JUDGMENT D.N. Patel, J. 1. Both these appeals have been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 22.11.2003 and order of sentence dated 24.11.2003 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Jamtara, in Sessions Case No. 121 of 2002 and 116 of 2002. These appellants have been convicted for life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to be read with Section 149 thereof. They are also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code to be read with Section 149 thereof. They are further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. They all are also convicted under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Further, accused Kutu Mian and Ishaq Mian are convicted for an offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. However, all the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 16.3.2002 the informant Md. Hussain Ansari (PW-9) gave written report to the police that on 16.3.2002 at 5.00 p.m. the father of the informant Jabbar Mian (deceased) returned to his home taking vegetable from Hatia in scooter. Then Md. Ishaq Mian, Samsuddin Mian, Rustam Mian, Barik Mian, Lukman Mian, Kutu Mian, Sahadat Mian, Kadir Mian, Safique Mian, by making unlawful assembly with Tangi, Bhala and rod, came to the door of the informant and started using abusive and filthy languages towards the father of the informant and also told that today they will kill him and when father of the informant tried to stop the accused persons from using abusive and filthy languages, then Ishaq Mian with Tangi in his hand and. Barik Mian and Lukman Mian with rod, tried to kill the father of the informant by assaulting in his head due to which father of the informant got injured and fell on the ground and became unconscious. Barik Mian and Lukman Mian with rod, tried to kill the father of the informant by assaulting in his head due to which father of the informant got injured and fell on the ground and became unconscious. After hearing noise (hulla), the brother of the informant Murslin Mian (deceased) came there but Kutu Mian assaulted brother of the informant with Bhala in his head and Samsuddin Mian and Kadir Mian with rod and Safique Mian with rod assaulted brother of the informant in his back and leg due to which brother of the informant got injured and fell down and became unconscious. Thereafter, brother-in-law Sirajjudin Ansari (PW-3) went there to rescue them, then Kutu Mian assaulted him in the head by Bhala and Sahadat Mian and Kadir Mian with rod assaulted him in his leg and back and injured him. Thereafter, hearing noise the brother of the informant Mobin Mian (PW-5) came there to save them but Safique Mian with lathi and Ishaq Mian with Tangi assaulted him in his head due to which he got injured and when mother of the informant Jarina Bibi (PW-7) came there, then Rustam Mian assaulted in her head with rod and injured her. The informant further alleged that due to fear when he was shouting for help, then Lukman Mian assaulted in his left leg with rod and got him injured. Thereafter, the aforesaid accused persons entered in his shop and took away Rs. 3,000/- from there. The informant further alleged that the reason behind the occurrence is a land dispute and case of dowry going on between the family of accused Sahadat Mian and brother-in-law of the informant Sirajjudin Ansari. Fifteen witnesses were examined by the prosecution. PW-1 Peru Mian He is the eyewitness of the occurrence. PW-2 Abid Mian He is the eyewitness of the occurrence. PW-3 Md. Sirajjudin Ansari He is the injured eyewitness of the occurrence. PW-4 M.A. Sattar He is the doctor who has conducted the Post mortem of the dead bodies of Murslin Mian and Jabbar Mian and Droved their post mortem reports i.e. marked as Ext.-1 and Ext.-1/1 respectively. PW-5 Mobin Ansari He is the son of deceased Jabbar Mian and is injured eyewitness of the occurrence. PW-6 Majid Mian He is the eyewitness of the occurrence. PW-7 Jarina Bibi She is the wife of deceased Jabbar Mian and is injured eyewitness of the occurrence. PW-5 Mobin Ansari He is the son of deceased Jabbar Mian and is injured eyewitness of the occurrence. PW-6 Majid Mian He is the eyewitness of the occurrence. PW-7 Jarina Bibi She is the wife of deceased Jabbar Mian and is injured eyewitness of the occurrence. PW-8 Matu Mian He is the hearsay witness. PW-9 Md. Hussain Ansari He is the informant of this case and is also the son of deceased Jabbar Mian. He is the injured eyewitness of the occurrence. He has proved his signature in the fardbeyan i.e. marked as Ext.-2 and he has also proved the signature of Tayub Ansari and Shyamlal Murmu in the fardbeyan i.e. marked as Exts.2/1 and 2/1 respectively. PW-10 Rajendra Prasad Singh He is the doctor who was posted as Medical Officer at Narayanpur. He has examined the injury of Sirajjudin Ansari, Murslin Ansari (deceased), Jarina Bibi, Jabbar Ansari (deceased), Mobin Ansari and Hussain Ansari and also proved their injury reports i.e. marked as Exts.-3, 3/1, 3/2, 3/3, 3/4 and 3/5 respectively. PW-11 Pradip Kumar Das He is the doctor who was posted as a Senior Medical Officer at Satkuria Hospital. He referred Jabbar Mian to Central Hospital, Dhanbad. He has proved the refer letter i.e. marked as Ext.-4. PW-12 S.K. Gutgutia He is the doctor who is the Incharge of Popular Nursing Home, Jamtara. He has examined Jabbar Ansari and Murslin and also referred them to Central Hospital, Satkuria and has proved the refer letters i.e. marked as Exts.-4/1 and 4/2 respectively. PW-13 Nalini Ranjan Mahapatra She is the doctor who is posted at Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad as Medical Superintendent. She has proved the injury report of Sirajjudin in writing and signature of Dr. S.K. Sinha and has also proved the injury report i.e. marked as Exts.-4/3 and 4/4 respectively. PW-14 Timir Hasan Goldar He is Assistant Sub Inspector of Police posted at Narayanpur Police Station and is Investigating Officer of this case. He has proved the formal First Information Report i.e. marked as Ext.-5 and has proved the endorsement of Sri Madan Mohan Prasad Sinha, Officer-in-Charge of Narayanpur Police Station in written information i.e. marked as Ext.-2/3. He has proved the Inquest Reports of Jabbar Mian and Murslin Mian i.e. marked as Exts.-6 and 6/1. PW-15 Madan Mohan Prasad Sinha He was posted as Officer-in-Charge of Narayanpur Police Station. 3. He has proved the Inquest Reports of Jabbar Mian and Murslin Mian i.e. marked as Exts.