JUDGMENT : ARUN MISHRA, J. This appeal has been preferred by the accused appellant Badshah Singh and four others aggrieved by their conviction under sections 302 read with section 149, Indian Penal Code for which they have been sentenced to R.I. for life, under sections 324 read with section 149, Indian Penal Code R.I. for two years, under section 324 read with section 149, Indian Penal Code for causing injury to Rajendra, R.I. for six months, under section 436 read with section 149, Indian Penal Code R.I. for five years and fine of Rs. 2,500, in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for 6 months, apart from that appellants No. 2 to 5 have been convicted under section 148, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for one year. Appellant No. 2 Shiromani Singh has also been convicted under section 25(1)(a) of Arms Act and sentenced to R.I. for one year and under section 27 of Arms Act sentenced to R.I. for one year. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case in short indicates that on 30th June, 1990, Balendra the complainant, along with his brother, Laxmi, was cultivating the agricultural field at about 9.30 AM at Village Jyoraha, PS-Jughar Nagar. At that time absconding accused Makrand Singh came armed with double barrel gun, Shiromani Singh with country made revolver and farsa, Lakhan Singh with a Farsa, Bablu Singh with sang, Lalli Thakur with ballam and Badshah Singh with lathi along with two unknown persons who were armed with guns came over there and exorted to kill complainant Balendra and Laxmi, they ran away and went to other side, Dwarka also came there, the accused persons turned towards the house of Balendra to catch hold of Dwarka, Dwarka was surrounded by the accused persons, in order to save himself, he went inside the house of Rajendra, thereafter accused persons sprinkled kerosene oil, set on fire the house of Rajendra on that Dwarka came out of the house, he was fired at and beaten in brutal manner by accused persons. At that time, Ramadhar, father of Balendra, Maiadeen, Gareeba and Rajendra tried unsuccessfully to save deceased Dwarka, they were also beaten. Balendra lodged an FIR within one hour of the incident at about 10.30 AM at the concerned police station. At that time, Ramadhar, father of Balendra, Maiadeen, Gareeba and Rajendra tried unsuccessfully to save deceased Dwarka, they were also beaten. Balendra lodged an FIR within one hour of the incident at about 10.30 AM at the concerned police station. He came back to the spot along with the police and found that Maiadeen, Ramadhar, Gareeba and Rajendra all received injuries by firearms and Farsa. An ox was found dead beside a calf by gun shot injury. Damage to the extent of Rs. 12,000 was caused to the house of Rajendra. Dwarka was found dead beneath a Banyan tree. Parties had old enmity, incident was witnessed by the family members and Maiadeen, Gareeba, Rajendra, Kalkadeen, Nanna Yadav, Indrapal, Kattibai, Hirabai, Sukaia, Raiji, Swamideen and Rani. Police registered an offence at Crime No. 47/90 under the aforesaid sections. Makrand Singh could not be arrested, he is still at large. 3. Accused abjured their guilt and contended that they have been falsely implicated. 4. On behalf of prosecution, injured witnesses Balendra Kumar (PW.1), Rajendra Prasad (PW.2), Gareeba (PW.5) and Ramadhar (PW.6) have been examined. Beside Indrapal (PW.8) has also been examined, in order to prove the investigation done Kashiprasad Patwari, Ganshyam Das, Rakshpal Singh Yadav, In-charge of Police Station, B. L. Dhuvkaria S.I. and Briondawan Kushwaha have been examined. Accused have been convicted by the trial Court and sentenced to imprisonment in the aforesaid manner, consequently, this appeal has been preferred by five of the accused persons. 5. Shri Siddharth Datt, learned counsel appearing for appellants has submitted that it is a case where formation of unlawful assembly has not been established nor it could be said that accused assembled in furtherance of common intention. He has further submitted that involvement of Badshah Singh in the offence is doubtful, he should have been given benefit of doubt. He has referred to statement of Rajendra (PW.2) and has stated that Rajendra has not specifically named Badshah Singh as an assailant, apart from that Badshah Singh was attributed Lathi blow on the person of deceased, no Lathi injury has been found in the post-mortem report by Dr. S. S. Chourasia (PW.3), consequently medical evidence does not corroborate the prosecution case, there was enmity between the parties as such false implication of Badshah Singh could not be ruled out in the instant case, entire family has been roped into. S. S. Chourasia (PW.3), consequently medical evidence does not corroborate the prosecution case, there was enmity between the parties as such false implication of Badshah Singh could not be ruled out in the instant case, entire family has been roped into. In the facts and circumstances of the case, other accused persons also ought to have been given benefit of doubt. He has relied upon decisions of Apex Court in Anvaruddin and others vs. Shakoor and others, AIR 1990 SC 1242 and Jadu Yadav vs. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1994 SC 957 . 6. On the other hand, Shri T. K. Modh, learned Dy. AG appearing for State has submitted that there are as many as four injured witnesses. They all have stated about involvement of all the accused persons. Indrapal is also an independent witness, he has also stated involvement of all accused persons. Deposition of Rajendra Prasad (PW.2), if read in entirety, he has stated that all the accused persons present in the Court participated in the offence, apart from that he has submitted that overt act of an individual accused, which is not of much relevance once they formed unlawful assembly and were sharing common intention, not only that complainant Balendra and his brother Laxmi were chased in the agricultural field by the accused, when they ultimately ran away, thereafter as Dwarka came to rescue them, he was followed by the accused persons, to save himself, he went inside the house of Rajendra, Badshah Singh was responsible for bringing kerosene oil in order to set fire to the house of Rajendra, Badshah Singh had actively participated in the offence, intention was to burn alive the entire family inside the house. The house of Rajendra was set on fire, on that Dwarka came out, then he was mercilessly beaten by accused persons and was ultimately done to death and four other persons have suffered injuries by gun shot, sharp edged weapon beside that Gareeba also suffered lathi blow, consequently, no case for making an exception for Badshah Singh is made out, involvement of all the accused persons stand established, there was no reason to implicate them falsely. Enmity is a double edged weapon, enmity was the cause that not only deceased was done to death but four other persons suffered serious injuries, the method and manner in which incident has taken place, section 149 of Indian Penal Code was clearly attracted, consequently conviction recorded by the trial Court was proper, no case for making an interference in the conviction and sentence was, thus, made out. 7. First question for consideration is whether accused persons formed unlawful assembly in furtherance of common object and that they knew the object at the time of committing the offence. 8. In the First Information Report which was lodged promptly by Balendra (PW.1), we find that all the accused persons were named, they all were armed with deadly weapons like Gun, Farsa, Ballam, Sang and Lathi. Initially they tried to catch hold of complainant Balendra (PW.1) and his brother Laxmi in the agricultural field, after hearing exhortation, they ran away, Dwarka came in order to rescue them, he was chased by accused persons, to save his life he went inside the house of Rajendra, thereafter all the accused persons surrounded Dwarka. When we consider the statement of Balendra (PW.1), he has supported the aforesaid facts. Thus, it is clear that beside five accused persons, Makrand Singh, an absconding accused, and two other unknown persons had formed unlawful assembly. House of Rajendra was set on fire. when fire increased, Dwarka came out, he was fired at, thereafter he was beaten mercilessly by the accused persons, four other injured witnesses suffered gun shot injury and by other weapon. The aforesaid facts are also supported by Rajendra Prasad (PW.2), he has stated that accused persons were trying to catch hold of Balendra and Laxmi so as to lynch them, they ran away, then they chased Dwarka, Dwarka also ran away in order to save his life, all the accused encircled the house of Rajendra in which Dwarka confined himself and the house was set on fire. On that, his mother came out and cried that there were children in the house, they were also likely to be killed in the fire, consequently Dwarka came out as fire had set in, he was shot and thereafter beaten by accused persons by different kind of weapons such as Farsa, Sang, Ballam etc. On that, his mother came out and cried that there were children in the house, they were also likely to be killed in the fire, consequently Dwarka came out as fire had set in, he was shot and thereafter beaten by accused persons by different kind of weapons such as Farsa, Sang, Ballam etc. Rajendra (PW.2) has sustained injuries and his statement is reliable and it is apparent that the