JUDGMENT As per Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. :- 1. These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 5th of June, 1997 passed in Sessions Trial No. 375/92 by the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur. By the impugned judgment, the appellants were convicted and sentenced in the following manner with a direction to run the sentences concurrently :- Conviction Sentence u/Ss 302/149 IPC (in 4 counts) Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/- u/Ss 307/149 IPC (in 2 counts) R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs.3,000/- with default sentence of S.I. for 1 year u/Ss 324/149 IPC (in 3 counts) R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs.2,000/- with default sentence of S.I. for 6 months u/Ss 323/149 IPC (in 2 counts) R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs.1,000/- with default sentence of S.I. for 3 months 2. The facts, briefly stated, are as under :- 2.1 Eleven (11) accused persons (A-l to A-11) were tried for the offences punishable u/Ss 302/149 (in 4 counts), 307/149 (in 2 counts), 324/149 (in 3 counts) & 323/149 IPC (in 2 counts). The allegations are that on 8.6.1992 at about 11.45 a.m., they formed an unlawful assembly and in furtherance of the common object of the said assembly committed murder of 4 deceased persons namely- Adhindas, Fatte, Rameshwar and Mohani, attempted to the lives of Padum (PW -15) & Dilip Kumar (PW8), caused hurt by dangerous weapons to Satrughan (PW-14), Mani Ram (PW-4) & Roopchand (PW-25) and caused simple hurt to Moo1chandra (PW -6) & Resham (PW -7). 2.2 Village- Dayalpur and Bandhwa are adjacently situated. There was parti-bandi in these villages. One party was belonging to Kejaha Satnami and the other party was belonging to Adhindas. On 8.6.1992 at about 9.30 a.m., Kejaha Satnami, father of Satrughan (A-9) and Lakhan (A-10), was murdered and an offence was registered. An other offence for committing mischief by fire was also registered. For investigation of the said offences, a police party, comprising S.I., Sanjay Tiwari (PW21 - S.H.O.), A.S.I., Chotelal Pandey (PW-20) and Constable, Virendra Kumar (PW-24), had reached to village Dayalpur and investigation was being conducted. The police party was interrogating the deceased and injured persons of this case by camping near Jaitkham. For investigation of the said offences, a police party, comprising S.I., Sanjay Tiwari (PW21 - S.H.O.), A.S.I., Chotelal Pandey (PW-20) and Constable, Virendra Kumar (PW-24), had reached to village Dayalpur and investigation was being conducted. The police party was interrogating the deceased and injured persons of this case by camping near Jaitkham. 2.3 The allegations are that the accused persons, who were belonging to the party of deceased- Kejaha, gathered, near his dead body, put Tika on their forehead by blood of deceased- Kejaha and sworn that they shall take revenge (saying that ^^[kwu dk cnyk [kwu ls gh ysaxs^^ ) and shall commit murder of the persons belonging to the party of Adhindas (deceased person). At about 11.45 a.m., the accused persons (A-1 to A-11), all of a sudden, appeard near Jaitkham and attacked over the complainant party who were present with the police. The accused persons were armed with lathi and tabbal etc. They surrounded the persons of the complainant party and started assaulting them. Four (4) persons of the complainant party namely- Adhindas, Fatte, Rameshwar and Mohani sustained multiple serious injuries and succumbed to those injuries. Other persons present there namely - Padum (PW-15), Dilip Kumar (P.W-8), Satrughan-(PW-14), Mani Ram (PW-4), Roopchand(P.W-25), Moolchandra (PW-6) and Resham (PW -7) also sustained multiple injuries. When the incident was going on, S.I., Sanjay Tiwari (PW-21) and two other police officers, A.S.I., Chotelal Pandey (PW-20), and Constable, Virendra Kumar (PW-24) tried to intervene, but the accused persons did not hear them. The persons of police party fired many rounds in the air from their services revolver to stop the accused persons and to prevent the incident, but the accused persons attacked over the police party also. They assaulted A.S.I., Chotelal Pandey (PW-20) by tabbal who had sustained injury. Constable, Virendra Kumar (PW -24) had also sustained injuries. They also attacked over S.I., Sanjay Tiwari (PW-21) and somehow their lives were saved. For attempting to the lives of above police personnels, a separate offence u/Ss 148, 307/149 and 333/149 IPC was also registered against the accused persons which became the subject matter of Sessions Trial No. 49/93 in which they were convicted by the Sessions Court. 2.4 S.I., Sanjay Tiwari (PW-21) immediately recorded Dehatinalishi (Ex.