-6 and 6/1. PW-15 Madan Mohan Prasad Sinha He was posted as Officer-in-Charge of Narayanpur Police Station. 3. It is submitted by the counsel for appellants in the appeals that there were major omissions, contradictions and improvements in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned trial Court and hence, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is also submitted by the counsel for the appellants that there are major omissions and contradictions, so far as, the weapons used by the accused persons is concerned. The medical evidence and the ocular evidence are contrary to each other. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellants that accused Ishaq Mian and accused Samsuddin Mian were having Tangi and Bhala as alleged by the prosecution, whereas, rest of the accused persons were having either iron rod or lathi. Therefore, the case of Ishaq and Samsuddin may be separated from rest of the accused persons. The so called eyewitnesses and other eyewitnesses of the incident are the relative of the deceased. In fact, there were other eyewitnesses also as per the narration of the witnesses, but they have not been examined by the prosecution. Thus, no independent witnesses have been examined by the prosecution in this case. It is also submitted by the counsel for the appellants that there were disputes between the accused persons and the victims and therefore, there are all chances of false implication of the accused persons. These aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the learned trial Court and, hence the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. It is submitted by the APP appearing for the State that no error has been committed by the learned trial Court in appreciating the evidences on record. The prosecution has proved the offence of murder of the deceased persons which have been committed by the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. 4. It is submitted by the APP appearing for the State that no error has been committed by the learned trial Court in appreciating the evidences on record. The prosecution has proved the offence of murder of the deceased persons which have been committed by the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. It is further submitted by the APP that the case of the prosecution is based upon several eyewitnesses and out of seven eyewitnesses, four eyewitnesses are injured eyewitnesses and they are PW-3, PW-5, PW-7 & PW-9. Their injury certificates have also been proved with the help of medical evidence given by the doctors. It is submitted by the APP that accused persons came together armed with lethal weapons in their hands. They assaulted the victims and other injured eyewitnesses so severely that two persons expired and four have sustained injuries. Therefore, rightly they have been punished for the offence of murder to be read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Every member of the unlawful assembly is also guilty of an offence committed by them in prosecution of their common object. It is submitted by the APP that there is no discrepancy between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence whatsoever. The accused persons were aggressive in nature, whereas, the victims had no weapons in their hands. Accused persons came at the residence of the victims and those who have tried to save the lives of the deceased, they were also assaulted by the accused persons. Counsel for the State APP has taken this Court meticulously to the evidences given by the prosecution witnesses Nos. 1 to 15 and has submitted that the eyewitnesses including the injured eyewitnesses have clearly stated the role played by these appellants in causing murder of the deceased persons. The medical evidence is also corroborative to the evidence of the eyewitnesses and hence, these appeals may not be entertained by this Court. 5. We have also heard the learned counsel appearing for the informant who has canvassed his argument against the appellants and have submitted that all these accused persons came with a common object to commit murder of the deceased and those who have tried to save the lives of the deceased persons, they have also been assaulted and this is how there are four injured eyewitnesses to the incident. Thus, all these appellants are members of unlawful assembly. Thus, all these appellants are members of unlawful assembly. Counsel for the informant has also opined that there is no discrepancy between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence. It is submitted by the informant that PW-6 is brother of one of the accused, namely, Kutu Mian and is a brother-in-law of the deceased Jabbar Mian. Counsel for the informant has also stated that injury certificates of all the injured eyewitnesses have been proved and they are at Exts.-3, 3/2, 3/4 and 3/5 for the injuries of PW-3, PW-7, PW-5 & PW-9 respectively and has submitted that no error has been committed by the learned trial Court in appreciating these evidences on record and the prosecution has proved the offence of murder of the deceased persons committed by these appellants beyond all reasonable doubts and hence, these appeals may not be entertained by this Court. 6. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the evidence on record, we see no reason to entertain both these appeals for the following facts, reasons, evidences of record and the judicial pronouncements:- (i) It is the case of the prosecution that PW-9 Md. Hussain Ansari informed the police on 16.3.2002 that at about 5.00 p.m. when his father Jabbar Mian (deceased) returned to his home after purchasing vegetables from Hatia. At that time, Md. Ishaq Mian, Samsuddin Mian and other appellants came at the house of Jabbar Mian with weapons like Tangi, Bhala, iron rod, etc. They came at the door of PW-9 and started abusing in filthy languages to the father of the informant and they were also shouting that they will kill the father of the informant. When father of the informant tried to stop the accused persons from using abusive and filthy languages, Ishaq Mian assaulted with Tangi and Barik Mian and Lukman Mian assaulted with iron rod to the father of the informant. Jabbar Mian, father of the informant, sustained head injury and fell down on the ground. He became unconscious. After hearing the noise, brother of the informant, namely, Murslin Mian (deceased), rushed there, but, Kutu Mian assaulted the brother of the informant with