecution of the common object must be one which is committed with a view to accomplish the common object. It is not necessary that there should be a preconcert in the sense of a meeting of the members of the unlawful assembly as to the common object; it is enough if it is adopted by all the members and is shared by all of them. In order that the case may fall under the first part, the offence committed must be connected immediately with the common object of the unlawful assembly of which the accused were members. Even if the offence committed is not in direct prosecution of the common object of the assembly, it may yet fall under Section 149 if it can be held that the offence was such as the members knew was likely to be committed. The expression "know" does not mean a mere possibility, such as might or might not happen. Even if the offence committed is not in direct prosecution of the common object of the assembly, it may yet fall under Section 149 if it can be held that the offence was such as the members knew was likely to be committed. The expression "know" does not mean a mere possibility, such as might or might not happen. Though it can be said that when an offence is committed in prosecution of the common object, it would generally be an offence which the members of the unlawful assembly knew was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object that does not make the converse proposition true; there may be cases which would come within the second part, but not within the first. The distinction between the two parts of Section 149, Indian Penal Code cannot be ignored or obliterated. In every case it would be an issue to be determined whether the offence committed falls within the first part of Section 149 as explained above or it was an offence such as the members of the assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object and falls within the second part". 21. Similar position of law was reiterated in Allauddin Mian v. State of Bihar, 1989(1) RCR(Crl.) 628 : 1989 SCC (Criminal) 490, where the import of Section 149 IPC was explained as under : "This section creates a specific offence and makes every member of the unlawful assembly liable for the offence or offences committed in the course of the occurrence provided the same was/were committed in prosecution of the common object or was/were such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed. Since this section imposes a constructive penal liability, it must be safely construed as it seeks to punish members of an unlawful assembly for the offence or offences committed by their association or associates in carrying out the common object of the assembly. What is important in each case is to find out if the offence was committed to accomplish the common object of the assembly or was one which the members knew to be likely to be committed. What is important in each case is to find out if the offence was committed to accomplish the common object of the assembly or was one which the members knew to be likely to be committed. There must be a nexus between the common object and the offence committed and if it is found that the same was committed to accomplish the common object every member of the assembly will become liable for the same. Therefore, any offence committed by a member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of any one or more of the five objects mentioned in Section 141 will render his companions constituting the unlawful assembly liable for that offence with the aid of Section 149 IPC .......... It is not the intention of the legislature in enacting Section 149 to render every member of an unlawful assembly liable to punishment for every offence committed by one or more of its members. In order to invoke Section 149 it must be shown that the incriminating act was done to accomplish the common object of the unlawful assembly. Even if an act incidental to the common object is committed to accomplish the common object of the unlawful assembly it must be within the knowledge of other members as one likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object. If the members of the assembly knew or were aware of the likelihood of a particular offence being committed in prosecution of the common object they would be liable for the same under Section 149 IPC". 22. In a recent judgment in Radha Mohan Singh and others v. State of U.P., (2006)1 SCC (Criminal) 661, the Court was called upon to consider the scope of Section 149 IPC. After discussing the case law and noticing the fact that three accused therein did not cause any injury to the deceased and also that there was no such motive which could have impelled the accused persons to commit the murder, the Court refused to hold that the common object of the unlawful assembly was to commit the murder of the deceased or that the members of the unlawful assembly knew that murder was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object of the assembly. 23. 23. Para 23 of the said judgment held as under : "As mentioned earlier there was no such motive which could have impelled the accused persons to commit the murder of Hira Singh as he had merely declined to ask or persuade his younger brother PW1 Ganesh Singh from giving evidence against A-1 and A-5 in the case relating to assault made upon Udai Narain. The statement of Ganesh Singh had already been recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The deceased was not himself a witness in the said case. A-2, A-3 and A-5 did not cause any injury to the deceased. The incised wound on the body of the deceased is of very small dimension and is only skin-deep, which shows that A-4 did not wield the farsa with any intention or object to cause injury to the deceased. In view of these features of the case, it cannot be held that the common object of the unlawful assembly was to commit the murder of the deceased or that the members of the unlawful assembly knew that murder is likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object of the assembly. However, as members of the unlawful assembly carried deadly weapons, the knowledge that grievous injury may be caused can certainly be attributed to them. We are, therefore, of the opinion that conviction of A-3, A-4 and A-5 under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC deserves to be set aside and instead they are liable to be convicted under Section 326 read with Section 149 IPC for which a sentence of 7 years RI will meet the ends of justice". 24. To the similar effect is the observation of the Court in Ram Dular Rai v. State of Bihar, 2004(1) RCR(Crl.) 187 : 2004(2) Apex Criminal 99 : AIR 2004 SC 1043 : "Another plea which was emphasized relates to the question whether Section 149, IPC has any application for fastening the constructive liability which is the sine qua non for its operation. The emphasis is on the common object and not on common intention. Mere presence in an unlawful assembly cannot render a person liable unless there was a common object and he was actuated by that common object and that object is one of those set out in Section 141. The emphasis is on the common object and not on common intention. Mere presence in an unlawful assembly cannot render a person liable unless there was a common object and he was actuated by that common object and that object is one of those set out in Section 141. Where common object of an unlawful assembly is not proved, the accused persons cannot be convicted with the help of Section 149. The crucial question to determine is whether the assembly consisted of five or more persons and whether the said persons entertained one or more of the common objects, as specified in Section 141. It cannot be laid down as a general proposition of law that unless as overt act