JUDGMENT 1. - Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated January 14, 2004 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) no. 3, Ajmer Camp Kishangarh whereby the appellants, six in number, were convicted and sentenced as under: Ratna, Pappu, Ramswaroop, Kalu @ Lala and Suwa: U/s. 302/149 IPC: Each to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of As. 5000/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years. U/s. 148 IPC: Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. U/s. 450 IPC: Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. U/s. 323/149 IPC: Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. Ram Karan: U/s. 302 IPC: To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years. U/s. 302/149 IPC: To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years. U/s. 148 IPC: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. U/s. 450 IPC: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. U/s. 323/149 IPC: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. It is the prosecution case that on January 13, 2000 at 3.30 AM complainant Mal Singh (Pw.1) submitted a written report at Police Station Arai stating therein that around 3.30 AM while he and his family members were sleeping in the house one Ramkaran Jat knocked the door. After the - door was opened by Dashrath Singh (blind person), Ram Karan entered the house and started threatening. Hearing noise informant's wife Kamal Kanwar intervened, Ram Karan, Ratna, Kalu, Ram Swaroop, Sheochand, Suwa and Pappu attacked on Kamal Kanwar. Ram Karan inflicted lathi-blow on her head. The assailants also gave beating to Ajalkanwar, Dashrath Singh and Gajju Kanwar. Because of gathering of many people the assailants fled away. Kamal Kanwar became unconscious, who was removed to hospital where she was declared dead. On that report case under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 302 and 450 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. During the course of investigation Dashrath Singh also succumbed to his injuries. Because of gathering of many people the assailants fled away. Kamal Kanwar became unconscious, who was removed to hospital where she was declared dead. On that report case under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 302 and 450 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. During the course of investigation Dashrath Singh also succumbed to his injuries. Autopsy on the dead bodies was performed, necessary memos were drawn, statements of witnesses were recorded, appellants were arrested and on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 3, Ajmer Camp Kishangarh. Charges under sections 148, 450, 323/149, 302 and 302/149 IPC were framed against the appellants, who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 19 witnesses and 51 documents. In the explanation under Section 313 Cr.PC., the appellants claimed innocence. No witness in defence was however examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated above. 3. A look at the post mortem Report (Ex.P-13) reveals that following ante mortem injuries were found on the person of Kamla Kanwar: 1. Incised wound 3" x 3/4"xbone deep trans oblique on occipital region. 2. Swelling 2" x 11/2" on mid of forehead. 3. Fracture lower ⅓ of Lt. radius ulna bone. In the opinion of Dr. RC. Patni (Pw.12) the cause of death was coma as a result of head injury.Post mortem Report (Ex.P-14) reveals that following ante mortem injuries were found on the person of Dashrath Singh: 1. Stitched wound on Lt. Parietal occipital region. 2. Stitched wound lateral to above injury on Lt. parietal region with clotted blood underneath the scalp. In the opinion of Dr. R.K. Mathur (Pw.13) the cause of death was coma as a result of head injury. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellant Ram Karan also lodged the report of the instant case against the members of complainant party bearing No. 6/2000. In the same incident appellant Ram Karan and co-accused Sheo Chand also sustained injuries. The prosecution witnesses failed to explain the injuries received by accused persons. Learned counsel further contended that statements of prosecution witnesses were recorded after a long time and the report was submitted in court after a long delay. In the same incident appellant Ram Karan and co-accused Sheo Chand also sustained injuries. The prosecution witnesses failed to explain the injuries received by accused persons. Learned counsel further contended that statements of prosecution witnesses were recorded after a long time and the report was submitted in court after a long delay. Learned counsel also contended that there is no evidence that Dashrath Singh died because of the injuries received in the quarrel. Per contra learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and urged that appellants were rightly convicted and sentenced. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and scanned the material on record. 