Bhala on his head and Samsuddin Mian and Kadir Mian assaulted with iron rod. Jabbar Mian, father of the informant, sustained head injury and fell down on the ground. He became unconscious. After hearing the noise, brother of the informant, namely, Murslin Mian (deceased), rushed there, but, Kutu Mian assaulted the brother of the informant with Bhala on his head and Samsuddin Mian and Kadir Mian assaulted with iron rod. Safique Mian assaulted with iron rod to the brother of the informant on his back and leg, due to which the brother of the informant sustained injury and fell down. He also became unconscious. Thereafter, the brother-in-law of the informant namely Sirajjudin Ansari (PW-3) tried to rescue them, but accused Kutu Mian assaulted this PW-3 on his head by Bhala and Sahadat Mian and Kadir Mian assaulted with iron rod on his leg and back and injured him. Thereafter, hearing noise the brother of the informant, namely, Mobin Ansari (PW-5) rushed there to save the victims, but, Safique Mian assaulted PW-5 with lathi, Ishaq Mian assaulted PW-5 with Tangi on his head, due to which PW-5 was also injured. Similarly, mother of the informant, namely Jarina Bibi. (PW-7) also rushed there, but Rustam Mian assaulted her with iron rod and injured her. It is further stated by the informant (PW-9) that because of this assault, he was also shouting for help, but accused Lukman Mian assaulted the informant (PW-9) with iron rod on his left leg and PW-9 was also injured. Thereafter, these accused persons entered in the shop and had taken Rs. 3,000/- from there. It has been stated by PW-9 to the police that the reason for the assault is land dispute as well as the case of dowry going on between the family of the accused Sahadat Mian and the brother-in-law of the informant, namely Sirajjudin Ansari (PW-3). Upon recording the aforesaid fardbeyan in detail, the First Information Report was lodged on the same day within couple of hours. Upon recording the aforesaid fardbeyan in detail, the First Information Report was lodged on the same day within couple of hours. The investigation was carried out by Narayanpur Police Station of District-Jamtara, charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons and Sessions Case No. 121 of 2002 and 116 of 2002 was committed to the Court of Sessions and upon recording the evidences of PW-1 to PW-15 and also on the basis of other documentary evidence on record, the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Jamtara, has convicted these appellants vide order dated 22.11.2003 and has punished them vide order dated 24.11.2003 mainly for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to be read with Section 149 thereof, as well as the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code to be read with Section 149 thereof, and also for an offence punishable under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and also they have been punished for an offence under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. Kutu Mian and Ishaq Mian are convicted for an offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Against judgment of conviction and order, of sentence, the present appeals have been preferred. (ii) Thus, from the aforesaid facts on record, it appears that the case of the prosecution is based upon several eyewitnesses, out of which PW-3, PW-5, PW-7 and PW-9 are injured eyewitnesses whereas PW-1, PW-2 and PW-6 are uninjured eyewitnesses. Doctor who has proved the injury reports of the injured eyewitnesses is PW-10 Dr. Rajendra Prasad Singh. There are other doctors who have been examined are PW-11, PW-12 and PW-13, who made references from one hospital to another for further treatments. PW-12 is a doctor who treated at the Hospital Jamtara, PW-11 is a doctor who treated at Satkauria Hospital and PW-13 is a doctor who has treated at Dhanbad Hospital. Thus, we shall examine the depositions of the injured eyewitnesses first. (iii) Looking to the deposition given by PW-3, PW-5, PW-7 and PW-9, it appears that they have sustained injuries when they were trying to save the lives of the two deceased persons. Jabbar Mian and Murslin Mian have expired because of assault by the appellants. Thus, we shall examine the depositions of the injured eyewitnesses first. (iii) Looking to the deposition given by PW-3, PW-5, PW-7 and PW-9, it appears that they have sustained injuries when they were trying to save the lives of the two deceased persons. Jabbar Mian and Murslin Mian have expired because of assault by the appellants. Looking to the depositions of these injured eyewitnesses and their cross-examination, it appears that they have clearly narrated the role played by these appellants-accused. The appellants came with lethal weapons in their hands like Tangi (a sharp-cutting instrument), Bhala, Iron-rod and lathi. Thus, they came together, they came at the residence of the victims and the victims had no weapon in their hands as per the evidence on record. Thus, the appellants were aggressive in nature. Moreover, they came together, they assaulted Jabbar Mian and Murslin Mian as well as PW-3, PW-5, PW-7 and PW-9. Looking to the further evidences of these injured eyewitnesses, they were also shouting to kill the father of the informant, who is Jabbar Mian. Thus, there was a common object of this unlawful assembly of the appellants. Looking to their cross-examination, nothing is coming out in favour of these appellants. There is no major omission, contradiction or improvement in their deposition, looking to the evidence given by PW-14 and PW-15, who are the police witnesses. The assault by the appellants upon both the deceased and upon all the four injured eyewitnesses remained intact and as it is, even during cross-examination of these injured eyewitnesses. Moreover, looking to the deposition before the learned trial Court, their presence at the scene of offence is a natural one. We see no reason to disbelieve these injured eyewitnesses. They are trustworthy and reliable witnesses and no• error has been committed by the learned trial Court in appreciating the deposition of PW-3, PW-5, PW-7 and PW-9. (iv) Looking to the deposition of PW-10 Dr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, who was a Medical. Officer at Narayanpur, who has examined Sirajjudin Ansari (PW-3) and Murslin Mian (deceased), Jarina Bibi (PW-7), Jabbar Ansari (deceased), Mobin Ansari (PW-5) and Hussain Ansari (PW-9), he has proved the injury report of PW-3, PW-5, PW-7 and PW-9 as well as the injury reports of both the deceased and they are at Exts.