JUDGMENT As per Hon 'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. :- 1. These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 17.9.1993 passed in Sessions Trial No. 103/88 by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur. By the impugned judgment, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced in the following manner with further direction to run the sentences concurrently:- S.No. Accusedl Appellants Conviction Sentences 1. Rameshwar, Roopram, u/s 148 IPC R. I. for I year Govindram, Laxmi u/s 302/149 IPC Imprisonment for life and Prasad, Janiram, (in 2 counts) fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in Hetram, Pardesi & default of payment of fine Jagjivan (All the S.I. for 3 months. appellants) (in 2 counts) 2. Rameshwar (A-6) u/s 326 IPC R.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine S.L for 3 months. 3. Roopram (A-10) u/s 325 IPC R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine S.1. for 3 months. u/s 323 IPC R.I. for 1 year u/s 323 IPC R.I. for 1 year 4. Govindram (A-20) u/s 323 IPC R.I. for I year 5. Janiram (A-1) u/s 326 IPC R.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine S.1. for 3 months. 6. Hetram (A-2) u/s 323 IPC R.I. for 1 year 7. Pardesi (A-4) u/s 324 IPC R.1. for 1 year and fine (in 2 counts) of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine S.I. for 3 months. (in 2 counts) 8. Jagjivan (A-19) u/s 324 IPC R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine S.1. for 3 months. 2. The facts, briefly stated, are as under: Firatram (PW-12) had purchased the lands of Smt. Foolbai, sister of Lehararam Satnami (A-5). There was dispute regarding the said land. Earlier, the reports were also lodged regarding small disputes. In fact, on that account, villagers had divided into two groups. On 25.7.87 at about 3.00 p.m. small children of both the groups quarreled, on which, Sahasram (PW-13) intervened. Hetram (A-2) and Janiram (A-1) quarreled with Sahasram. Janiram assaulted him by tabbal and Hetram assaulted him by lathi. Shatrugan (since deceased) and Supetan - Up-Sarpanch (since deceased) came there for rescue. On 25.7.87 at about 3.00 p.m. small children of both the groups quarreled, on which, Sahasram (PW-13) intervened. Hetram (A-2) and Janiram (A-1) quarreled with Sahasram. Janiram assaulted him by tabbal and Hetram assaulted him by lathi. Shatrugan (since deceased) and Supetan - Up-Sarpanch (since deceased) came there for rescue. Seeing this, the rcmaining accused persons, came there with deadly weapons, all formed an unlawful assembly, participated in rioting and in furtherance ofthe common object of the unlawful assembly committed murder of deceased Supetan and they assaulted Shatrugan, Umedram (PW-16), Sahasram (PW-13), Tirathram (PW-4), Neekram (PW-15), Firatram (PW-12) and Smt. Gangamati (PW11). Supetan, thus lost his life and 7 persons, including deceased Shatrugan who later on died during the course of his treatment, received various injuries in the said incident. At about 8.15 p.m., the matter was reported to the concerned police station by Kamta Prasad (PW-14), on which, the First Information Report (Ex.-P/26) was registered. The FIR contains the names of all the appellants and other accused persons. It also contains' the names of injured eye-witnesses and the deceased with almost full details of the incident. Injured persons were sent for their medical examination through requisition mcmos Ex.- P/78 to Ex.-P/87. They were examined by Dr. P.K. Narula (PW-23). He noticed following injuries on the injured persons: Umedram (PW-16): (i) Incised wound 7 cm x 0.5 cm. on the right parietal region; (ii) Contusion reddish in colour 10 cm x 2 cm on the right scapular region. Injuries were simple. His injury report is Ex.-P/78-A. Shatrugan (later died during the treatment); (i) Incised wound 12 cm x 1.2 cm on right parietal region having fracture of underline bone; (ii) Incised wound 5 cm x 0.8 cm on right occipital region; (iii) Abrasion 3 cm x 1 cm on left leg; (iv) Abrasion 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm on middle 1/3rd portion of left leg; (v) Abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm on the lateral side of left elbow. Injury No.(i) & (ii) were caused by sharp edged weapon, whereas the other injuries were caused by hard and rough object. Injury No.(i) was endangerous to life. His general condition was not good, therefore, he was admitted in the hospital. Injury No.(i) & (ii) were caused by sharp edged weapon, whereas the other injuries were caused by hard and rough object. Injury No.(i) was endangerous to life. His general condition was not good, therefore, he was admitted in the hospital. His injury report is Ex.-P/79-A. Sahasram (PW-13): (i) Incised wound 4 cm x 1 cm on the right parietal region; (ii) Incised wound 6 cm x 0.5 cm on the left parietal region; (iii) Contusion 15 cm x 15 cm on middle of the left thigh; (iv) Contusion 15 cm x 2 cm on the right scapular region; (v) Contusion 15 cm x 2 cm on the left scapular region. Injury No.