Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1450 (GAU)

Pulen Phukan v. State of Assam

2015-11-21

B.K.SHARMA, P.K.SAIKIA

body2015
JUDGMENT : P.K.Saikia, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21.12.2013, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh in Sessions Case No. 27/2007 convicting the appellants, namely, (1) Sri Pulen Phukan, (2) Sri Jiten Phukan, (3) Sri Dulen Phukan, (4) Sri Mridul Saikia @ Midul Saikia , (5) Sri Kiran Saikia, (6) Sri Bayen Saikia @ Baren Saikia, (7) Sri Haren Saikia, (8) Sri Haranath Saikia, (9) Sri Jiban Chetia, (10) Sri Kuleswar Chetia, & (11) Sri Mojen Phukan of offences u/s 147/148/447/323/302/149 IPC and sentencing them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default, to suffer RI for 1 (one) months for offences under Sections 302/149 IPC and also sentencing them to suffer RI for another 6 (six) months for each of offences under Sections 147/447/323 IPC. 2. Being aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with the judgment aforesaid, the appellants aforementioned (hereinafter also referred to as 'accused persons') preferred this appeal citing several infirmities in the judgment under challenge. 3. We have heard Mr. N.J. Das learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. K. Mazumdar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 4. The facts, necessary for disposal of the present appeal, in short, are that on 13.06.1989 at about 12 O' Clock, one Nareswari Phukan and Rabi Phukan and Smti Jugomaya Phukan of village Pulunga Napam in the district of Dibrugarh, were gossipping in their house after taking meal. Then the appellants aforementioned along with 2 (two) others, namely, Dhagen Phukan and Muhiram Phukan came to the house of the persons aforesaid armed with deadly weapons and made a search for their brother, namely, Pradip Phukan, since deceased. 5. Seeing those accused persons and others coming to their house in a menacing manner, Pradip Phukan fled from his house and took shelter in the house of one Bhuban Phukan, a neighbour of the victim. However, all those persons aforesaid chased the victim to the house of Bhuban Phukan and inflicted wounds on him by both blunt and sharp instruments which resulted in his instantaneous death. 6. To that effect, an FIR was lodged with O/C, Chabua Police Station by one Smti. Nareswari Phukan (PW 1). However, all those persons aforesaid chased the victim to the house of Bhuban Phukan and inflicted wounds on him by both blunt and sharp instruments which resulted in his instantaneous death. 6. To that effect, an FIR was lodged with O/C, Chabua Police Station by one Smti. Nareswari Phukan (PW 1). On receipt of the FIR, OC, Chabua Police Station registered a case vide Chabua Police Station P.S. No. 70/89 147/148/149/447/302/326/342 IPC and ordered one Sri Dhirendranath Saikia, SI of Police to investigate the case. 7. Being so entrusted with the investigation, Sri Saikia visited the place of occurrence, conducted inquest on the dead body, sent the same to hospital for post mortem examination, did other things needful including arrest of accused persons and on conclusion of investigation, he submitted charge-sheet u/s 147/148/149/447/326/302 IPC against as many as 13 accused persons showing 5 (five) of them as absconders therein. 8. When the charge sheet was laid before the Magistrate, the learned Magistrate secured attendance of as many as 11 accused persons and thereafter committed the case to the Court of Session, Dibrugarh for disposal of the same in accordance with law. 9. The learned Sessions Judge after committal of the case and on hearing the learned counsel for the parties was pleased to frame charges under Sections 147/148//149/447/326/302 IPC against accused persons and charges, so framed, on being read over and explained to accused persons, they claimed to be tried denying the allegations levelled against them. 10. During trial, the prosecution had examined as many as 7 (seven) witnesses. The statements of accused persons u/s 313 CrPC were recorded. The plea of accused persons was of total denial. They, however, declined to adduce any evidence in their defence. 11. On conclusion of trial and on hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the court below was pleased to convict accused persons of offences u/s 147/148/447/323/302/149 IPC and sentenced them to punishment as aforesaid. It is that judgment which has been assailed in the present appeal. 12. Mr. N.J. Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellant quite arduously submits that the judgment in question cannot be sustained for reasons more than one. In that connection, it has been submitted that the evidence, rendered by PWs on very vital points, are contradictory. It is that judgment which has been assailed in the present appeal. 12. Mr. N.J. Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellant quite arduously submits that the judgment in question cannot be sustained for reasons more than one. In that connection, it has been submitted that the evidence, rendered by PWs on very vital points, are contradictory. In support of such contention, it has been stated that though PW 1, Smti Nareswari Phukan and PW 2, Rabi Phukan depose that the fatal blow on the victim was administered by Pulen Phukan, PW 3, Smt. Jugomaya Phukan and PW 4, Smti Anjana Phukan depose that the fatal blow on the victim was administered by one Dulen Phukan. 