Judgment ( 1. ) Appellants have preferred this appeal challenging their conviction and order of sentence passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in S.T.No.61/96, decided on 28.03.2000. ( 2. ) Appellants have been convicted under Section 148, 325/149 of IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and three years for the respective offences, by the impugned judgment. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. ( 3. ) As per prosecution case, appellant Ramfal had got registered a forged sale-deed on 9.2.90 in respect of the land belonging to complainant Badriprasad, for which he had filed a civil suit in the Court. Due to this enmity, on 17.6.90 about 6 Oclock in the morning at village Sindurakhi when complainant Badriprasad, Gourishankar, Pachiya Bai and mother of Baburam were on the well, appellants armed with deadly weapons came there. Appellant Ramfal was armed with .315 bore katta, appellant Kamlesh was armed with a gun, while appellant Bihari was carrying a spear and appellant Ramswaroop had a lathi, appellant Ramcharan of Rahaliya was having a spade. Appellant Kamlesh began hurling obscene abuses to complainant Badriprasad and asked him to pay fifty thousand rupees, which he had to spend. When complainant Badriprasad objected to hurling of abuses, appellant Ramfal exhorted to kill him. Complainant Badriprasad grappled with him to snatch his katta, but all the appellants began assaulting him by means of lathi, spade, spear and with the handle of gun. Appellants Ramswaroop and Kamlesh went on exhorting to kill complainant Badriprasad. As a result of assault and injuries, Badriprasad fell down. His brother Gourishankar and his wife Pachiya Bai tried to rescue him, but in vain. Appellants after causing various injuries to the complainant fled away from the spot. Injured Badriprasad was then taken to the Police Post Garhi Malahra, where he lodged the FIR, on the basis of which an offence was registered at Police Station, Maharajpur against the appellants and was investigated. Injured Badriprasad was sent for medical examination. Upon his medical and X-ray examination, besides several injuries, fractures in his right tibia, left ulna and metacarpal bones were detected. During investigation, a .315 bore gun and cartridge were seized from appellant Ramfal, while a lathi, spear and spade used in the commission of offence were seized from appellants Ramswaroop, Bihari and Ramcharan respectively. Blood stained shoes of the complainant were also seized by the Police. During investigation, a .315 bore gun and cartridge were seized from appellant Ramfal, while a lathi, spear and spade used in the commission of offence were seized from appellants Ramswaroop, Bihari and Ramcharan respectively. Blood stained shoes of the complainant were also seized by the Police. The seized articles were sent for forensic examination. After due investigation and obtaining sanction from District Magistrate, appellants were prosecuted under Section 147, 148, 325, 326, 323, 307 of IPC and Section 25/27 of the Arms Act and were put to trial. ( 4. ) Appellants abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication. ( 5. ) Learned Additional Sessions Judge, after trial and upon appreciation of the evidence adduced in the case, acquitted the appellants of the charges under Section 307/149 of IPC and Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act, but found them guilty for commission of the offence under Section 148, 325/149 of IPC, convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid by the impugned judgment, which has been challenged in this appeal. ( 6. ) Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the trial court erroneously convicted the appellants on the basis of inconsistent and unreliable testimony of the related and interested witnesses without there being any cogent and dependable evidence against them. ( 7. ) Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, justified and supported the conviction of the appellants. ( 8. ) Perused the evidence on record. ( 9. ) Gourishankar (P.W-4), who is the brother of complainant Badriprasad, is the main eyewitness. Gourishankar (P.W-4) deposed in his evidence that at the relevant time about 6 Oclock in the morning when he, alongwith Baburam, his mother, Pachiya Bai and Badriprasad were on the well, Baburam while going to latrine shouted and alarmed that Doniwala were coming to assault; at that juncture, appellant Kamlesh armed with a gun came and asked Badriprasad to pay fifty thousand rupees, which he had to spend, thereafter appellant Ramfal armed with Katta also came and both of them began hurling abuses. According to Gourishankar (P.W-4), when complainant Badriprasad asked them not to abuse, appellants Kamlesh, Ramfal, Ramswaroop and Rahaliyawala Chamar (Ramcharan) grappled with complainant Badriprasad and began assaulting him; at that time appellant Ramswaroop was carrying danda, appellant Bihari carrying a ballam and Rahaliyawala was carrying a spear and they were