-3, 3/1, 3/2, 3/3, 3/4 and 3/5. Officer at Narayanpur, who has examined Sirajjudin Ansari (PW-3) and Murslin Mian (deceased), Jarina Bibi (PW-7), Jabbar Ansari (deceased), Mobin Ansari (PW-5) and Hussain Ansari (PW-9), he has proved the injury report of PW-3, PW-5, PW-7 and PW-9 as well as the injury reports of both the deceased and they are at Exts.-3, 3/1, 3/2, 3/3, 3/4 and 3/5. Thus, the injury of the injured eyewitnesses have been proved by the deposition of PW-10 Dr. Rajendra Prasad Singh. Their presence at the scene of the offence is also established. (v) Looking to the deposition given by PW-12 Dr. S.K. Gutgutia, he is the Doctor Incharge of Popular Nursing Home at Jamtara. He has examined Jabbar Ansari (deceased) and Murslin Mian (deceased) and has referred them to the Central Hospital, Satkauria and has proved the letters of his reference and they are at Exts.-4/1 and 4/2. PW-13 is Dr. Nalini Ranjan Mahapatra. She is a doctor at Bharat Coking Coal Limited Hospital, Dhanbad. She was a Medical Superintendent at the relevant time and she has proved the injury certificate of Sirajjudin Ansari (PW-3) which was in the handwriting of Dr. SK Sinha. Looking to the deposition of PW-4 Dr. M.A. Sattar, who has carried out post mortem of the dead bodies of Murslin Mian and Jabbar Mian and the post mortem reports are at Exts.-1 and 1/1. Looking to the post mortem report of Murslin Mian, following were the injuries upon the dead body of Murslin Mian:- (a) Sharp cut injury on the top of head. Stitched and dressed. Lower size of injury 3½" x 1" brain matter deep with blood clots. Blackish red colour of the wound. (b) Dressing on right forearm. Mark of Intra-venous saline. On dissection –– (a) Head-Sharp cut injury on the top of head, cutting skin, muscle, blood vessels, nerves and back of frontal skull bone and right medial parietal bone. Brain matter pale. (b) Chest-Lungs and heart both pale. (c) Abdominal Dissection Stomach about six ounce fluid and full of gas was present. (d) Intestine-Fluid and gas present. Liver, spleen and kidneys were pale. Urinary bladder empty. External genitalia intact and NAD (no abnormal Detected). Time elapsed since death at the time of post mortem within thirty six hours. In the opinion of the doctor, the death was due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of above noted injury caused by sharp substance. Liver, spleen and kidneys were pale. Urinary bladder empty. External genitalia intact and NAD (no abnormal Detected). Time elapsed since death at the time of post mortem within thirty six hours. In the opinion of the doctor, the death was due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of above noted injury caused by sharp substance. The aforesaid post mortem report is Ext.1. Similarly, this doctor also carried out post mortem of dead body of deceased Jabbar Mian and has recorded the following injuries:- (a) Stitched and dressed injury on the top of head. (b) Dressed injury with stitched on the right forehead. (c) Needless prick mark on right cubital fossa. On dissections –– (a) Skull-Sharp cut injury on the top of head, cutting skin, muscles, right mideal parietal skull bone as well as blood, vessels and nerves. Size of wound 4" x 11/2" brain matter deep with blood clots and colour is blackish red and brain matter was pale. Lacerated injury on the right forehead. Skin lacerated muscle and blood vessels nerves with fracture of right forehead bone. (b) Chest-Lungs and heart pale. (c) Abdomen-Stomach-above eight ounce fluid and gas. (d) Intestine-Fluid and gas. Liver, spleen and kidneys are pale. External genetalia-NAD (no abnormal Detected) Time elapsed in death with thirty six hours from the time of post mortem. Opinion-Death was due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of above noted head injury caused by both sharp cutting substance as well as hard and blunt substance. Sharp cutting weapons means may be like Tangi. For hard and blunt substance it may be Iron rod and lathi. (vi) In view of the aforesaid evidences given by PW-4 and other doctors, as stated herein above, who have proved injuries sustained by PW-3, PW-5, PW-7 and PW-9, they are corroborative to the depositions of the injured eyewitnesses. (vii) Counsel for the appellants submitted that in the evidence given by PW-4 and in the evidence given by PW-10, there is a discrepancy, especially, so far as usage of weapon is concerned. As per PW-4, the weapon used is sharp-cut instrument, whereas, as per PW-10, the weapon used is hard and blunt substance. This contention is not accepted by this Court mainly for the reason that this is a narration of the injuries sustained by Murslin Mian (deceased). Murslin Mian was initially given treatment by PW-10 at Narayanpur. As per PW-4, the weapon used is sharp-cut instrument, whereas, as per PW-10, the weapon used is hard and blunt substance. This contention is not accepted by this Court mainly for the reason that this is a narration of the injuries sustained by Murslin Mian (deceased). Murslin Mian was initially given treatment by PW-10 at Narayanpur. He has observed in his deposition that Murslin Mian (deceased) was examined on the date of occurrence at about 8.00 p.m. and had an injury on his right parietal region of scull bone and according to this witness PW-10, the said injury was capable of being caused by hard and blunt substance and, therefore, he has referred the patient to Sadar Hospital, Jamtara. The injury report of Murslin Mian (deceased) proved by PW-10 is at Ext.