-P/52), based on which, First Information Report (F.I.R. Ex.-P/51) was registered. 2.4 S.I., Sanjay Tiwari (PW-21) immediately recorded Dehatinalishi (Ex.-P/52), based on which, First Information Report (F.I.R. Ex.-P/51) was registered. Notices (Ex.-P/24, P/26, P/28 & P/30) to the Panchas were issued and inquest(s) (Ex.-P/25, P/27, P/29 & P/31) were prepared and the dead bodies were sent for post-mortem. The postmortem examinations were conducted by Dr. N.S. Chandel (PW-2). He noticed following injuries on the dead bodies of the deceased persons:- 2.4.1 Deceased Mohani : (i) Incised wound of 6 x 3 cm x bone deep on the right scapular region, scapula was broken into 3 pieces; (ii) Contusion of 10 x 4 cm on the lower right portion of the back; (iii) Incised wound of 6 x 3 cm x bone deep on the occipital region having fracture of underlying bone; (iv) Lacerated wound of 3.5 x 2 cm x bone deep on the right parietal region; (v) Lacerated wound of 10 x 3 cm x bone deep on the right occipito-parietal region, underlying occipital bone was broken into several pieces, brain matter had come out; & (vi) Multiple wounds of teeth-bite (5 in number) on the upper portion of left forearm. On internal examination, it was found that there were multiple fractures over occipital and parietal bones. Brain membrane has ruptured; brain matter has come out, many blood clots were present on right and left occipital region. According to him injury no. (i) & (iii) were caused by sharp edged weapons and other injuries were caused by hard and rough weapons and teeth-bite. The injuries were ante-mortem and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The cause of death was injuries to the skull and brain and the death was homicidal in nature. His postmortem report is Ex.-P/6. (i) & (iii) were caused by sharp edged weapons and other injuries were caused by hard and rough weapons and teeth-bite. The injuries were ante-mortem and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The cause of death was injuries to the skull and brain and the death was homicidal in nature. His postmortem report is Ex.-P/6. 2.4.2 Deceased- Rameshwar : (i) Lacerated wound of 6 x 4 cm x bone deep on the left occipital region; (ii) Incised wound of 5 x 3 cm x bone deep on the right parietal region, underlying bone was broken into many pieces, the brain matter has come out; (iii) Lacerated wound of 3 x 2 x 2 cm on the left parietal region; (iv) Lobe of right ear-pinna was completely cut; (v) There was swelling of 10 x 8 cm around the right eye, the eye was blackish; (vi) Abrasion of 6 x 5 cm on the right portion of back; & (vii) Abrasion of 10 x 1 cm on the right thigh. On internal examination, it was found that blood clots were present on right parietal and occipital regions; there were multiple fractures on right parietal and occipital bones; some pieces of bones have pierced into brain tissue; right parietal and occipital lobes of the brain were ruptured. All the injuries were ante-mortem. Injury no. (i), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi) & (vii) were caused by hard and rough object and injury no. (ii) was caused by sharp edged weapon. The cause of death was injury to the skull and brain and death was homicidal in nature. His postmortem report is Ex.-P/7. All the injuries were ante-mortem. Injury no. (i), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi) & (vii) were caused by hard and rough object and injury no. (ii) was caused by sharp edged weapon. The cause of death was injury to the skull and brain and death was homicidal in nature. His postmortem report is Ex.-P/7. 2.4.3 Deceased- Adhindas : (i) Swelling of 6 x 4 cm on the right portion of forehead, right eye blackish; (ii) Swelling of 8 x 3 cm on the right forearm; (iii) Swelling of 5.5 x 2 cm on the left forearm; (iv) Swelling of 12 x 2 cm on the lower portion of right leg; (v) Swelling of 16 x 2 cm on the right portion of chest; (vi) Swelling on the right portion of chest at the position of 3rd, 4th, 5th & 6th ribs, on pressing it was appearing with the ribs were broken; (vii) Lacerated wound of 5 x 2 x 2 cm near left eyebrow; (viii) Left ear-pinna was torn; & (ix) Lacerated wound of 4 x 2 x 2 cm on the left occipital region. On internal examination, blood clots were found on left temporal parietal and occipital regions, brain membrane was reddish, blood clots were found over the brain membrane; there were fractures over 3rd & 6th ribs; a piece of rib has broken and pierced into left lung; thoracic cavity was full of blood; trachea was also full of blood. All the injuries were ante-mortem caused by hard and rough object. They were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The cause of death was injuries to the brain and lung and the death was homicidal in nature. His postmortem report is Ex.