13. Since those PWs rendered very contradictory statements qua assailants who inflicted fatal blows on the victim on the noon in question, their evidence should not have been accepted by the learned Trial Court. Since it was not done, the judgment of the trial Court needs to be quashed and set aside on this count alone. 14. It has also been alleged that though the witnesses contended that all accused persons had participated in the crime under consideration, yet, none of the prime prosecution witnesses uttered the names of all accused persons who allegedly participated in the crime in question. Since the prime prosecution witnesses did not describe accused persons by names, it raises a serious doubt about the persons who actually participated in the crime in question, which, in turn, requires the court below to view the entire prosecution case with suspicion. 15. It has also been alleged that police was also present when the alleged incident was going on. Evidence, rendered by PW1 and PW3 makes such position clear. According to learned counsel for the appellants, it is quite absurd to say that accused persons had committed such a heinous crime despite there being police personnel at the PO on the noon aforesaid. This also raises a grave doubt about the authenticity of the entire prosecution case. 16. The learned counsel for the appellants further submits that there was enmity between appellants and the victim and his family since before the alleged incident. Actually, on the fateful day, the victim sustained injuries not in the hands of accused persons herein but he was attacked, injured and killed by other persons. 16. The learned counsel for the appellants further submits that there was enmity between appellants and the victim and his family since before the alleged incident. Actually, on the fateful day, the victim sustained injuries not in the hands of accused persons herein but he was attacked, injured and killed by other persons. But due to his previous enmity, the informant (PW 1) falsely lodged the case against the appellants and two others. 17. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the prosecution could not prove that there was an assembly of more than 5 (five) persons at the PO on the fateful noon, the object of which was to kill the victim. Furthermore, the prosecution also could not prove who actually inflicted the fatal blow on the victim and as such, the accused/appellants could not have been convicted of offence u/s 302 with the aid of Section 149 IPC. 18. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellants has relied on the following decisions:- 1. K.M. Ravi and Ors. v. State of Karnataka reported in (2009) 16 SCC 337 . 2. Debashis Daw and Ors. v. State of West Bengal reported in (2010) 9 SCC 111 . 19. In K.M. Ravi (Supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows :- "The learned Judges of the High Court, in our view, though rightly interfered with the acquittal of A-2, the same could not be said of the reversal of the finding of acquittal in respect of the other accused including A-4 whose conviction also could only be sustained in respect of the offence under Section 324 IPC for causing injury to PW 1. The attempt to connect all the accused with the murder of the deceased invoking Section 149 IPC on the basis of a parrrot-like repetition of an alleged exhortation to finish the deceased on this arrival at the place of worship seems to be far-fetched. Mere presence or association with other members alone does not per se be sufficient to hold every one of them criminally liable for the offences committed by the others unless there was sufficient evidence on record to show that one such also intended to knew the likelihood of commission of such an offending act. Mere presence or association with other members alone does not per se be sufficient to hold every one of them criminally liable for the offences committed by the others unless there was sufficient evidence on record to show that one such also intended to knew the likelihood of commission of such an offending act. There seems to be no legally acceptable material to prove, in this case that all the accused acted as members of an unlawful assembly, and except that they were found to be closely related nothing concrete to attract the application of Section 149 IPC." 20. In Debashis Daw (Supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows :- "25. The learned senior counsel for the appellants relying on the decision of this Court in Akbar Sheikh v. State of W.B. submitted that where large number of persons are implicated collectively, the Courts must insist for something more than their being cited as an accused I n order to convict them for the charge of the offence. It is well settled and needs no restatement at our hands that mere presence of the persons at the scene of offence itself would not be enough to convict them and punish under Section 149 , IPC unless it is established that each one of them was part of the unlawful assembly and committed the offence in prosecution of the common object of that assembly. In all such cases, the question who had committed the overt act is of no consequence. 