-3/1, whereas, it is submitted by the counsel for the appellants that when the dead body of Murslin Mian was post-mortemed by PW-4, he observed a head injury and upon dissection he found that same was sharp cutting injury. The counsel for the appellants is harping upon these two depositions of PW-10 and PW-4 and has submitted that there is a discrepancy between these two depositions. This contention is not helpful to the appellants mainly for the reason that the doctors are giving the expert's evidence under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The doctors are not the eyewitnesses of the incident at all. The case of the prosecution is based on the evidence of as many as seven eyewitnesses out of which four are the injured eye witnesses. Looking to the deposition of the injured eyewitnesses PW-3, PW-5, PW-7 and PW-9, we see no reason to give any benefit to these appellants, merely because PW-10 has narrated that head injury sustained by deceased Murslin Mian is capable of being caused by hard and blunt substance, whereas the doctor PW-4, who has carried out post mortem of Murslin Mian, has narrated the head, injury as sharp cutting injury. However, there is slight discrepancy between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence and when ocular evidence is given by trustworthy and reliable witnesses, moreover, when they are injured eyewitnesses, the weightage shall be given to the ocular evidence. However, there is slight discrepancy between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence and when ocular evidence is given by trustworthy and reliable witnesses, moreover, when they are injured eyewitnesses, the weightage shall be given to the ocular evidence. Even otherwise also, when all these appellants were assaulting together with several weapons in their hands upon two deceased persons and four injured prosecution witnesses and when every injured eyewitness is trying to save the life of himself/herself and when they are trying to save the lives of others, Court cannot expect photographic memory from them. The mathematical nicety and statistical accuracy is not required to be given by the injured eyewitnesses for each and every injury with a proper matching of the weapons. (viii) It is submitted by the counsel for the appellants that the case of Ishaq Mian and Samsuddin Mian may be separated from rest of the appellants and others may be given the benefit. This contention is also not accepted by this Court mainly for the reasons, that:- (a) Looking to the evidence on record of injured eyewitnesses PW-3, PW-5, PW-7 and PW-9, these appellants came together. (b) They all came with lethal weapons in their hands. (c) They came at the residence of the victims. (d) They all caused injuries either upon two deceased persons and/or upon the injured eyewitness. Thus, all of them have participated in causing injuries. Thus, they formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object of all of that assembly, they caused murder of the deceased persons and those were saving lives of the deceased, to them also they caused injuries. Thus, the whole common object was so strong of this unlawful assembly that they have not spared even to the interveners who are injured eyewitnesses PW-3, PW-5, PW-7 and PW-9. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Trial Court in punishing the appellants under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to be read with Section 149 thereof, as well as in punishing under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code to be read with Section 149 thereof and also they are rightly punished for an offence under Sections 147 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code. Similarly, Kutu Mian and Ishaq Mian have also been correctly punished and convicted for offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Similarly, Kutu Mian and Ishaq Mian have also been correctly punished and convicted for offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. All these appellants are the members of unlawful assembly and they are vicariously liable of the act of the other members of the unlawful assembly, because, all of them have a common object and in furtherance of their common object, both murders have been committed and four persons have sustained injuries. (ix) It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2013 (1) East. Cr. Cases 313 (SC) in paragraph 19 as under:- "19. Once the claim of absence of premeditation is rejected, the only other submission was that the appellants, if at all they were aggrieved, it was only against PW-11 Hansa Singh and the deceased Amarjit Singh unfortunately fell prey in the process and therefore, there was no common object involved in order to attract Section 149 IPC. Again this was a submission which was one in desperation. Even going by the submission of the learned counsel, if the accused party had a motive as against Hansa Singh (PW-11) that very fact was sufficient enough to bring the action of the accused party in having caused injuries on the witnesses and other persons as well as the cause for the death of the deceased Amarjit Singh to squarely rope them in the process of their common object. Section 149 provides that if offence is committed by a member of an unlawful assembly in commission of the object of that assembly then every person who at the time of committing of that offence is a member of that assembly would be guilty of that offence. In this context, it will be worthwhile to refer to the earliest decision on this subject in Mizaji vs. State of U.P. wherein this Court has held as under:- "6. This section has been the subject-matter of interpretation in the various High Courts of India, but every case has to be decided on its own facts. The first part of the section means that the offence committed in prosecution of the common object must be one which is committed with a view to accomplish the common object. This section has been the subject-matter of interpretation in the various High Courts of India, but every case has to be decided on its own facts. The first part of the section means that the offence committed in prosecution of the common object must be one which is committed with a view to accomplish the common object. It is not necessary that there should be a preconcert in the sense of a meeting of the members of the unlawful assembly as to the common object, it is enough if it is adopted by all the members and is shared by all of them. In order that the case may fall under the first part the offence committed must be connected immediately with the common object of the unlawful assembly of which the accused were members. Even if the offence committed is not in direct prosecution of the common object of the assembly, it may yet fall under Section 149 if it can be held that the offence was such as the members knew was likely to be committed." (Emphasis added) In view of the aforesaid decision, if a member of unlawful assembly has committed an offence as a common object of the unlawful assembly, all the members of the unlawful assembly are responsible as they have shared the common object. (x) It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Onkar and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 2 SCC 273 : 2012 (1) JLJR (SC) 497, in paragraphs 21, 22, 23 and 24 as under:- "21. We do not find any force in the