-P/8. 2.4.4 Deceased- Fatte : (i) Swelling over the right forearm. It was appearing that there were fractures over the bones; (ii) Abrasion of 12 x 2 cm on the left portion of back; (iii) Left ear-pinna was torn, the ear passage was full of blood; (iv) Incised wound of 4.5 x 3 cm x bone deep on the occipital region, there was fracture on the underlying bone; & (v) Incised wounds of 8 x 3 cm x bone deep on the left parietal region, there was fracture on the underlying bone. On internal examination, it was found that there was sub-dural haemorrhage in the cerebral region; there were fractures over the right parietal and occipital bones; the injuries were ante-mortem; injury-no. (i), (ii) & (iii) were caused by hard and blunt object and injury no. (iv) & (v) were caused by sharp edged object. These injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The cause of death was injury to the skull and brain and the death was homicidal in nature. His postmortem report is Ex.-P/9. 2.5 Injured persons were also sent for their medical examinations. Following are the injuries sustained by the injured persons:- 2.5.1 Injured- Dilip (PW -8); (i) Incised wound-of 11 x 3 x 3 cm over back part of right shoulder joint, margins clean cut and regular. The above injury was caused by hard and sharp cutting object. His MLC report is Ex.-P/5. He was advised for X-ray examination. On X-ray examination, it was found that there was corresponding fracture on acromian process. His X-ray report is Ex.-P/61. He was admitted in the hospital from 9.6.1992 and was discharged on 21.6.1992. Discharge ticket is Ex.-P/63. 2.5.2 Injured- Padum (PW-15) : (i) Incised wound of 5 x ½ x ½ cm on temporo-parietal area; (ii) Swelling and tenderness over left forearm; (iii) Pain, swelling and tenderness over right forearm; (iv) Abrasion over right side of elbow; & (v) Abrasions over both sides of right knee. On X-ray examination, it was found that there was a fracture over his left ulna. X-ray report is Ex.-P/62. 2.5.3 Injured- Satrughan (PW-14); (i) Incised wound of 15 x 5 x 5 cm on the left portion of back and back portion of left forearm, margins, regular, red in colour, It was simple injury caused by sharp edged weapon. His MLC report is Ex.-P/l. 2.5.4 Injured- Mani Ram (PW-4) : (i) Incised wound of 5 x 8 x 8 cm (bone deep) on the left portion of skull, margins regular, red in colour; (ii) Abrasion of 3 x 1 cm on the left patella, red in colour; (iii) Incised wound of 1 x 5 x 5 cm on the upper portion of left leg, red in colour; & (iv) Abrasion of .8 x .8 cm on the middle of the nose, red in colour. Injury no. (i) & (iii) were caused by sharp edged weapon and injury no. Injury no. (i) & (iii) were caused by sharp edged weapon and injury no. (ii) and (iv) were caused by hard and rough object. All the injuries were simple injuries. His MLC report is Ex.-P/2. 2.5.5 Injured- Roopchand (PW-25) : (i) Incised wound on the back portion of left shoulder joint, margins regular, red in colour; blood was coming out. The injury was caused by sharp edged weapon. X- ray examination was advised. Cut injuries were found over superior aspect of left shoulder and articular surface of head of humorous. He was admitted in the hospital from 9.6.1992 to 21.7.1992. Surgery was performed. Discharge ticket is Ex.-P/64 and bed-head-ticket is Ex.-P/65. 2.5.6 Injured- Moolchandra (PW -6) : (i) Lacerated wound of 3 x .8 x .5 cm on the left portion of skull, margins regular, red in colour. It was simple injury caused by hard and rough object. His MLC report is Ex.-P/3. 2.5.7 Injured- Resham (PW-7) : (i) Two bruises of 7 x 2.7 cm and 5 x 2.5 cm on the back portion of right side of chest; & (ii) Abrasion of 3.5 x 2 cm on the back portion of right forearm, red in colour. Both injuries were simple injuries caused by hard and rough object. His MLC report is Ex.-P/4. 2.6 The case of the prosecution was based on 16 eyewitnesses, including the above injured witnesses as also the police personnels who were also injured. The learned Sessions Judge relied on the testimonies of these witnesses and held that it was proved beyond all reasonable doubts that the accused persons had formed an unlawful assembly and had committed the above offences in furtherance of the common objects of the said assembly. The accused persons, thus, were convicted and sentenced as above. 