25. This Court in Akbar Sheikh (supra) observed that the prosecution in a case of this nature is required to establish: (i) whether the appellants were present; and (ii) whether they shared a common object. The trial Court (2009) 7 SCC 415 and as well as the High Court, in the present case, found that all the stated ingredients were present for each of the appellants was found to be part of the unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons and shared common object with that intention participated in the commission of offence. The evidence available on record clearly suggests that each of the appellants was part of the unlawful assembly and armed with deadly weapons, together indulged in indiscriminate beating and freely used weapons in their hands causing severe injuries on the body of the deceased." 21. The evidence available on record clearly suggests that each of the appellants was part of the unlawful assembly and armed with deadly weapons, together indulged in indiscriminate beating and freely used weapons in their hands causing severe injuries on the body of the deceased." 21. On all those counts, the learned counsel for the appellants urges this Court to acquit accused persons of offences they were convicted of and punished as aforesaid on setting aside the judgment under challenge. 22. Controverting such an argument, advanced from the side of appellants, Mr. K. Mazumdar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor vehemently submits that argument advanced from the side of appellants rests more on conjectures and fiction than on facts. To corroborate his claim, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that PW 1 deposes that on the fateful day, all accused persons had come to the house of PW 1, all armed with deadly weapons and thereafter they made a search for the victim. 23. However, seeing accused persons coming to his house in a menacing manner, the victim rushed to the house of PW 5. Having seen the victim running to the house of Bhuban Phukan (PW 5), accused persons too rushed thereto and brutally assaulted the victim there with weapons in their hands which caused his death instantaneously. Such evidence, rendered by PW 1, finds unfettered support from the testimonies, tendered by other PWs, more particularly, PW 2, PW 3 and PW 4 which clearly demonstrate that accused persons had assaulted and killed the victim in the house of Bhuban Phukan (PW 5) on the eventful noon. 24. According to learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Dr. Naleswar Sonowal was examined as PW 6 and he conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased. The evidence of Doctor (PW 6) shows that the victim sustained as many as 3 (three) incised wounds and 2 (two) bruises. According to PW 6, the incised wounds had occasioned the death of the victim. Such evidence of the Doctor lends more and more credence to the testimonies, rendered by PW 1 to PW 4. 25. The evidence of Doctor (PW 6) shows that the victim sustained as many as 3 (three) incised wounds and 2 (two) bruises. According to PW 6, the incised wounds had occasioned the death of the victim. Such evidence of the Doctor lends more and more credence to the testimonies, rendered by PW 1 to PW 4. 25. In regard to the allegation that PW 1 lodged the case in question against the appellants and others due to some previous enmity between the parties therein , it has been submitted that such allegation too is without any foundation and such a plea does not absolve accused persons of offences, they were convicted of and punished as aforesaid. 26. Rather, such previous enmity only serves to show that accused persons had a motive to kill the victim at the place of occurrence, which, in turn, put the prosecution case on more and more firm footing. He, therefore, submits that the appeal in hand be dismissed. 27. We have considered the rival submissions, having regard to the evidence on record and judgment in question. Before we proceed further, we find it necessary to have a look at the evidence of PW 6, Dr. Naleswar Sonowal. According to him, on 13.06.1989, he was posted as Professor and Head of the Department, Forensic Medicine, Assam Medical College & Hospital, Dibrugarh. 28. On that day, he conducted post mortem examination on the body of one Pradip Phukan and found the following: External Appearance "A middle aged male dead body with rigor mortis present all over the limbs. The body has a deep cut injury on upper end of the neck. The size of the wound was 7" x 4 x 5". The trachea also cut into pieces. The edge of the wound is fine. Cranium and Spinal Canal A cut injury on the left wrist joint. Size 2" c 5 " x 1". Edge is fine. Another cut injury on the right elbow joint 2" x 1"x 5" in size. Thorax - Healthy. Abdomen - Healthy. Opinion :- In my opinion, the cause of death is hemorrhage and shock due to cut injuries particularly in the neck." 29. The evidence of Doctor reveals that the deceased died a homicidal death and injuries found on his person were ante mortem in nature which, particularly the incise ones, occasioned his death. 