submission made by Shri Upadhyay, learned Senior Counsel that in the facts and circumstances of the case the provisions of Section 149 IPC were not attracted, for the reason that this Court has been very cautious in the catena of judgments that where general allegations are made against a large number of persons the court would categorically scrutinise the evidence and hesitate to convict the large number of persons if the evidence available on record is vague. It is obligatory on the part of the court to examine that if the offence committed is not in direct prosecution of the common object, it may yet fall under the second part of Section 149 IPC, which states that if the offence was such as the members knew was likely to be committed. Further inference has to be drawn as to the number of persons involved in the crime; how many of them were merely passive witnesses; what arms and weapons they were carrying along with them. The number and nature of injuries is also relevant to be considered. Common object may also be developed at the time of incident. 22. In Chandra Bihari Gautam vs. State of Bihar, this Court while dealing with a similar case held as under:- "8. Section 149 has two parts. First part deals with the commission of an offence by a member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly and the second part deals with the liability of the members of the unlawful assembly who knew that an offence was likely to be committed in prosecution of the object for which they had assembled. Even if the common object of the unlawful assembly is stated to be apprehending Nawlesh Singh only, the fact that the accused persons had attacked the house of the complainant at the dead of night and were armed with deadly weapons including the guns and used petrol bombs, proves beyond doubt that they knew that in prosecution of the alleged initial common object, murders were likely to be committed. The knowledge of the consequential action in furtherance of the initial common object is sufficient to attract the applicability of Section 149 for holding the members of the unlawful assembly guilty for the commission of the offence by any member of such assembly. In this case the appellants, along with others, have been proved to have formed an unlawful assembly, the common object of which was to commit murder and arson and in prosecution of the said common abject they raided the house of the informant armed with guns and committed offence. In this case the appellants, along with others, have been proved to have formed an unlawful assembly, the common object of which was to commit murder and arson and in prosecution of the said common abject they raided the house of the informant armed with guns and committed offence. The courts below have, therefore, rightly held that the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly, the common object of which was to commit murder of the informant and his family members and in prosecution of the said common object six persons were killed. The appellants were also proved to have hired the services of some extremists for the purposes of eliminating the family of the complainant." 23. The witnesses have deposed that not a single article was looted nor had any attempt been made to commit dacoity, rather it has been specifically stated that all the assailants/ miscreants declared that no one would be left alive and had been exhorting one another to eliminate all. All the assailants came together and participated in the crime in which Onkar Singh was killed, and Tarawati and Chandra Bose were injured. The assailants tried to break open the door of the house but could not succeed, thus they fired from the ventilator and that is why Tarawati and Chandra Bose got injured. After commission of the offence a large number of persons gathered at the place of occurrence. The assailants ran away. The offence was committed at midnight. Therefore, after reading the entire evidence collectively inference can safely be drawn that the assailants had an object to commit murder of persons on the victims' side and they participated in the crime. 24. Thus, the graveness of charges against the appellants that they in concert with the other accused to achieve a common object entered into the house of the complainant, stood proved." In view of the aforesaid decision also, when the accused persons were armed with weapons and they all have come together and they all have participated in the crime, an inference can be drawn that they are members of unlawful assembly. Looking to the evidence of the eyewitnesses, these appellants came together, they came with varieties of weapons in their hands like Tangi (sharp-cutting instrument), Bhala, Iron-rod and lathi. Moreover, they came at the doorstep of the victims. Thereafter, they started shouting with abusive and filthy languages. Looking to the evidence of the eyewitnesses, these appellants came together, they came with varieties of weapons in their hands like Tangi (sharp-cutting instrument), Bhala, Iron-rod and lathi. Moreover, they came at the doorstep of the victims. Thereafter, they started shouting with abusive and filthy languages. They were giving threat to the father of the informant (PW-9) to kill him and thereafter, assault was started, two persons expired and four were injured. Therefore, they all are members of unlawful assembly and their common object was to cause murder of the deceased persons. (xi) It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in. the case of Shyam Babu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 8 SCC 651 in paragraph 22 as under:- "22. This Court has repeatedly held that the version of an eyewitness cannot be discarded by the court merely on the ground that such eyewitness happened to be a relative or friend of the deceased. It is also stated that where the presence of the eyewitnesses is proved to be natural and their statements are nothing but truthful disclosure of actual facts leading to the occurrence, it will not be permissible for the court to discard the statement of such related or friendly witnesses. To put it clear, there is no bar in law on examining family members or any other person as witnesses. In fact, in cases involving family members of both sides, it is a member of the family or a friend who comes to rescue the injured. If the statement of witnesses, who are relatives or known to the parties affected is credible, reliable, trustworthy and corroborated by other witnesses, there