Judgment :- (1) These appeals are by the accused Nos. 1 to 10 against the judgment in S.C. No. 10/2005 dated 16th June, 2006 on the file of Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Davangere. (2) Criminal Appeal No. 1607/2006 is by accused Nos. 9 and 10. Criminal Appeal No. 1770/2006 is by accused Nos. 1 to 8. Accused were charge-sheeted for an offence punishable under Sections 143, 148, 504, 302, 307, 324, 323 read with Section 149 of IPC. (3) Brief case of the prosecution is that, accused, deceased and the injured are all residents of Bangarakkanagudda village. Accused Nos. 1 to 7 are the brothers, accused No. 8 is the son of accused No. 5, accused Nos. 9 and 10 are the sons of accused No. 14, accused No. 12 is the brother-in-law of accused No. 1 (sister's husband), accused No. 11 is the son of accused No. 16, accused No. 13 is the son of accused No. 12 (deceased) and accused No. 15 is the son of accused No. 3. All accused Nos. 1 to 16 are related to each other. Accused No. 2 was running a fair price depot in the village and he had closed the same about 1 year 5 to 6 months back. He was not distributing food grains regularly and properly. In this regard villagers had made a complaint to the Tahsildar and Tahsildar, had permitted C.W. 35 to open another fair price depot and further permitted him to sell the food grains. Accused No. 3 was the Chairman of Betterment Committee of the School for about two months and he was performing pooja in the village temple. Accused had developed an ill-will and enmity against the deceased and injured, as the accused were under the impression that on account of the deceased and the injured, the fair price depot of accused No. 2 was closed. On 3-10-2004 deceased along with C.W. 2-Ramachandrappa C.W. 4 Shavanna C.W. 5-Srinivas and C.W. 1 Vasanna about 8 persons had gone to purchase a sheep and in this regard, C.W. 2 had settled the price of the sheep for Rs. 2,600/- and had paid an advance of Rs. 100/-. Accused came there and picked up a quarrel, by saying that they wanted to take the same sheep. 2,600/- and had paid an advance of Rs. 100/-. Accused came there and picked up a quarrel, by saying that they wanted to take the same sheep. In this regard at about 10 a.m. in front of the house of one Kotrappa, all the accused came shouting in filthy language armed with deadly weapons in a tractor trailer, they insulted Marappa and provoked them and assaulted Marappa, Jagadish, Basavaraj alias Rajappa and assaulted P.W. 1 Maranna, P.W. 8 Shavanna, P.W. 9 Vasanna and P.W. 27 Ramachandrappa, Marappa was assaulted by accused Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 13 and 16. He died on the way to hospital. Deceased Jagadish and Basavaraj suffered grievous injuries and they were shifted to bigger hospital. Deceased Basavaraj was assaulted by A-1, A- 2, A-3, A-4, A-7, A-8, A-9, A-11 and A-12. Injured Ramachandrappa was assaulted by A-1, 2, 3, 7, 10, 11, 12, 14 and 15. P.W. 1 (C.W. 3) injured gave a complaint to the Police. Police came to the spot and thereafter conducted the inquest and shifted the body to the hospital for post-mortem. Jagadish, who was injured, died on 6-10-2004 and Basavaraj alias Rajappa died on 9-10-2004. Police registered the case for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 504, 302, 307, 323, 324 read with Section 149 of IPC. (4) P.W. 13 conducted the post-mortem of Jagadish, P.W. 14 conducted the postmortem of Basavaraj alias Rajappa and P.W. 16 conducted the post-mortem of Marappa. The doctor opined that the death of Jagadish was due to pulmonary embolism, as a result of fracture of lung bones and injuries. The death of Basavaraj alias Rajappa was due to injury to the vital area i.e. brain as a result of head injury and death of Marappa was due to fracture of right temporal bone and rupture of right temporal. P.W. 41 deputed P.W. 23-As- sistant Sub-Inspector of Police for search of the accused. P.W. 23 got the information that accused are moving in a tractor towards Baramasamudra at about 7 p.m. on 3-10-2004. P.W. 23 along with other staff arrested accused Nos. 1 to 10 and other accused along with deadly weapons except accused Nos. 11 and 13. P.W. 23 produced the accused before the P.W. 41. P.W. 41 seized the tractor and bloodstained axe from A-1 bloodstained chopper from A-2, another bloodstained axe from A-3, club from A-4,5,6,7, 8, 10 under Ex. P.W. 23 along with other staff arrested accused Nos. 1 to 10 and other accused along with deadly weapons except accused Nos. 11 and 13. P.W. 23 produced the accused before the P.W. 41. P.W. 41 seized the tractor and bloodstained axe from A-1 bloodstained chopper from A-2, another bloodstained axe from A-3, club from A-4,5,6,7, 8, 10 under Ex. P5 on 5-10-2004. He recorded the statements of the witnesses. (5) P.W. 41 seized a motor bike on the basis of the statement of the witnesses as per Ex. P2 in M.O.11. He seized a shirt, baniyan and lungi of the deceased under mahazar Ex. P6. Accused Nos. 11 and 13 were arrested by P.W. 29 on 29-11-2004 at Megalagere village. The bloodstained cloths and weapons were sent to F.S.L. The Investigating Officer collected F.S.L. report Ex. P57 and serology report Ex. P58. (6) Prosecution in all has examined 41 