is proved against a person, who is alleged to be a member of unlawful assembly, it cannot be said that he is a member of an assembly. The only thing required is that he should have understood that the assembly was unlawful and was likely to commit any of the acts which fall within the purview of Section 141. The word `object means the purpose or design and, in order to make it `common it must be shared by all. In other words, the object should be common to the persons, who compose the assembly, that is to say, they should all be aware of it and concur in it. A common object may be formed by express agreement after mutual consultation, but that is by no means necessary. It may be formed at an stage by all or a few members of the assembly and the other members may just join and adopt it. Once formed, it cannot continue to be the same. It may be modified or altered or abandoned any stage. The expression `in prosecution of common Object as appearing in Section 149 have to be strictly construed as equivalent to `in order to attain the common object. It must be immediately connected with the common object by virtue of the nature of the object. There must be community of object and the object may exist only up to a particular stage, and not thereafter. It must be immediately connected with the common object by virtue of the nature of the object. There must be community of object and the object may exist only up to a particular stage, and not thereafter. Members of an unlawful may have community of object up to certain point beyond which they may differ in their objects and the knowledge, possessed by each member of what is like to be committed in prosecution of their common object may vary not only according to the information at this command, but also according to the extent to which he shares the community of object, and as a consequence of this the effect of Section 149, IPC may be different on different members of the same assembly". 25. Thus, in case the unlawful assembly was formed with the common object of committing an offence and the said offence committed in prosecution of that object by any member of the unlawful assembly, all the members of the assembly will be vicariously liable for that offence, even if all of them did not commit the offence but it was committed by some of them. Further if the offence was committed by a member of an unlawful assembly and that offence was one which the members of the unlawful assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object, every member who had that knowledge would be guilty of the offence so committed. However, members of an unlawful assembly may have a community of object up to a certain point beyond which they may differ in their objects. The knowledge possessed by each member of what was likely to be committed in prosecution of their common object may differ according to the extent to which the particular accused shared the community of object and not according to the information at his command. 26. Dr. Nirmal Parkash PWl, who had medico-legally examined Satish Kumar, Nirmal Singh, Udham Singh and Angrej Singh made a mention in all the MLRs that there was a history of scuffle. It gives an indication that something was simmering on between the parties. There was no serious enmity as such between them. In the FIR, Hakam Singh also stated that during the occurrence injuries were caused to accused persons, namely Prem Singh and Ramji Lal by the complainant party in exercise of right of self-defence. It gives an indication that something was simmering on between the parties. There was no serious enmity as such between them. In the FIR, Hakam Singh also stated that during the occurrence injuries were caused to accused persons, namely Prem Singh and Ramji Lal by the complainant party in exercise of right of self-defence. It appears that a minor quarrel started between the complainant party on the one hand and the accused on the other hand. In that situation, common object of the accused was to cause injuries to the complainant party. Apart from Karam Singh accused, all other accused were armed with lathis and gandasis. The infliction of injuries by the accused party to the five injured persons was in prosecution of the common object of an unlawful assembly to cause injuries. The common object was not to cause the murder of any of the three deceased persons. It was only Karam Singh who fired and hit the three deceased persons. None of the other accused caused any injury to the deceased person. They could not, thus, be shown to have the common object of killing the deceased. They caused injuries to the injured witnesses. However, as they were carrying deadly weapons, the knowledge that grievous injury may be caused can certainly be attributed to them. Under these circumstances, it has to be held that the common object of the unlawful assembly was to cause grievous hurt to the complainant party. To that extent even Karam Singh accused shared the common object. However, he alone exceeded the common object by resorting to firing and killing the deceased. Out of three deceased persons, Kusum deceased was a young child of five years of age. She could not be the target of firing resorted to by Karam Singh. She seems to have been hit when she came in the line of firing. Even Ram Partap was not closely related to complainant Hakam Singh and others. We have already held that the best evidence available with the prosecution regarding the incident of 30.11.1995, in which three accused were said to have broken the handle of the hand-pump belonging to Ram Partap deceased, was not examined by the prosecution. Thus, Karam Singh would have no motive to kill Ram Partap. However, he resorted to firing which firing resulted in killing of Bhim Singh, Ram Partap and Kusum. Thus, Karam Singh would have no motive to kill Ram Partap. However, he resorted to firing which firing resulted in killing of Bhim Singh, Ram Partap and Kusum. The common object of the unlawful assembly was to cause grievous injuries and not to commit the murder. It was Karam Singh accused alone, who exceeded the said common object by resorting to firing. 27. Thus, Karam Singh-appellant alone is to be held guilty under Section 302 IPC for committing the murders, as he exceeded the common object of the unlawful assembly, which was to cause grievous hurt only. The remaining twelve appellants are not guilty of the charge under Section 302/149 IPC. For giving injuries to the witnesses including Raj Pal PW10, all the thirteen appellants are held guilty under Sections 326/149 IPC, 324/149 IPC and 323/149 IPC. In the process, the conviction of Karam Singh-appellant under Section 326 IPC for the injuries caused by him to Raj Pal PW10 is converted to one under Section 326/149 IPC. The conviction of all the thirteen appellants under Section 148 IPC is confirmed and so also of Karam Singh-appellant under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Ordered accordingly. 28. Coming to the question of sentence, the sentence of life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- imposed upon Karam Singh-appellant under Section 302 IPC along with the default clause, is maintained. He is also sentenced to undergo RI for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- under Section 326/149 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo RI for two months. Sentences already imposed upon all the thirteen appellants under Sections 324/249, 323/149 and 148 IPC are maintained. In the same way, the sentence already imposed upon Karam Singh-appellant under Section 27 of the Arms Act is also maintained. Substantive sentences of imprisonment imposed upon all the appellants shall run concurrently. 29. Both the appeals are disposed of accordingly to the extent indicated above.