would hardly be any reason for the court to reject such evidence merely on the ground that the witness was a family member or an interested witness or a person known to the affected party or friend, etc. These principles have been reiterated in Mono Dutt vs. State of U.P. and Dayal Singh vs. State of Uttaranchal." (Emphasis supplied) In view of the aforesaid decision, the deposition given by the related witnesses cannot be brushed aside mechanically by the Court, but the Court has to view the deposition of related witnesses closely and if they are found reliable and trustworthy on the basis of their deposition if the offence is proved beyond all reasonable doubts the accused can be punished. In the facts of the present case, the witnesses are relatives, but they are injured eyewitnesses also. The injury certificates have also been proved with the help of PW-10 Dr. Rajendra Prasad Singh and looking to their cross-examination, nothing is coming out in favour of the appellants as a major omission, contradiction or improvement. When we have read their depositions vis-a-vis the deposition given by police witnesses who are PW-14 and PW-15 we cannot brush aside the deposition of these related witnesses. (xii) It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Hanuman, AIR 2001 SC 282 in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 as under:- "8. We have carefully perused the judgments passed by the learned Sessions Judge and by the High Court. We are of the view that both the reasons stated by the High Court in the impugned judgment are unsustainable. The position is well settled that evidence of eyewitness cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they relatives of the deceased. Normally close relations of the deceased are not likely to falsely implicate a person in the incident leading to the death of the relation unless there are very strong and cogent reasons to accept such criticism. Further, from the testimony of the two ladies Smt. Badam and Chhoti whose presence at the spot was not disputed by the defence, it is clear that they have described the incident in a clear and graphic manner. They have categorically asserted that respondent Hanuman gave three blows with his axe on the head of Panchu. Though the witnesses were subject to searching cross-examination nothing material could be elicited from them which may cast a doubt on their credibility. The learned trial Judge who had the opportunity of marking their demeanour in the court assessed their evidence and did not find any good reason to discard their testimony. In the circumstance the High Court committed an error in discarding their testimony on this ground. 9. The other question that arises is whether the ocular evidence of PWs-1 and 2 is against the medical evidence in the case. In the circumstance the High Court committed an error in discarding their testimony on this ground. 9. The other question that arises is whether the ocular evidence of PWs-1 and 2 is against the medical evidence in the case. The High Court has answered the question in the affirmative going by the statement of the two eyewitnesses that Hanuman gave three blows on the head of the deceased Panchu with the axe but the doctor, PW-5 found only one injury on the head of the deceased. PW-5 found the following injuries on the deceased:- "(i) Lacerated wound of (sic) cm x 2.5 cm bone-deep on the occipital region at skull in oblique direction with multiple fractures of occipital bone in small pieces with a cut 2-cm long on skull. Small portion of brain was also seen. (ii) The small abrasions on the left side of forehead over an area of 4 cm x 4 cm. (iii) Abrasions 1.5 cm x 1 cm on the roof of nose. All the above injuries were ante-mortem in nature. As per external injury with a little clot under the scalp there were multiple fractures of the occipital bone. There was laceration of membranes under Injury 1. There was a laceration 4 cm x 2 cm x 2 cm on brain in the occipital region just below Injury 1 with a blood clot. The cause of death was shock due to severe haemorrhage from laceration of brain and multiple fracture of occipital bone. The above injuries were inflicted by a blunt weapon. These injuries could be inflicted by the blunt side of a spade or an axe. Injury 1 was sufficient in the ordinary nature to cause death." 10. From the evidence of PW-5 it is clear that the injury found on the head of the deceased was possible if the blow was struck with the blunt side of the axe and the said injury was sufficient in ordinary course to cause death. The learned Sessions Judge adverting to the contention of the defence regarding improbability of the version of the eyewitnesses observed that their statement to the effect that three blows with the axe dealt on the head of the deceased cannot be correct and it appears that only a single blow was given on the head. The learned Sessions Judge adverting to the contention of the defence regarding improbability of the version of the eyewitnesses observed that their statement to the effect that three blows with the axe dealt on the head of the deceased cannot be correct and it appears that only a single blow was given on the head. It is relevant to note here that other injuries have also been found by the doctor on the face and shoulder of the deceased. Reading the statement of the eyewitnesses and the evidence of the doctor we do not find any serious contradiction between the two which may form the basis for discarding the testimony of the eyewitnesses. The High Court, in our view, was clearly in error in rejecting the ocular evidence on that ground." In the light of the aforesaid evidence on record, the Court has checked the credibility of the interested witnesses but, merely because they are interested witnesses, their deposition cannot be brushed aside. Looking to the evidence of the eyewitnesses, they are reliable and trustworthy witnesses and even though they are related witnesses, some of them are injured eyewitnesses also. Therefore, we are not inclined to brush aside their deposition in totality. Moreover, looking to paragraphs 9 and 10 of this decision, if there is a slight discrepancy between ocular evidence and medical evidence, the ocular evidence should be given weightage. In the aforesaid decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, eyewitnesses narrated three head injuries, whereas, as per the medical evidence, there was only one head injury, whereas in the facts of the