(i) & (ii) were caused by sharp edged weapon and injuries No. (iii) to (v) were caused by hard and rough object. Injuries No. (ii) to (v) were simple injuries. He was also admitted in the hospital. His injury report is Ex.-P/80-A. Tirathram (PW-4): (i) Incised wound 4 cm x 0.5 cm on right fronto parietal region; (ii) Lacerated wound 1.5 cm x 0.3 cm on the left parietal region; (iii) Contusion on the left forearm having swelling in the arm; (iv) Abrasion 1.2 cm x 0.2 cm on the right forearm; (v) Contusion 4 cm x 2 cm on the right forearm near injury No. (iv) Injury No. (i) was caused by sharp edged weapon, whereas injuries No. (iii) to (v) were caused by hard and rough object. He was advised for X-ray examination of injury No. (iii). Other injuries were simple. His injury report is Ex.-P/81-A. Neekram (PW-15): (i) Incised wound 5 cm x 0.5 cm on the right parietal region; (ii) Contusion 4 cm x 4 cm on the upper portion of right forearm; (iii) Contusion 10 cm x 1.5 cm on the middle of the left forearm. There was severe pain on pressing the radius bone. All the injuries were caused by hard and rough object. Injury No. (i) & (ii) were simple. He was advised for X-ray examination of injury No. (iii). There was severe pain on pressing the radius bone. All the injuries were caused by hard and rough object. Injury No. (i) & (ii) were simple. He was advised for X-ray examination of injury No. (iii). His injury report is Ex.-P/82-A. Firathram (PW-12): (i) Incised wound 2.5 cm x 0.5 cm on the right forearm; (ii) Two contusions of 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm on the right middle finger; (iii) Contusion and swelling on the right forearm; (iv) Abrasion 0.7 cm x 0.5 cm on the lower portion of right thigh; (v) Contusion 5 cm x 5 cm surrounding injury No. (iv). Injury No. (i) was caused by sharp edged weapon, whereas the other injuries were caused by hard and rough object. He was advised for X-ray examination of injury No. (iii). Beside injury No. (iii), all the injuries were simple. His injury report is Ex.-P/83-A. Gangamati (PW-11): (i) Incised wound 15 cm x 5 cm on the front portion of left shoulder. It has spread to the left portion of chest. Fracture of head of humorous was visible. Head of the left humorous was also dislocated. Injuries were grievous. She was also admitted in the hospital. Her injury report is Ex.-P/84-A. On X-ray examination, it was found that Tirathram (PW-4) sustained fracture on his left radius bone. The report is EX.-P/49 and X-ray plate is Ex.-P/50. Gangamati (PW -11) had also sustained fracture on acronym of scapula. Her report is Ex.-P/53 and ray plate is Ex.-P/54. Firatram (PW-12) also sustained fracture on his right ulna. His report is Ex.-P/ 55 and X-ray plate is Ex.-P/56. The dead body of Supetan was examined by Dr. V.C. Sharma (PW2). He noticed following injuries on his body: (i) Lacerated wound 3 cm x 2 cm x 2 cm above left eyebrow; (ii) Lacerated wound 1 cm x % cm x Y2 cm above right 'eyebrow; (iii) Lacerated wound 2 cm x 2 cm on the left fronto parietal region; (iv) Lacerated wound 1 cm x Y2 cm x Y2 cm on the left eyebrow; (v) Defused lacerated wound on the lip; (vi) Incised wound 5 cm x 4 cm x 5 cm on the front portion of the neck; Trachea was completely cut; all blood vessels of left portion of neck were also cut. All the injuries were ante-mortem. All the injuries were ante-mortem. Cause of death was hacmorrhage on account of cutting of blood vessels as also the injuries sustained on trachea. The death was homicidal in nature. The post-mortem report is Ex.-P/5. Shatrugan also died during the course of his treatment on 26.7.87,. His body was also sent for postmortcm examination which was conducted by Dr. H.R. Tharwani (PW-6). He noticed almost similar external injuries like his MLC report on the body of deceased-Shatrugan. On internal examination, he found that there was depressed fracture on the right parietal bone. It was extending to tempero-parietal region. There was another fracture of 8 cm x 1.2 cm on the occipital bone. It has depressed the duramater. Blood clots were found on duramater and the portions of brain beneath the above fractures were badly ruptured. He opined that the above injuries were ante-mortem and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature; cause of death was hacmorrhage on account of the above injuries and injuries to the brain; and the death was homicidal in nature. In further investigation, the accused persons were taken into custody and their memorandum statements (u/s 27 of the Evidence Act) were recorded and various weapons were seized at the instance of the accused persons. The weapons were sent for examination to Doctor, who opined that the injuries caused to the deceased persons as also to the injured witnesses could be caused by above weapons. He advised for chemical examination of the blood like stains carried over the weapons. 