30. Thorax - Healthy. Abdomen - Healthy. Opinion :- In my opinion, the cause of death is hemorrhage and shock due to cut injuries particularly in the neck." 29. The evidence of Doctor reveals that the deceased died a homicidal death and injuries found on his person were ante mortem in nature which, particularly the incise ones, occasioned his death. 30. So situated, let us see who was or were the persons responsible for causing the death of the victim at the PO on 13.06.89. We have found that the star prosecution witnesses are PW 1 to PW 4 who claimed to be the eye witnesses to the incident in question. PW 1, Smti. Nareswari Phukan, deposes that on the fateful day, she along with other family members were in their house. At about 12 noon, on that day, all accused persons armed with deadly weapon came to their house and made a search for Pradip Phukan, the victim. 31. Having seen accused persons coming to their house in a menacing mood, Pradip Phukan, since deceased, swiftly left his house and started running towards the house of one Bhuban Phukan (PW 5), a neighbour of the victim and actually took shelter in his house. Seeing him fleeing, accused persons also ran after him and they caught him in the house of Bhuban Phukan. 32. The moment those miscreants caught the victim in the house of PW 5, they started assaulting him. While the accused Kuleswar Chetia gave blow on the legs of the victim with an iron rod, accused Pullen hacked the victim on his neck inflicting huge injury for which he fell down on the ground and died instantaneously. Having assaulted the victim, all the accused persons left the PO. In that connection, she lodged an FIR which she proved as Ext. 1. 33. PW 2 and PW 3 rendered testimonies which are very similar to PW 1. However, PW 3 deposes that the fatal blow on the neck of the victim was planted, not by Pulen Phukan, but by accused Dulen Phukan. In his cross -examination, PW 3 admitted that since before the alleged incident, the parties were locked in criminal cases. 34. PW 4, Smti Anjana Phukan, a house wife, deposes that her house is situated near the house of the victim. On the fateful day around noon, she was in the house doing chores. In his cross -examination, PW 3 admitted that since before the alleged incident, the parties were locked in criminal cases. 34. PW 4, Smti Anjana Phukan, a house wife, deposes that her house is situated near the house of the victim. On the fateful day around noon, she was in the house doing chores. Her husband was away from home. Suddenly, she heard hue and cry and also found that the victim Pradip came to their house running and took shelter there. He was followed by accused persons and they arrived at her house quite simultaneously. 35. Arriving at their house, the accused Kuleswar dealt a blow on the legs of the victim with an iron rod whereas accused Dulen Phukan dealt a blow with an axe on his neck for which the victim died then and there. After brutally beating the victim, accused persons left her house. The suggestion that she stated before the police that on the fateful noon, the house of the victim was cordoned off by a large number of persons was denied by PW 4. 36. PW 5, Sri Bhuban Phukan, husband of PW 4, deposes that on the fateful day, he was not in his house when the incident occurred. He came home towards the evening only to find blood marks in the floor of the front room of his house. Later, he came to know that Pradip Phukan was killed inside his premises. Police came to the PO two days after the incident and seized an axe on the strength of seizure list, Ext. 2. 37. PW 7, Sri Nilo Singh is one of the IOs of the case. According to him, on 21.04.1991, he was posted at Chabua Police Station. On that day, he was asked to complete the investigation of Chabua Police Station Case NO. 7/89 which was originally investigated by one Dhirendra Nath Saikia, SI of Police and on his transfer, the diary of the aforesaid case was handed over to him to do the needful. 38. On going through the case dairy, he found that the investigation of the case aforesaid was almost complete but as many as 5 accused persons were yet to be arrested. He, therefore, submitted charge sheet against as many as 13 accused persons showing those 5 (five) absentee accused persons as absconders. 39. 38. On going through the case dairy, he found that the investigation of the case aforesaid was almost complete but as many as 5 accused persons were yet to be arrested. He, therefore, submitted charge sheet against as many as 13 accused persons showing those 5 (five) absentee accused persons as absconders. 39. In his cross-examination, he admitted that PW 1 did not tell the IO during investigation that accused Kuleswar administered a blow with a rod on the legs of the victim while Dulen Phukan administered a cut blow on the neck of the victim. He also stated that PW 4 did not tell the I/O that Dulen Phukan had planted blow with an axe on the neck of the victim causing his death. 40. Now, let us see how far such evidence make out the allegations against accused persons. A perusal of evidence of PW 1 clearly reveals that on the fateful day, all accused persons, named in the FIR (Ext. 1), came to the house of PW 1 when PW 1 and her other family members were gossipping in their house after taking meal. Her evidence further reveals that having seen accused persons coming to their house, armed with deadly weapons in a menacing way, the victim left his house and took shelter in the house of Bhuban Phukan (PW 5). 