6. Before analysing the testimony of prosecution witnesses, we deem it appropriate to refer to the injury report (Ex.P-14A) according to which the appellant Ram Karan received in all nine injuries on his person thus: 1. I.W. with bleeding 21/2 x 3/4 x bone deep on lateral aspect of Rt. thigh 2. I.W. with bleeding 4 x 3/4 x bone deep outer aspect of forearm. 3. L.W. with bleeding 1/2 x 1/4 x muscle deep Rt. knee. 4. L.W. with bleeding 11/2 x 1/4 x 1/4 mid of Rt. leg. 5. L.W. with bleeding 3/4 x 1/4 x 1/4on lower ⅓ of Rt. leg. 6. Swelling diffuse at Rt. knee joint. 7. Contusion 41/2 on parietal aspect. 8. Contusion 1/2 x 1/2 Lt. knee. 9. Contusion Rt. nipple. On the basis of parcha bayan of Ram Karan cross FIR was registered against the members of the complainant party. In the parcha bayan it was stated by Ram Karan that in the morning of incident while he woke up to extract milk of cows, Shyam Singh, Mahipal Singh, Raju Dholi, Teju Dholi and Raju Rajput suddenly came over there, dragged him to the house of Shyam Singh and gave beating to him. Hearing alarm his brother Sheochand and Ram Narayan came to save him and on seeing them the assailants fled away. 7. Mal Singh (Pw.1) in his deposition stated that in the night of incident Ramkaran entered the house hurling abuses and said to kill. Hearing noise Kamal Kanwar came out of the room and Ram Karan inflicted lathi-blow on her head due to which she fell down. Sheochand, Ratna, Kalu Ram Swaroop, Pappu and Suwa also came scaling the wall of neighbour Rameshwar and gave beating to Top Kanwar. Hearing noise Kamal Kanwar came out of the room and Ram Karan inflicted lathi-blow on her head due to which she fell down. Sheochand, Ratna, Kalu Ram Swaroop, Pappu and Suwa also came scaling the wall of neighbour Rameshwar and gave beating to Top Kanwar. Rajendra Singh, Lokendra Singh, Gajraj Kanwar, Dashrath Singh and he (Mal Singh). In the cross examination he however denied to have caused injuries on the person of Ramkaran and Shyoji. He also admitted that he did not see Dashrath Singh opening the door, but since the gate was off and Dashrath Singh was sleeping in the chowk, therefore he presumed that gate was opened by Dashrath Singh. 8. Having carefully weighed the prosecution evidence we find that injuries received by appellant Ramkaran and Shyoji were not explained by the witnesses. It appears that there was a me-lee at the time of incident and the complainant party and accused party were indulged in a free fight.'In Kambi Nanji v. State of Gujarat ( AIR 1970 SC 219 ) their Lordships of the Supreme Court indicated that where there was a me-lee at the time of i incident and the two groups indulged in a free fight resulting in injuries to persons of both groups and death of two, if the court comes to the conclusions that the injuries sustained by the persons were in the course of a free fight then there is no question of common object and only those persons who are proved to have caused injuries or death can be held guilty for the offence individually committed by them. 9. In Munir Khan v. State of UP ( AIR 1971 SC 335 ) it was indicated that in a mutual fight there is no common object and none of the accused can be convicted by having recourse to section 149 IPC. 10. The prosecution thus could not establish that the appellants Ratna, Pappu, Ram Swaroop, Kalu @ Lala and Suwa were the members of unlawful assembly and their common object was to kill. The evidence against appellant Ram Karan is however consistent and it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that he entered the house and caused injuries. Charges under sections 302 and 450 IPC are established against appellant Ram Karan. The evidence against appellant Ram Karan is however consistent and it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that he entered the house and caused injuries. Charges under sections 302 and 450 IPC are established against appellant Ram Karan. No specific injury has been attributed to other appellants Ratna, Pappu, Ram Swaroop, Kalu @ Lala and Suwa possibility of their over implication cannot be ruled out and they are entitled to benefit of doubt. 11. For these reasons, we dispose of the instant appeal in t"- following terms: (i) We dismiss the appeal of appellant Ram Karan and maintain his conviction and sentence under sections 302 and 450 of the Indian Penal Code. We however acquit him of the charges under sections 147, 323/149 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code. (ii) We allow the appeal of appellants Ratna, Pappu, Ramswaroop, Kalu 5 @ Lala and Suwa and acquit them of the charges under sections 148, 450, 323/149, 302 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code. These appellants are on bail, they need nor surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged. (iii) The impugned judgment of the learned trial Judge stands modified as indicated above. Appeal of R1 Dismissed and That of Others Allowed. *******