3. Accused- Babudas (A-3) had also filed a separate appeal. However, he died during the pendency of the appeal, therefore, his appeal has abated. Thus, the remaining 10 accused persons are before us. 4. Mr. Abhay Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, has argued that formation of an unlawful assembly and the appellants being members thereof was not proved; common object(s) were also not proved; the witnesses were not reliable; and the appellants have been falsely implicated. Alternatively, he argued that it was a case of free-fight. Complainant party was aggressor and the accused persons inflicted injuries in right of private defence. Alternatively, he argued that it was a case of free-fight. Complainant party was aggressor and the accused persons inflicted injuries in right of private defence. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Sudhir Bajpai, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the State, has opposed these arguments and supported the judgment passed by the Sessions Court. 6. We have heard counsel for the parties. 7. Let us firstly remind the principles relating to "Unlawful Assembly" & "Common Object(s)". 8. 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 members 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. The two ingredients of Section 149 are (i) commission of offence by members of unlawful assembly; and (ii) such offence must be in prosecution of common object of that assembly, or must be such as members of that assembly knew it to be likely to be committed. For determining common object the conduct of each member of unlawful assembly before and at the time of attack is relevant consideration; object of unlawful assembly is a question of fact which has to be determined keeping in view nature of assembly, arms carried by members, and behaviour of members at or near scene of incident. The common object does not require a prior concert and a common meeting of minds before attack. The common object does not require a prior concert and a common meeting of minds before attack. It is enough if each member has same object and all act in assembly to achieve that object. Common object has to be ascertained from acts, and language of members and from consideration of all surrounding circumstances. For determination of the common object, conduct of each member of unlawful assembly, before and at the time of attack and motive of crime are some of the relevant considerations. The 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 (Vide: Masalti Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 202 ; Pandurang Chandrakant Mhatre and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 10 SCC 773 ; Sikandar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar, 2010 AIR SCW 4426 and Dharnidhar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others & other connected appeals, (2010) 7 SCC 759 . 9. Now we shall examine the case of the appellants. 10. The first set of evidence was of injured eye-witnesses namely- Padum (PW-15), Dilip Kumar (PW-8), Satrughan (PW-14), Mani Ram (PW-4), Roopchand (PW-25), Moolchandra (PW=6) and Resham (PW-7). 11. Padum (PW-15) deposed that "Accused- Awadh Ram (A-1) had committed mischief by fire in the Pairawat (paddy-straw) of deceased- Fatte. A report was lodged in police station Lalpur. On this/report, the police party had visited their village. On the date of the present incident, the police party including Thanedar Tiwari (PW -21) had called them near Jaitkham. Rameshwar, Fatte, Mohani & Adhindas (4 deceased persons), Bawachha, Roopchand (PW-25), Dilip (PW-8), Mani Ram (PW-4), Yashkumar, he himself and many other (about 16 persons) were present there. At that time, Awadh Ram (A-1) and Satprasad (A-7) came there. Satprasad (A-7) was holding a tabbal and Awadh Ram (A-1) was holding a lathi. They attacked over them. Other accused persons belonging to their party namely- Khilawan (A-6), Phoolchand (A-8), Ramsahayak (A-5), Bhanu (A-2), Babudas (A-3), Bhagrai (A-11), Bhagbali (A-4), Lakhan (A-10) and Satrughan (A-9) also came there with lathi. Firstly Awadh Ram (A-1) assaulted Moolchandra (PW-6) by lathi. Moolchandra fell down. They attacked over them. Other accused persons belonging to their party namely- Khilawan (A-6), Phoolchand (A-8), Ramsahayak (A-5), Bhanu (A-2), Babudas (A-3), Bhagrai (A-11), Bhagbali (A-4), Lakhan (A-10) and Satrughan (A-9) also came there with lathi. Firstly Awadh Ram (A-1) assaulted Moolchandra (PW-6) by lathi. Moolchandra fell down. Thereafter Awadh Ram (A-1) assaulted his father, Mohani (deceased), by lathi. Satprasad (A-7) assaulted him by tabbal and Bhanu (A-2) assaulted him by lathi. His father fell down receiving their injuries. Then Satrughan (A-9), Khilawan (A-6), Bhanu (A-2) and other accused persons attacked over Fatte (deceased). He also fell down on account of assault. Rameshwar (deceased) was also attacked by Phoo1chand (A-8), Ramsahayak (A-5), Babudas (A-3), Satrughan (A-9) etc. by lathi. He had also fell down after receiving the injuries. Adhindas (deceased) was also assaulted by Babudas (A-3), Satprasad (A-7), Khilawan (A-6), Ramsahayak (A-5) by lathi and tabbal. He also fell down on account of injuries sustained by him. After assaulting the above deceased persons, the accused persons had assaulted him and they had also assaulted Dilip (PW-8), Roopchand (PW-25) and Adhindas (deceased). While the accused persons were assaulting them, the police officers present there, fired in the air. Mohani, Adhindas, Rameshwar and Fatte (4 deceased persons) had died instantaneously. When he wanted to run away, he was stopped by the police officers". Padum (PW -15) was formally cross-examined by the defence. Only 1 question was asked to him which he (Padum) admitted that on the same day Kejaha was also murdered and he was an accused in the said case. 12. The evidence of Padum (PW -15) was duly corroborated by the evidence of other injured witnesses namely- Dilip Kumar (PW -8), Satrughan (PW-14), Mani Ram (PW-4), Roopchand (PW-25), Moolchandra (PW-6) and Resham (PW-7), who deposed in similar fashion. Nothing material could be elicited in the cross examinations of these witnesses, on which, either their testimonies may be discarded or it may be said that they were falsely implicating the accused persons in the said incident. These witnesses were injured witnesses, therefore, their presence at the place of occurrence cannot be doubted. They have given details regarding manner of assault given to the deceased and injured persons. They have also taken specific names of the accused persons, who, in fact, had assaulted them as also the deceased persons. Thus their evidence assume importance (Vide: Balraje Alias Trimbak Vs. They have given details regarding manner of assault given to the deceased and injured persons. They have also taken specific names of the accused persons, who, in fact, had assaulted them as also the deceased persons. Thus their evidence assume importance (Vide: Balraje Alias Trimbak Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2010)6 SCC 673 , and Abdul Sayeed Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & other connected matters, (2010) 10 SCC 259 . Mr. Tiwari also could not point out any infirmity in the evidence of these witnesses. 13. Their evidence was further corroborated by the postmortem reports of 4 deceased persons as also MLC reports of these witnesses and the evidence of Dr. Anil Kumar Gupta (PW-1) and Dr. N.S. Chandel (PW-2), who found above injuries of their persons as also on the dead bodies of the deceased persons. 14. Not only this, their evidence was also corroborated by the evidence of 3 police- officers, which was the second set of eye-witnesses, which we shall now discuss. 15. S.I., Sanjay Tiwari (PW-21) has deposed that on the fateful day, he was present in the village for investigation of the mischief case. He was told that persons belonging to complainant party of this case have committed murder of Kejaha Satnami in village Bandhwa. He sent Constable- Rampratap to village Bandhwa. Along with the remaining staffs, he came to village Dayalpur. Bhanu (A-2) S/o Kejaha met him near Jaitkham. Bhanu (A-2) lodged a report of death of his father which he recorded in Dehatinalishi. Then, he went to the house of Adhindas and Melaram, where he met Adhindas, Moolchandra, Fatte, Rameshwar, Mohani, Roopchand, Dilip etc. He called them near Jaitkham for interrogation. When he was interrogating them, accused persons namely- Awadh Ram (A-1) and Satprasad (A-7) came there from the front side and other accused persons namely-Bhanu (A-2), Ramsahayak (A-5), Babudas (A-3), Satrughan (A-9), Phoolchand (A-8), Bhagrai (A-11), Bhagbali (A-4) etc. came from other side. They were armed with lathi and tabbal. They attacked over Moolchandra (PW -6) etc. When he tried to intervene, they also attacked over police party. The police persons accompanying him sustained injuries. After attack over the above persons when they were trying to assault Ramadhar, he and A.S.I. Pandey fired 2 rounds in the air from their service revolver. When the accused persons did not stop, they again fired 2 rounds in the air. 16. The police persons accompanying him sustained injuries. After attack over the above persons when they were trying to assault Ramadhar, he and A.S.I. Pandey fired 2 rounds in the air from their service revolver. When the accused persons did not stop, they again fired 2 rounds in the air. 16. Similar is the evidence of A.S.I., Chotelal Pandey (PW-20) and Constable, Virendra Kumar (PW-24). 