present case, there is a slight discrepancy in the narration of the head injury by PW-4 and PW-10. PW-10 says that head injury sustained by deceased Murslin Mian was capable of being caused by hard and blunt substance, whereas PW-4 who has carried out post mortem of body of Murslin Mian, has narrated the head injury sustained by Murslin Mian was a sharp-cutting injury. This is the only discrepancy as narrated by the counsel for the appellants. We see no reason to give any benefit of this discrepancy to the appellants especially looking to the deposition of eyewitnesses and more particularly of the injured eyewitnesses. This is the only discrepancy as narrated by the counsel for the appellants. We see no reason to give any benefit of this discrepancy to the appellants especially looking to the deposition of eyewitnesses and more particularly of the injured eyewitnesses. (xiii) Once the members are forming an unlawful assembly and if they are committing different offences in prosecution of their common object of unlawful assembly, every member is vicariously liable for the offence committed by another member of unlawful assembly. The facts of the present case and looking to the evidence on record, all these appellants have formed unlawful assembly and they have committed murder of two deceased persons and have caused injuries to four injured eyewitnesses in prosecution of the common object of that unlawful assembly. Hence, they are rightly punished by the trial Court. (xiv) It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that all the accused persons have not caused any injury upon the deceased persons. Some of them have caused injuries to the injured eyewitnesses. Even if the case of the prosecution is taken on its highest pitch and therefore, they may be benefited for the lesser offences. This contention is also not accepted by this Court mainly for the reason that, as stated herein above, they have formed an unlawful assembly and they have committed offence in prosecution of the common object of that assembly. (xv) Looking to the further deposition given by PW-1, PW-2 and PW-6 who are uninjured eyewitnesses of the incident, they have clearly stated the role played by the appellants in causing two murders and causing injuries to the PW-3, PW-5, PW-7 and PW-9. These witnesses have also proved the documentary evidence, place of occurrence, time of occurrence and have proved the weapons in the hands of the appellants. Looking to their cross-examination, nothing is coming out in favour of these appellants. On the contrary, looking to their cross-examination, the examination-in-chief remained intact and as it is. Their deposition is also corroborative to the deposition of other injured witnesses. Looking to the depositions of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-6, their presence at the scene of offence is wholly natural and we see no reason to disbelieve these eyewitnesses. Looking to their depositions, vis-a-vis given by the police witnesses PW-14 and PW-15, there is no major omission, contradiction or improvement in their depositions. Looking to the depositions of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-6, their presence at the scene of offence is wholly natural and we see no reason to disbelieve these eyewitnesses. Looking to their depositions, vis-a-vis given by the police witnesses PW-14 and PW-15, there is no major omission, contradiction or improvement in their depositions. They are trustworthy and reliable witnesses and their depositions have been correctly appreciated by the learned trial Court. (xvi) The prosecution has also established the motive. There was a land dispute as well as looking to the First Information Report and the deposition of the eyewitnesses, there was a dispute between the family of accused Sahadat Mian and Sirajjudin Ansari (PW-3), brother-in-law of the informant (PW-9). (xvii) Counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no independent eyewitness examined by the prosecution. This contention is also not helpful to the appellants mainly for the reason that merely because the witnesses are relative, that does not mean that their evidence should be discarded in totality by the Court. If they are relative, their deposition will be viewed with all circumspection by the Court. As stated herein above, we have perused the depositions of the eyewitnesses closely and even looking to their cross-examination, to be read with deposition given by police witnesses PW-14 and PW-15, they are trustworthy and reliable and they have proved the offence of murder committed by these appellants to the deceased persons beyond all reasonable doubts. Likewise, they have also proved the offence committed by the appellants under Sections, 307, 147 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code to have been committed by accused Kutu Mian and Ishaq Mian. Moreover, looking to paragraph 24 of PW-7, there was nobody outside the house and therefore also, there were no other witness available for the prosecution. 7. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and evidences on record and the judicial pronouncements, no error has been committed by the learned trial Court in convicting these appellants as per the order passed by the learned trial Court. The prosecution has proved, the offence of murders as well as under Sections 307, 147, 148 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, as stated herein above, beyond all reasonable doubts. The prosecution has proved, the offence of murders as well as under Sections 307, 147, 148 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, as stated herein above, beyond all reasonable doubts. We, therefore, hereby uphold the decision of the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Jamtara, passed in Sessions Case No. 121 of 2002 and 116 of 2002 dated 22-24.11.2003. Bail bond of Md. Samsuddin Mian, bail hand of Md. Barik Mian, bail bond of Lukman Mian, bail bond of Kadir Mian and bail bond of Safique Mian are hereby cancelled and they are directed to surrender forthwith to the judicial custody. These accused persons shall surrender to the learned trial Court forthwith. The rest of the appellants, namely Sahadat Mian, Md. Rustam Mian, Md. Ishaq Mian and Kutu Mian, they are already in judicial custody. We hereby direct the State to take proper steps to send the aforesaid persons in jail those whose bail bonds have been cancelled by this Court. These appeals are hereby dismissed.