assaulting his brother Badriprasad causing injuries in his hands, legs and scalp. Gourishankar tried to intervene, but the appellants did not stop and appellant Ramfal also tried to intimidate him. When, after an hour villagers came there, injured Badriprasad was taken to Police Post Garhi Malahra and then he was sent to Chhatarpur hospital by the police. ( 10. ) The evidence of Gourishankar (P.W-4) also stands substantially corroborated by the evidence of his wife Pachiya Bai (P.W-2). She also deposed that about 6 Oclock in the morning when she was at the house built on the well and her brother-in-law Badriprasad was sitting at the door, appellants Kamlesh, Ramfal, Ramcharan, Bihari and Ramswaroop came there armed with gun, katta, spade, spear and lathi respectively and assaulted Badriprasad. According to Pachiya Bai (P.W-2), appellant Ramcharan, who was known as Rahaliyawala, had assaulted Badriprasad on his head by means of spade and dealt three blows on his head, ankle and palm; appellant Bihari gave spear blows on his forehead, left arm and knee, while appellant Ramswaroop gave repeated lathi blows on the person of Badriprasad, appellant Kamlesh assaulted him by the handle of the gun, appellant Ramcharan exhorted them. She had then called the villagers, who took injured Badriprasad to the Police Station, where he had lodged the report and was sent to the hospital. The FIR (Ex.P-3) of the incident was recorded by Sub-Inspector S.H. Naqvi (P.W-8) on 17.6.90 at the instance of injured Badriprasad. ( 11. ) Baburam (P.W-3) also deposed that at 6 Oclock in the morning, while he was going to latrine, he had seen the five appellants armed with weapons like katta, gun, lathi, spear and spade and he had also warned Halke and Badriprasad that appellants were coming to assault them and thereafter he escaped and fled away from the spot. ( 12. ) Dr. Hari Agrawal (P.W-5), who medically examined injured Badriprasad on 17.6.90 at District Hospital Chhatarpur found following injuries on his body :- (i) Lacerated wound left side of scalp frontal region obliquely placed, 1" x " x muscle deep. (ii) One lacerated wound on the right side of frontal region " x ". (iii) One circular wound 1mm x 1mm x 1mm, margins lacerated. (iv)One lacerated wound 1 " x ", there is evidence of fracture of Vth metacarpal neck (right). (v) Lacerated wound 1" x " dorsal end of right middle finger, bone broken. (ii) One lacerated wound on the right side of frontal region " x ". (iii) One circular wound 1mm x 1mm x 1mm, margins lacerated. (iv)One lacerated wound 1 " x ", there is evidence of fracture of Vth metacarpal neck (right). (v) Lacerated wound 1" x " dorsal end of right middle finger, bone broken. (vi)Incised wound 2" x " x " II web space. (vii)Compound fracture upper 1/3rd leg with lacerated wound right 1/2" x 1/2" longitude end. (viii)Two lacerated wounds on mid 1/3rd and lower 1/3rd of leg each, 1" x 1/2", underlying bone broken. (ix)Lacerated wound upper 1/3rd of left leg, 2" x 1/2" bone deep. (x) Lacerated wound medial to injury no.9, 1/2" x 1/2". (xi)Lacerated wound lower 1/3rd of leg " x . (xii)Three lacerated wounds on right F.A. upper 1/3rd posterior aspect on anterior side, each " x ". (xiii)Two incised wounds left arm lower 1/3rd region each measuring 1" x " x bone deep on lateral aspect. Margins clean cut. (xiv)One incised wound left dorsum of wrist 1"x1/2". Clean cut edges. ( 13. ) In the opinion of Dr. Hari Agrawal (P.W-5), injuries no.6, 13 and 14 were caused by hard and sharp object, while other injuries were caused by hard and blunt object and he had also advised for X-ray examination of both the legs, hands, forearm and the skull of the injured. The MLC report (Ex.P-2) of injured Badriprasad written and signed by Dr. Hari Agrawal (P.W-5) is also placed on record. ( 14. ) Dr. M.K. Khare (P.W-7), who had taken X-ray of injured Badriprasad, also found fracture in his right tibia bone, another fracture in left ulna bone as also fracture in the ring finger and metacarpal bones of right hand. ( 15. ) The aforesaid witnesses, other than medical witnesses, were extensively cross-examined. However, nothing substantial has been elicited in their cross-examination so as to discredit their version that appellants, five in number, armed with weapons like katta, gun, spear, spade and lathi had come to the place of occurrence, used force and assaulted complainant Badriprasad. Although Gourishankar (P.W-4) has not specifically stated about the individual blow given by each of the appellants, but he has clearly stated that appellants armed with various weapons were conjointly assaulting his brother Badriprasad causing him several injuries on his hands, leg and scalp. Although Gourishankar (P.W-4) has not specifically stated about the individual blow given by each of the appellants, but he has clearly stated that appellants armed with various weapons were conjointly assaulting his brother Badriprasad causing him several injuries on his hands, leg and scalp. Moreover, when number of