41. However, all accused persons followed him to the house of Bhuban Phukan (PW 5) where they brutally assaulted the victim. Her evidence further reveals that one Pulen Phukan administered the fatal blow on the victim. Such evidence finds full support from the evidence of PW 2. The evidence of PW 3 and PW 4 also shows that the victim was chased from his house to the house of PW 5 where he was brutally beaten by accused persons which resulted in his instantaneous death. 42. It may be noticed here that PW 1 and PW 2 claim that it is Pulen Phukan who administered a fatal blow on the neck of the victim whereas PW 3 and PW 4 stated that such a fatal blow was administered not by Pulen Phukan but by Dulen Phukan. However, in our considered opinion, such inconsistencies cannot be viewed to be too serious and therefore, same needs to be ignored. However, in our considered opinion, such inconsistencies cannot be viewed to be too serious and therefore, same needs to be ignored. A consideration of the incident in question, in the light of the attending facts and circumstances of the case would make it clear. 43. The materials on record, now, firmly show that a group as big as 13 persons came to the house of the victim, all armed with deadly weapons in order to assault the victim and having seen the victim flee from his house to take shelter in the house of PW5, a neighbour, all accused persons too quickly followed the hapless person to the house of PW 5 and assaulted him there brutally. 44. In such a horrible situation, the observations made by witnesses who are also brothers and sisters of such a hapless person, may not be very accurate, more so, when they themselves were the targets of the said group of hot headed persons . Being so, in such a scenario, the inability of the PWs to identify who actually planted the deadly blow/blows on the victim may not be fatal. 45. However, on the main, they gave accounts which are clear, cogent and amazingly consistent. Therefore, only for the aforesaid infirmity, the testimonies of principal PWs cannot be brushed aside, as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants. 46. The learned counsel for appellants claims that evidence of PW1 and PW 4 cannot be relied on since they did not divulge some very vital information to the I/O during investigation although they chose to disclose such information during trial which unmistakably makes the evidence of the PW1 and PW 4 to suffer from vice which is commonly called as contradictions and such contradiction makes the evidence of those PWs very unreliable. 47. It is true that PW 1 and PW 4 did not tell the IO during investigation that Dulen Phukan had attacked the victim on his neck with an axe. It is also true that such omissions, on the part of PW 1 and PW 4 , are required to be treated as contradictions as contemplated in Section 162 CrPC. But it needs to be kept in mind that contradiction does not make the evidence of a witness suffering from such contradiction inadmissible in law. It is also true that such omissions, on the part of PW 1 and PW 4 , are required to be treated as contradictions as contemplated in Section 162 CrPC. But it needs to be kept in mind that contradiction does not make the evidence of a witness suffering from such contradiction inadmissible in law. It makes the evidence of such witness doubtful and as such, the evidence of such witness needs to be read with utmost care and caution. 48. Coming back to our case, it is found that PW 2 and PW 3, in no uncertain terms, depose that the victim was inflicted huge cut wounds on his neck. We have also found that the Doctor who conducted post mortem examination on the body of the victim aforesaid found huge wounds on the neck of the victim which, according to him, resulted in the instantaneous death of person concerned. 49. It may be noted here that PW 2 and PW 3 too claimed that such cut injuries were inflicted by accused Pulen, according to PW 2 and accused Dulen, according to PW 3. Though there were some inconsistencies as to the person who actually inflicted such fatal blows on the victim on the noon in concerned, yet, such inconsistencies are already held to be inconsequential in nature. 50. Our foregoing discussion has made it clear and same requires no further restatements here. But then, fact remains that the victim sustained huge cut injuries on his neck at the residence of PW 5 when he was beaten by appellants herein who included both accused Phulen and Dulen. Being so, the contradictions aforementioned cannot be allowed to be blown beyond their sizes. 51. The learned counsel for appellants claims that there is no evidence on record to show that all accused persons had come to the PO on the aforesaid noon and participated in the crime under consideration. In support of such contention, it has been stated that none of the principal PWs uttered names of accused persons committing the crime in question in the house of victim as well as in the house of PW 5. 