3. After completion of the usual investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the 20 accused persons before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, who in turn committed the matter to the concerned Sessions Court, from where, it was received on transfer by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur who conducted the trial. Out of 20 accused persons (A-1 to A-20), one accused (A-7) died during the course of trial and 11 accused persons (A-3, A-5, A8 and A-11 to A-18) were acquitted. However, the above 8 appellants/accused persons (A-1, A-2, A-4, A-6, A-9, A-10, A-19 & A-20) were convicted and sentenced as aforcmentioned. 4. The conviction of the appellants is mainly based on eyewitnesses account of injured witnesses namely- Tirathram (PW-4), Smt. Gangamati (PW11), Firatram (PW-12), Sahasram (PW-13), Neekram (PW-15) and Umedram (PW-16). 5. However, the above 8 appellants/accused persons (A-1, A-2, A-4, A-6, A-9, A-10, A-19 & A-20) were convicted and sentenced as aforcmentioned. 4. The conviction of the appellants is mainly based on eyewitnesses account of injured witnesses namely- Tirathram (PW-4), Smt. Gangamati (PW11), Firatram (PW-12), Sahasram (PW-13), Neekram (PW-15) and Umedram (PW-16). 5. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the evidence of the eye-witnesses are contradictory and there are many omissions in their evidence, therefore, they are unreliable. We have considered the evidence of all the eye- witnesses. Gangamati (PW -11) deposed that when she heard hue and cry, she along with her son Supetan (since deceased), Ghasnin Bai and Tirathram (PW4) reached to the place of occurrence. Supetan was assaulted by Roopram. (A-10) and Govindram (A-20) by lathis. When he fell down Rameshwar (A6) gave tabbal blow on the neck of her son Supetan. Her other son Shatrugan (since deceased) was assaulted by Hetram (A-2) by lathi. When he fell down Janiram (A-1) assaulted him by tangi. Thereafter Rameshwar (A-6) assaulted him by tabbal. When she tried to save her sons, Rameshwar (A-6) assaulted her by tabbal on her shoulder. Mr. Ottalwar has referred to 161 Cr.P.C. statcment (Ex.-D/1) of Gangamati (PW -11). He argued that she did not state the manner of assault as above in her above statement which creates a doubt on her testimony. We find that Gangamati (PW -11) has taken the names of all the appellants in her 161 Cr.P.C. statcment and she has stated that the deceased persons and she herself was assaulted by accused persons who had used lathi, tabbal, pharsi and tangi. The minor omissions relating to manner of using the weapons by the accused persons and sequence of the incident would not make her evidence unreliable. She very clearly deposed that the deceased persons were assaulted simultaneously and she also received injuries in the said assault which was caused to her by Rameshwar (A-6) by tabbal. 6. Tirathram (PW -4) has also taken the names of all the appellants and he has also deposed about the role played by each of them. He deposed that Pardesi (A-4), who was also involved in the assault of the deceased persons, assaulted him by tangi. He has been confronted with his case diary statement (Ex.-D/2). 6. Tirathram (PW -4) has also taken the names of all the appellants and he has also deposed about the role played by each of them. He deposed that Pardesi (A-4), who was also involved in the assault of the deceased persons, assaulted him by tangi. He has been confronted with his case diary statement (Ex.-D/2). We do not find any material omission or contradictions in the evidence of Tirathram (PW-4) so as to treated him as unreliable. 7. Sahasram (PW-13) deposed that Hetram (A-2) assaulted him by lathi. Janiram (A-1) came on the call of He tram (A-2) and 8-10 persons (other accused persons) also came there. Janiram (A-1) assaulted him by tangi. When he cried to save, Shatrugan (deceased), Supetan (deceased) and Gangamati (PW-11) came to the place of occurrence. Seeing them, the accused persons left him and Govindram (A-20) and Roopram (A-10) assaulted deceased- Supetan by lath is. When Supetan fell down, Rameshwar (A-6) assaulted him by tabbal and Laxmi Prasad (A-9) assaulted Supetan by lathi. He very clearly deposed that Janiram (A-I) had assaulted Shatrugan by tangi and Hetram (A-2) had assaulted him by lathi. He further added that Laxmi Prasad (A-9) and Govindram (A-20) also assaulted Shatrugan by lathi. He had mentioned the names of other accused persons also. 8. The evidence of these 3 eye-witnesses are further supported by the evidence of Umedram (PW -16), Neekram (PW -15) and Firatram (FW -12). Firatram also gave details of assault in his court evidence. He has been confronted with the case diary statement (Ex.