persons are collectively assaulting one person, it is not feasible that specific act and blow given by each of the appellants, be noticed and described. Moreover, Pachiya Bai (P.W-2) has also given a description of the blows given by each of the appellants. There are no cogent reasons to doubt her presence on the scene of occurrence. She specifically denied the suggestion given in cross- examination that she was not present on the scene of occurrence. Pachiya Bai (P.W-2) has also clarified that appellant Ramcharan is also known as Rahaliyawala and therefore, there remains no doubt about the complicity of appellant Ramcharan in the incident of assault on Badriprasad. Baburam (P.W-3) had also noticed all the appellants armed with deadly weapons like katta, spear, spade and gun coming towards the place of occurrence. ( 16. ) In fact, there are no cogent reasons to doubt and disbelieve the statement of aforesaid witnesses that appellants armed with deadly weapons had come to the place of Badriprasad, used force and assaulted him causing several injuries. The medical evidence on record also lends corroboration to the testimony of aforesaid witnesses. Although a suggestion was given in the cross-examination of Dr. Hari Agrawal (P.W-5) that injuries found on the person of Badriprasad could be caused in a vehicular accident, but there is nothing on record to indicate that Badriprasad suffered injuries in the accident. ( 17. ) Although, evidence of injured Badriprasad is not available on record, as he was later on murdered allegedly by the present appellants, but there is eyewitness account of the incident as given by Gourishankar (P.W-4) and Pachiya Bai (P.W-2) coupled with the corroborative evidence of Baburam and other evidence plus medical evidence, sufficient to establish the guilt of appellants. ( 18. ) Upon close scrutiny of the entire evidence on record, it is found clearly established that appellants, five in number, armed with deadly weapons came to the place of Badriprasad, used force and assaulted him and caused as many as fourteen injuries with multiple fractures. ( 18. ) Upon close scrutiny of the entire evidence on record, it is found clearly established that appellants, five in number, armed with deadly weapons came to the place of Badriprasad, used force and assaulted him and caused as many as fourteen injuries with multiple fractures. When all the appellants, five in number, assembled on the scene of occurrence armed with deadly weapons like spade, spear, katta and lathi and caused as many as fourteen injuries on the person of Badriprasad as well as number of fractures, it was clearly deducible that they formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of causing grievous hurt to Badriprasad and in prosecution of that common object they assaulted him, no matter which of the appellants caused which injury to him. It is well settled as reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Nathu and others (2003)5 Supreme Court Cases page 537 and Kallu @ Masih and others Vs. State of M.P. reported in (2006)10 Supreme Court Cases page 313 that under Section 149 of Cr.P.C. each member of unlawful assembly is vicariously liable for the criminal act of any other member of that assembly committed in prosecution of common object of such assembly and it is not necessary to record a definite or specific finding as to which one of the members of unlawful assembly caused particular injury. ( 19. ) Thus, in the wake of aforesaid, the conviction of five appellants, namely, Ramfal, Bihari, Kamlesh, Ramswaroop and Ramcharan, as recorded by the trial court under Section 148 and 325/149 of IPC, does not suffer from any infirmity so as to warrant any interference in appeal. ( 20. ) As regards the sentence, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the incident of the case occurred way back in the year 1990 and appellants have already undergone imprisonment for a considerable period, appellant Bihari is presently more than sixty years of age, the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants be reduced to the period undergone by each of them. However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, especially the fact that as many as fourteen injuries with several fractures were caused on the body of Badriprasad and even a senior person, like appellant Biharilal armed with spear, actively participated in the commission of offence, no indulgence and leniency in the sentence is called for. The impugned sentence of imprisonment for one year and three years awarded to each of the appellants for the offences under Section 148 and 325/149 of IPC respectively appear to be quite justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. ( 21. ) Accordingly, the conviction of the appellants and sentences passed on them under Section 148, 325/149 of IPC are hereby affirmed. Appeal being bereft of merit is dismissed. ( 22. ) Appellants are on bail. They shall surrender to their bail bonds to serve out the remaining part of their sentence.