17. These police witnesses were also put to cross-examination by the defence, but nothing material could be brought in their cross-examinations. We note that for the injuries sustained by the police persons a separate offence was registered against the accused persons which became the subject matter of Sessions Trial No. 49/93 in which also the accused persons were convicted by the Sessions Court. 18. The 3rd set of evidence was of the eye-witnesses who did not receive any injury and witnessed the incident from a very short distance. They were Champa Bai (PW -10), Ramadhar Chakradhari (PW -5), Lilva (PW -9) and Santram Kotwar (PW-12). 19. Champa Bai (PW-10) deposed that "On the fateful day, she was sitting near the place of incident. Adhindas, Patte, Rameshwar and Mohani (4 deceased persons) were present there. The accused persons had attacked over them by lathi and tab bal. Accused Awadh Ram (A-1) and Satprasad (A7) had open the assault and thereafter other accused had also assaulted. Police personnels were also present there. They were also assaulted by the accused persons. She had seen the incident from a very short distance". Champa Bai (PW -10) is wife of Moolchandra (PW -6). In cross-examination, she admitted that Moolchandra (PW-6) was an accused in case of murder of Kejaha Satnami. Her evidence was corroborated by the evidence of Ramadhar Chakradhari (PW5), Lilva (PW-9) and Santram Kotwar (PW-12). 20. In appreciation of the entire evidence on record, we find that there was a parti-bandi in these villages (village-Dayalpur and Bandhwa). The accused persons were members of the party belonging to Kejaha Satnami (who had earlier died) and the deceased(s) and injured persons were members of the party belonging to Adhindas (deceased). In the morning at about 9.30 a.m. Kejaha Satnami was murdered and in retaliation thereof, the accused persons attacked over the deceased(s) and injured persons at about 11.45 a.m. when they were called for interrogation by the police near Jaitkham of village Dayalpur. Accused persons were armed with lathi and tabbal. In the morning at about 9.30 a.m. Kejaha Satnami was murdered and in retaliation thereof, the accused persons attacked over the deceased(s) and injured persons at about 11.45 a.m. when they were called for interrogation by the police near Jaitkham of village Dayalpur. Accused persons were armed with lathi and tabbal. They were 11 in number. They, all of a sudden, reached to the place of occurrence and attacked over the persons of deceased(s) party by the above deadly weapons and 4 persons belonging to deceased(s) party were murdered and 7 persons were injured. The witnesses have taken the names of all the accused persons. When the police party tried to intervene, the accused persons had attacked over the members of the police party, who also sustained injuries. The police party had to fire many rounds in the air, but even after that the accused persons did not stop the assault and caused above injuries to the injured and the deceased persons. The above conduct of the accused-persons would show that they were the members of unlawful assembly and they had committed murdered of 4 deceased persons and caused injuries to 7 injured persons in furtherance of the common object(s) of the said assembly. 21. Mr. Tiwari has argued that it was a case of free-fight. The above argument cannot be accepted in view of the fact that none of the accused persons sustained any injury in the said incident. It was tried to canvass that as the complainant party of this case had attacked over Kejaha Satnami (deceased), the accused party had also attacked over them in right of private defence. The above argument, in light of the prevailing circumstances, cannot be accepted because both the incidents took place at two different places and there was a long time gap. The first incident took place in village Bandhwa at about 9.30 a.m., whereas, the present incident took place in village Dayalpur at about 11.45 a.m. It appears that after the first incident, the accused persons, with a view to take revenge, formed an unlawful assembly, armed themselves with deadly weapons and thereafter attacked over the persons belonging to the deceased(s) party in a planned manner which was in furtherance of their common object(s). 22. We are of the view that the learned Sessions Judge was fully justified in convicting the accused persons under the aforementioned Sections of IPC. 23. 22. We are of the view that the learned Sessions Judge was fully justified in convicting the accused persons under the aforementioned Sections of IPC. 23. For the foregoing reasons, we do riot find any substance in these I appeals. The appeals are liable to be dismissed and are hereby dismissed. Appeals Dismissed.