52. We have considered such submissions and found that in the FIR, the names of as many as 13 accused persons have been mentioned. The FIR is made part of the record since it was proved as Ext. 1. 52. We have considered such submissions and found that in the FIR, the names of as many as 13 accused persons have been mentioned. The FIR is made part of the record since it was proved as Ext. 1. When the evidence of PW 1 to PW 4 to the effect that all accused persons participated in the crime in question is considered in the light of averments made in the FIR which discloses the names of as many as 13 accused persons, there cannot be any doubt that all accused persons, named in the FIR, had actively participated in such a crime. 53. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that even one assumes for the sake of argument for a moment that all accused persons were there at the PO, it ipso dixit does not make them members of an unlawful assembly . Nor does it make them liable to be punished U/S 302 IPC on application of principle of vicarious liability as envisages in Section 149 IPC. 54. According to learned counsel for appellants, before convicting all accused persons U/s 302 IPC with the aid of Section 149 IPC, it needs to be proved (i) that there was an unlawful assembly of 5 or more persons, (ii) that the object of such assembly was to kill the victim and (iii) that in prosecution of a common object of such assembly, some of those persons had committed the crime in question. However, in the present case, the learned Trial Court made no effort to ascertain if there was an unlawful assembly at the PO, the object of which was to kill the victim aforementioned. 55. Since the learned Trial Court did not ascertain (i) if appellants formed an unlawful assembly at the PO on the noon in question, (ii) if the object of such assembly was to kill the victim and (iii) if in prosecution of common object of such an assembly, some of the members of such an assembly killed the victim at the PO, the appellants could not have been convicted u/s 302 IPC with aid of Section 149 IPC. 56. We have considered such submissions and found that such contention too is without any substance. We have already found that there is unquestionable evidence to show all accused persons were there at the PO and all of them came there armed with deadly weapons. 56. We have considered such submissions and found that such contention too is without any substance. We have already found that there is unquestionable evidence to show all accused persons were there at the PO and all of them came there armed with deadly weapons. More importantly, they chased the victim from his house to the house of one Bhuban Phukan, a neighbour of the victim. What is worse, some of them had brutally assaulted the victim with sharp object as well as blunt weapons (which is also evident from the evidence of the Doctor) which ultimately resulted in his instantaneous death. 57. We have also found from the evidence of the Doctor that several fatal blows were administered on very vital parts of the victim which occasioned instantaneous death of the victim. Such revelations make it more than clear that the object and intention of the unlawful assembly was to kill the victim and nothing else. 58. Being so, it cannot be said that all accused persons were at the PO only as mere spectators to the crime in question. Rather in view of discussions aforementioned, it needs to be concluded that they were all very active members of the unlawful assembly, the object of which was to kill the victim. Being so, who has actually inflicted the fatal blow which occasioned the death of the victim is immaterial for invoking the joint responsibility as contemplated in Section 149 IPC. 59. We may note here that in a case, when offence/ offences has/have been committed by the members of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove the individual part played by each member of the unlawful assembly. It is enough that offences were committed by any member of the unlawful assembly in prosecution of a common object. 60. In view of our forgoing discussion, we have found that the decisions relied on by the appellants in fact advanced the cause of prosecution instead. Our forgoing discussion has made it more than clear and it needs no further reinstatement. 61. It may be noted here that the victim sustained bruises in the incident under consideration. We have also found that the alleged incident was committed in the premises of the victim as well as in the house of PW 5. Our forgoing discussion has made it more than clear and it needs no further reinstatement. 61. It may be noted here that the victim sustained bruises in the incident under consideration. We have also found that the alleged incident was committed in the premises of the victim as well as in the house of PW 5. We have also found that such offences were committed by accused persons in prosecution of a common object and as such, accused persons had been rightly convicted by the learned Trial Court u/s 147/148/447/323/302/149 IPC and therefore, the judgment under challenge invites no interference. 62. Resultantly, appeal being found devoid of merit, is dismissed. 63. Return the LCR.