-D/3) on certain minor points which are not material and on that account, evidence of Firatram (PW -12) and other eye-witnesses cannot be discarded. We find that there are no material contradictions in the evidence of these witnesses and their evidence is not contradictory on the material points as contended by learned counsel for the appellants. 9. It was then argued that conviction of the appellants u/s 302 with the aid of Section 149 IPC is not justified. In Masalti Vs. State of UP. t, the Supreme Court held in Para-I? that "What has to be proved against a person who is alleged to be a member of an unlawful assembly is that he was one of the persons constituting the assembly and he entertained along with the other of the assembly the common object as defined by Section 141 IPC. State of UP. t, the Supreme Court held in Para-I? that "What has to be proved against a person who is alleged to be a member of an unlawful assembly is that he was one of the persons constituting the assembly and he entertained along with the other of the assembly the common object as defined by Section 141 IPC. Section 142 provides that whoever, being aware of facts which render any assembly an unlawful assembly, intentionally joins that assembly, or continues in it, is said to be a member of an unlawful assembly. In other words, an assembly of five or more persons actuated by, and entertaining one or more of the common objects specified by the five clauses of Section 141, is an unlawful assembly. The crucial question to determine in such a case 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 by Section 141. While determining this question, it becomes relevant to consider whether the assembly consisted of some persons who were merely passive witnesses and had joined the assembly as a matter of idle curiosity without intending to entertain the common object of the assembly." 10. In Dharnidhar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others & other connected appeals, taking note of the case of Masaltit (supra), the Supreme Court held that in case where the conviction is with the aid of Section 149 IPC, only question to be determined in such a case is whether assembly consisted of five or more persons and whether said persons entertained one or more of common objects specified in S. 141. For determination of common object, conduct of each of the members of said assembly before attack, at the time of attack and thereafter, as well as motive for crime are relevant considerations. However, time of forming unlawful intent is not material because it is possible that an assembly, which is lawful to begin with, subsequently becomes unlawful. Lastly, it is not even expected of prosecution to assign particular or independent roles played by each accused once it is proved they were members of unlawful assembly and had assaulted deceased resulting in death. 11. Lastly, it is not even expected of prosecution to assign particular or independent roles played by each accused once it is proved they were members of unlawful assembly and had assaulted deceased resulting in death. 11. In the instant case relying on the evidence of the above 6 eyewitnesses, the Sessions Court held that the appellants, armed with deadly weapons like lathi, tangi and tabbal, participated in rioting and they formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of committing murder of the 2 deceased persons. The Sessions Court has analyzed and appreciated the evidence of the above witnesses and examining the conduct of each appellant before the attack, at the time of attack, and thereafter, has determined their common object. The unlawful assembly was formed when Hetram (A-2) assaulted Sahasram (PW-13) and he made a call on which the other appellants came there armed with deadly weapons. They participated in rioting being the members of unlawful assembly and when the complainant party came for rescue of He tram, they made a common object to attack over the 2 brothers (deceased persons) and committed their murder by assaulting them with the weapons carried by them. In Dharnidha? (supra), the Supreme Court held that it is not expected of prosecution witnesses to assign particular or independent roles played by each accused once it is proved that the accused persons were members or unlawful assembly and had assaulted the deceased resulting in death. In the present case, all the above witnesses have deposed about the participation of the appellants. Their conduct at the time of incident would show that they were members of the unlawful assembly and the conviction of the appellants with the aid of Section 149 IPC, therefore, cannot be said to be illegal. 