witnesses. From amongst 41 witnesses, P.Ws. 1, 2,7,8 and 9 are the injured eye-witnesses. They speak the overt acts by the accused. P.W. 1 alleges overt acts against all the accused. P.W. 2 alleges the overt-acts against A-1 to A-7 and A-9 to 16. P.W. 8 alleges the overt acts against A-1 to A-4, A-6 to 9, 11 and 12, 14 to 16. P.W. 9 speaks of overt acts against all the accused except A-13. P.W. 27 alleges overt acts against accused Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 to 16. FSL report shows the bloodstained cloths and weapons seized show the human blood. Item No stone, item No. 2 one lungi, item No. 3 mud, item No. 7 mud, item No. 9 axe, item No. 10 chopper (machu), item No. 11 another axe, item No. 12 shirt, item No. 13 banian and item No. 14 lungi bear 'A' group blood. (7) The trial Court based on the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 8, 9 and 27 being the injured witnesses and F.S.L. report, seizure of arms convicted the accused Nos. 1 to 10 for an offence punishable under Sections 143,148, 504, 149, 324, 307, 302 read with Section 149, IPC and acquitted accused Nos. 11, 13 to 16. Since A-12 died during the course of the trial, as against him, the case abated. It is against the conviction of A-1 to A-10, accused Nos. 1 to 8 and 9 and 10 have filed two separate appeals. 11, 13 to 16. Since A-12 died during the course of the trial, as against him, the case abated. It is against the conviction of A-1 to A-10, accused Nos. 1 to 8 and 9 and 10 have filed two separate appeals. (8) Sri C. H. Jadhav, learned counsel appearing for accused Nos. 1 to 8 submitted that, the prosecution case is that, accused Nos. 1 to 16 forming into an unlawful assembly holding deadly weapons assaulted the deceased and injured however, accused Nos. 11, 13 to 16 have been acquitted even though the same allegations are made against them. If provisions of Section 149, IPC are applied the learned Judge when he has extended the benefit of doubt as against A-11, 13 to 16, the same should have been extended against the other accused. He submitted that, the motive is mainly against A1, A-2 and A-3, overt acts are alleged against A-1, 2 and 3 as they were holding deadly weapons and other accused were holding club and the overt-acts alleged against the other accused do not suggest any intention of causing injury that may result in death of a person. The corresponding injuries are not serious injuries. He submitted that convicting the other accused under Section 149, IPC is bad. He also submitted that there is serious contradiction and in the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 8, 9 and 27, each of the witnesses alleged different overt-acts. In the complaint though name of A-1 to A-13 are mentioned and even the witnesses speak of the overt acts against A-1 to A-16, the trial Court has erroneously convicted A- 1 to A-10. He further submitted that the provisions of Section 149, IPC are not applicable to the facts of this case as there is no evidence preparation, premeditation, common object to commit the murder. (9) Sri. Y. S. Shivaprasad, learned counsel appearing for accused Nos. 9 and 10 submitted that, eye-witnesses like P.Ws. 1, 2, 8, 9 and 27 do not speak of serious overt-acts against accused Nos. 8 and 9. Only allegation is that, they were holding club and they assaulted on the body. P.W. 8 alleges that A-9 kicked on the stomach, testicles and chest. P.W. 9 alleges only the overt act by club on the body. 1, 2, 8, 9 and 27 do not speak of serious overt-acts against accused Nos. 8 and 9. Only allegation is that, they were holding club and they assaulted on the body. P.W. 8 alleges that A-9 kicked on the stomach, testicles and chest. P.W. 9 alleges only the overt act by club on the body. P.W. 27 also alleges assault by club on the shoulder, hands, face, and eyes and submitted that the corresponding injuries alleged against A-8 and 9 are not grievous in nature. They do no attract the provisions of Sections 302 or 307, IPC. There is no intention on the part of accused Nos. 9 and 10 to commit murder. Trial Court was not justified in convicting these two accused on the ground that they shared common object. He also submitted that the overt-acts alleged against the accused Nos. 11, 13 to 16 being identical when they have been acquitted, there was no justification for the trial Court to convict these two accused. (10) The case of the prosecution is that there was an enmity between accused and the deceased, in connection with distribution of food grains to the fair price depot. Accused were under the impression that the deceased were the instruments in cancelling the fair price depot run by A2 and the deceased had also made a complaint against A-3, who was the Chairman of Betterment Committee of the School and was replaced by deceased Jagadish as the successor. Accused were also hatching a plan to eliminate the deceased and others. In this regard, they had formed an unlawful assembly came in a tractor and picked up quarrel in connection with purchase of sheep and assaulted the injured and the deceased. To support the same, prosecution has relied on the evidence of injured eyewitnesses viz. P.Ws. 1,2,8,9,27. These witnesses consistently speak of the accused