accused formed an unlawful assembly and their intention was to commit the aforesaid offence. Gareeba (PW.5), yet another injured witness, has stated that initially four accused persons ran behind Balendra and Laxmi, other four accused persons also came armed from the side of their house, all of them met as four accused persons could not catch hold of Balendra and Laxmi. Dwarka was chased, he went inside the house to save his life, then accused Shiromani called for kerosene oil, it was brought, accused Lakhan Singh bolted the house from outside, house was set on fire, mother of Rajendra cried that children would be burnt alive, they be taken out of house, on that Dwarka came out, thereafter he was fired at and beaten severely by accused persons. Ramadhar (PW.6) has also named the accused persons, all of them carried arms, he was also injured beside Maiadeen by gun shot, an ox also died due to gun shot injury, he has stated that Makrand, Shiromani, Lakhan, two unknown persons, Lalli, brother of Lalli and Badshah encircled Dwarka as he has entered the house of Rajendra, Shiromani called for the kerosene oil and house was set on fire by accused persons, when house was burning Dwarka came out, then he was fired at and beaten by accused persons. Indrapal (PW.8) has also stated that it was Badshah Singh who brought the kerosene oil, he has named the accused persons, except two unknown persons. Indrapal (PW.8) has also stated that it was Badshah Singh who brought the kerosene oil, he has named the accused persons, except two unknown persons. The method and manner in which incident has taken place leaves no room for any doubt that accused clearly formed unlawful assembly on the spot and their object was clearly to kill Dwarka, they initially tried to catch hold of Balendra and Laxmi, they could not do so, thereafter they ran behind Dwarka, when he tried to save himself and went inside the house of Rajendra, the house was set on fire, when he came out, he was fired at and was beaten by accused persons, not only Dwarka, but other persons who tried to save him were also beaten severely by accused persons and were fired at. Thus, it is clear that the method and manner in which the incident has taken place leaves no room for any doubt that accused persons formed an unlawful assembly and they have been rightly held guilty read with section 149 of Indian Penal Code. 9. Coming to question of false implication of Badshah Singh, we find on record the FIR lodged promptly, in that Badshah Singh was specifically named as an assailant. Prompt lodging of FIR ensures that there was no deliberation and consultation before lodging it. Balendra reached to the police station while accused persons have not left the spot as mentioned in the FIR. When we consider statement of Balendra, he has specifically stated that Badshah Singh was armed with Lathi, he has stated that accused persons tried to catch hold of him, he ran away. When Dwarka came from behind in order to save him, he was chased by accused persons, he ran away in the house of Rajendra and then kerosene oil was summoned by the accused who set on fire the house of Rajendra. It appears that Dwarka came out of the house of Rajendra in order to save life of children who were in the house as accused were not satisfied by setting the house on fire, they were waiting to commit murder of Dwarka, as soon as he came out he was fired at and was attacked by lethal weapons such as Farsa, Ballam, etc. When other persons tried to save Dwarka, they were also beaten up and fired at, gun shot injuries were caused not only to deceased Dwarka but also to Ramadhar (PW.6) and Maiadeen who has not been examined. An ox and calf also died owing to gun shot injuries, thus, extent of menace shows what was the intention of an unlawful assembly formed by accused. There are other injured witnesses, namely, Gareeba sustained as many as five injuries, three of them were lacerated wounds, two were abrasions, they were caused by hard and blunt object as stated by Dr. S. S. Chourasia (PW.3). Deceased Dwarka sustained several incised wounds on his head and face, right shoulder, left forearm, right leg, there was stab wounds on the left side of back, there were two gun shot wound on the persons of deceased Dwarka, death was due to cumulative effect of injuries caused on the person of Dwarka. Ramadhar (PW.6) has suffered four lacerated wounds, all were caused by gun shot injuries, Maiadeen also suffered three gun shot injuries. Thus, the injuries found on the persons of aforesaid witnesses is indicative of the fact that they were present and had witnessed the incident. Much has been tried to be made out by Shri S. Datt, counsel for appellant from the statement of Rajendra Prasad (PW.2), no doubt about it that in para 1 of his examination-in-chief he has taken specifically names of other accused persons except Badshah Singh and two other unknown persons, on being specifically asked in the cross-examination he has stated that all the persons present in the Court had participated in the offence, other eye witnesses have specifically named Badshah and he had brought kerosene oil. We are not inclined to accept the submission of Shri Siddharth Datt due to other overwhelming evidence with respect to involvement of Badshah Singh. Statement made in examination-in-chief of Rajendra (PW.2) has been diluted in para 8 of his deposition. Gareeba yet another injured witness has specifically named Badshah Singh as an assailant, accused encircled the house of Rajendra after they could not catch hold Laxmi and Balendra. Statement made in examination-in-chief of Rajendra (PW.2) has been diluted in para 8 of his deposition. Gareeba yet another injured witness has specifically named Badshah Singh as an assailant, accused encircled the house of Rajendra after they could not catch hold Laxmi and Balendra. It was not put in his cross-examination that Badshah Singh was not present, on the person of Gareeba lacerated wounds have been found which are attributable to Lathi blows, that was carried by Badshah Singh, though it is not necessary to consider the individual act of accused persons, once we have come to the conclusion that on the spot accused persons have formed an unlawful assembly in furtherance of their common object to commit aforesaid offence. Ramadhar (PW.6) has also specifically named Badshah Singh beside Indrapal has stated that Badshah was also armed with Lathi and Badshah was responsible to bring the kerosene oil, with the help of which the house of Rajendra was set on fire, thus, participation of Badshah stands proved beyond reasonable doubt by the aforesaid evidence. In the facts and circumstances, the method and manner in which the incident has taken place, minor discrepancies cannot be given too much weight and the evidence of injured witnesses, namely, Ramadhar and Gareeba cannot be discarded, particularly when in para 8 Rajendra (PW.2) has also stated that all the accused persons present in the Court participated in the offence. Thus, it cannot be said that Badshah Singh had been falsely implicated in the instant case. 10. The weapons were seized from accused persons as per information given by them. Though it is not necessary to go into other piece of evidence in view of direct evidence on record, we still find that seizure of blood stained earth clothes of deceased, Farsa and Shirt of accused Shiromani, Farsa and Kurta of Lakhan Singh accused, Ballam from accused Lalli Singh, Sang from Bablu Singh and on Lathi seized from accused Badshah Singh blood was found, spot map has also been proved, investigation was done promptly. Enmity is a double edged weapon, in the background of enmity it can be said that accused had the motive, false implication has not been made out in the instant case. 11. Shri Siddharth Datt has placed reliance on a decision of Apex Court in Anvaruddin and others vs. Shakoor and others (supra). Enmity is a double edged weapon, in the background of enmity it can be said that accused had the motive, false implication has not been made out in the instant case. 11. Shri Siddharth Datt has placed reliance on a decision of Apex Court in Anvaruddin and others vs. Shakoor and others (supra). The said decision is distinguishable on facts, involvement of accused was found to be doubtful, they were given benefit of doubt, in the instant case Badshah Singh cannot be given benefit of doubt in view of overwhelming evidence on record particularly that of injured witnesses and benefit of statement of Rajendra cannot be given in view of aforesaid statement made in para 8 of his deposition. Decision in Jadu Yadav vs. State of Bihar and others (supra) is also distinguishable as accused persons were given benefit of doubt on the evidence. If is settled law that once it has been established that there was an attack by members of unlawful assembly on deceased in prosecution of common object, prosecution need not establish overt act done by each accused as held in Sunil Kumar and another vs. State of Rajasthan, (2005) 9 SCC 283 and reiterated in Kallu alias Masih and others vs. The State of M. P., AIR 2006 SC 831 . 12. It is stated by learned counsel appearing for appellants that other accused persons except Badshah Singh have been given benefit by the State Govt.of M. P. Prinsoners' Release on Probation Act. We need not comment on that aspect in this appeal. 13. In view of aforesaid, we do not find any merit in this appeal. Appeal is hereby dismissed.