12. It was further argued that Gangamati (PW-11) was mother of the deceased persons, therefore, she was an interested witness and her testimony cannot be held to be reliable. In Namdeo Vs. State of Maharashtra3, the Supreme Court held that a witness who is a relative of deceased or victim of the crime cannot be characterized as 'interested'. The term 'interested' postulates that the witness has some direct or indirect 'interest' in having the accused somehow or other convicted due to animus or for some other oblique motive. The Supreme Court also observed that a close relative cannot be characterized as an 'interested' witness. The term 'interested' postulates that the witness has some direct or indirect 'interest' in having the accused somehow or other convicted due to animus or for some other oblique motive. The Supreme Court also observed that a close relative cannot be characterized as an 'interested' witness. He is a 'natural' witness. His evidence, however, must be scrutinized carefully. If on such scrutiny, his evidence is found to be intrinsically reliable, inherently probable and wholly trustworthy, conviction can be based on the 'sole' testimony of such witness. Close relationship of witness with the deceased or victim is no ground to reject' his evidence. On the contrary close relative of the deceased would normally be most reluctant to spare the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent one. 13. In Dharnidhar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others & other connected appeals2, the Supreme Court further reiterated that there is no hard and-fast rule that family members can never be true witnesses to the occurrence and that they will always depose falsely before court. The Supreme Court held that a close relative of deceased does not, per-se, become an interested witness. An interested witness is one who is interested in securing conviction of a person out of vengeance or enmity or due to disputes and deposes before court only with that intention and not to further cause of justice. However, version of interested witness cannot be thrown overboard, but has to be examined carefully before accepting the same. When their statements find corroboration by other witnesses, expert evidence and circumstances of case clearly depict completion of chain of evidence pointing out guilt of accused, then statements of so-called "interested witnesses" can be relied upon by court. 14. In the instant case; apart from Gangamati (PW-11), there are 5 other eye-witnesses. They have also deposed about the involvement of the appellants. On appreciation of the entire evidence of the above 6 eye-witnesses, we find that neither the evidence of Gangamati (PW -11) can be discarded solely on the ground that she was mother of the deceased persons, nor the evidence of remaining eye-witnesses can be discarded on the other grounds taken in the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants. 15. We note that it was day time incident of about 3-3.30 p.m. The eyewitnesses are the witnesses of the same locality. All the eye-witnesses had received injuries. 15. We note that it was day time incident of about 3-3.30 p.m. The eyewitnesses are the witnesses of the same locality. All the eye-witnesses had received injuries. Their injury reports have also been proved by the Doctor as: above. Therefore, there can be hardly any doubt regarding the presence of the eye-witnesses at the place of occurrence. 16. We further note that the versions of the eye-witnesses are supported, by the medical evidence (injury reports and postmortem reports of the deceased/persons) and there is no discrepancy in the ocular version and medical evidence, which support the credibility of the eye-witnesses. We also note that none of the accused persons sustained injuries in the incident and as many as 8 persons, including the 2 deceased, of the complainant party had sustained the above injuries. From the evidence of above 6 injured eye-witnesses, it is clear that while committing the murder of the 2 deceased persons in furtherance of the common object of the unlawful assembly formed by the appellants, when the witnesses tried to intervene, Rameshwar (A-6) assaulted Gangamati (PW-11) by tabbal causing grievous injury to her; Roopram (A-IO) assaulted Firatram (PW-12) by lathi causing grievous injury to him and he also assaulted Tirathram (PW-4) and Neekram (PW-15) causing simple injuries; Govindram (A-20) assaulted Umedram (PW-16) by lathi causing simple injury; Janiram (A-1) assaulted Sahasram (PW-13) by tangi causing grievous injury; Hetram (A-2) assaulted Sahasram (PW-13) and Pardesi (A-4) assaulted Tirathram (PW-4) and Neekram (PW-15) by tangi causing simple injuries; and Jagjivan (A-19) also assaulted Umedram (PW -16) by tangi causing simple injuries. On this account the versions of the above eye-witnesses are intact and are also corroborated by the medical evidence. The Sessions Court, therefore, has convicted the above appellants under the aforementioned Sections of IPC also, apart from convicting them u/ss 148 & 302/149 IPC in 2 counts. 17 On consideration of the entire material available on record, we do not find any infirmity in the judgment and findings recorded by the Sessions' Court. the appeals filed by the appellants, therefore, are liable to be dismissed and are hereby dismissed. Appeals Dismissed.