coming in a tractor holding deadly weapons and shouting and abusing the deceased, assaulted the deceased and the injured. P.Ws. 1, 2, 8,9 and 27 they speak to the specific overt-acts of the accused with deadly weapons against the deceased and the injured. P.Ws. 1, 2, 8,9 and 27 not only being the eye-witnesses, but also being injured witnesses and there is nothing to disbelieve the versions of these witnesses. Further, F.S.L. report Ex. P57 and serology report Ex. P.Ws. 1, 2, 8,9 and 27 they speak to the specific overt-acts of the accused with deadly weapons against the deceased and the injured. P.Ws. 1, 2, 8,9 and 27 not only being the eye-witnesses, but also being injured witnesses and there is nothing to disbelieve the versions of these witnesses. Further, F.S.L. report Ex. P57 and serology report Ex. P.58 show that the bloodstains on the cloths of the deceased and the bloodstains on the weapons seized from the accused belong to 'A' blood group. Same is further corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 23, who arrested the accused Nos. 1 to 10 on the very same day along with the weapons. Evidence of these witnesses, speaks of the presence of the accused participation, sharing of common object to commit murder. There is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of these witnesses. (11) The discrepancy as regard to the overt- act in the evidence of the injured eyewitnesses, is not material nor dislodge the prosecution case. When all the witnesses speak that these accused came in a tractor holding deadly weapons, shouting against the deceased and others, assaulted them by picking up quarrel and there being no allegation of any scuffle or injury to the accused or aggression by the deceased, whether some of the accused used club and assaulted on different parts of the body, which by itself might not have caused the death, but the fact that they came together with intention to kill the deceased and the other injured knowing full well that assaulting with the deadly weapons would result in death. (12) Criminal law is viewed from different angle as regard to actual participant, accessories and men actuated by common intention. Charge is rolled up one involved in direct liability and constructive liability. Section 149, IPC creates constructive liability if the offence is committed by any member of unlawful assembly in prosecution of common object. The ingredients that are required to attract the provisions of Section 149, IPC are that, there must be an unlawful assembly and any of the members of the unlawful assembly commit an offence in prosecution of the common object. (13) It is not necessary that there should be an overt-act by each of the accused. The ingredients that are required to attract the provisions of Section 149, IPC are that, there must be an unlawful assembly and any of the members of the unlawful assembly commit an offence in prosecution of the common object. (13) It is not necessary that there should be an overt-act by each of the accused. If they had shared the common object and in furtherance of common object, some of the accused inflict injuries of such a nature, which they knew that is likely to cause death. If the members of the unlawful assembly had the knowledge that the offence is committed in prosecution of common object, it would attract the provisions of Section 149 of IPC. What is required is that the members had the knowledge and they shared the common object, to prosecute the same, some of them assault with deadly weapons, which all other members knew that it is likely to cause death. In this case, the prosecution has adduced the evidence to show that the accused had the knowledge of the offence that is likely to be committed, all the accused participated in prosecuting the offence and all were holding weapons. This evidence has clinchingly establishes the common object shares by these accused. (14) The trial Court relying on the evidence of the eye-witnesses, F.S.I. report, serology report and seizure of weapons has found that prosecution has established the offence against A-1 to A-10 beyond reasonable doubt. In sofar as A-11, 13 to 16 are concerned trial Court found that, P.W. 12 speaks of the presence of A-1 to A-10, immediate arrest of A-1 to A-10 with weapon only and FIR also do not refer to the names of the accused Nos. 14, 15 and 16, trial Court found that the evidence is not sufficient to establish the presence of A-11, 13 to 16. Even assuming that some evidence suggests the presence of some of the acquitted accused that is not a ground to acquit these accused on parity. Nothing worth is elicited by the accused in the cross-examination of eye-witnesses, when death is a homicidal death, the accused have been arrested on the same day, weapons have been seized, bloodstains on the weapons and the cloths of deceased match, motive is clearly established and each accused has participated in the offence and injured witnesses have stated about the participation and overt-acts of these accused. We do not find that there is any error committed by the trial Court in convicting A-1 to A-10. We find no merit in the contentions raised by the appellants. Accordingly, the appeals fail and are dismissed. Appeals dismissed.