JUDGMENT Prasanta Kumar Saikia, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 14.03.2008 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Darrang, Magoldoi in Sessions Case No. 1 (DM) of 1999 acquitting the respondents herein of offence under Sections 385/302 read with Section 149IPC. Being aggrieved, the State of Assam preferred this appeal citing several infirmities in the judgment under challenge. 2. Heard Ms. S. Jahan, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. Also heard Mr. A.K. Bhattacharyya, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. D. Talukdar for the respondents/accused No. 1 and 4 to 13 and Shri N. Dutta, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. D. Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondents/accused No. 2 &3. 3. The facts, projected by the prosecution in its FIR and in the subsequent trial, in short, are that on 11.09.1996, a team of officers drawn from the Excise Department and Police Department, their number being 20 (twenty), under the leadership of Chiranjib Das, Excise Superintendent conducted (A2) conducted raids at various places, such as, Sipajhar, Bijulibari, Dipila, Kharupeta etc. doing liquor business illegally and in that process, caught several persons doing such business illegally from the places aforesaid. One Bodo man too, Chanaram Boro (since deceased) by name, was one of such persons who was also caught and arrested by the said party from his house. 4. It has been alleged that after his arrest, the Excise party led by Chiranjeeb Das. subjected Chanaram Boro to a barrage of assaults due to which he sustained multiple injuries. The victim was thereafter taken to the Excise office at Mangaldoi where he succumbed to the injuries next day in the morning. An FIR to that effect on being lodged by the informant Sri Khagendra Nath Boro (PW 2), police registered a case and ordered Md. Ali Ahmed, S.I. of police to investigate the case. 5. On being so ordered, Md. Ali Ahmed, the Investigating Officer, started the investigation, and in course of the investigation, he conducted an inquest on the dead body, sent it to hospital for post mortem examination, arrested the accused persons, examined the witnesses, did the other needful and on conclusion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet u/s.147/302 IPC against as many as 13 (thirteen) accused persons and forwarded them to the Court to stand trial. 6. 6. The persons against whom the charge sheet was so laid in the Court are respondents herein, namely, (1) Umesh Ch. Das, (2) Sri Chiranjib Das, (3) Md. Abul Hussain, (4) Sri Paresh Deep Kakati, (5) Sri Khirod Saharia, (6) Md. Katibuddin Ahmed, (7) Md. Eskender Mirza, (8) Sri Hari Ch. Rajbongshi, (9)Md. Tabibullah, (10) Md. Abu Esa Hoque, (11) Md. Jaliluddin (12) Sri Kalyan Mech & (13) Sri Dines war Deka. The respondents/accused No.1 to 13 would be referred to hereinafter as A1 to A13 respectively. 7. On receipt of the charge sheet by the learned Magistrate, the case was committed to the Court of Session since the offence u/s. 302 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Session. On the receipt of the case on commitment, the learned Sessions Judge, framed charge u/s. 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. However charge, so framed was subsequently altered to charges u/s.385/302/149 IPC. Charges, so framed, on being read over and explained to the accused persons, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 8. During the course of investigation, the prosecution side has examined as many as 16 (sixteen) witnesses including the M/O and I/O. They were cross-examined at length. The statements of the accused persons u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. The accused persons pleaded that they were no way connected with crime in question. However, they declined to adduce any evidence in their defence. 9. On conclusion of trial and on hearing the arguments, advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Court below was pleased to acquit the accused persons of offences u/s. 385/302/149 IPC and set them at liberty forthwith vide judgment dated 01.03.2008 rendered in Sessions Case No. 1 (DM) of 1999. It is that judgment which has been assailed in the present appeal alleging that such a judgment was not rendered in accordance with the dicta of law and also not rendered on the basis of evidence on record. 10. Opening up argument for the State appellant, Ms. It is that judgment which has been assailed in the present appeal alleging that such a judgment was not rendered in accordance with the dicta of law and also not rendered on the basis of evidence on record. 10. Opening up argument for the State appellant, Ms. S. Jahan, learned Addl P.P., it has been stated that there is indisputable evidence on record to show that on the fateful night, the accused persons herein went to the house of the deceased, apprehended him from his house, took him to the vehicle where he was badly beaten by the accused persons, and then, he was taken to ex-testimonies of PW 1, PW 5, PW 10, PW11, PW 14 and PW15 have made such position more than clear. 11. More importantly, there is evidence on record that all the accused persons in some way or other took part in assaulting the deceased which occasioned his death on 12.09.1996 in the morning. All such evidence shows that accused persons had killed the luckless man aforesaid brutally assaulting him during the time stated above and they all did so in prosecution of their common object and such object was to kill the person, named above. 12. It has also been contended that PW1 has identified A2 in the dock. However, considering that the dock identification is not proper, the Court below was pleased to reject the most convincing evidence of PW 2. Contending that dock identification is proper identification, the learned Addl PP relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shyamal Ghosh v. State of West Bengal reported in (2012) 7 SCC 646 . The relevant part is reproduced below: - "80. It is equally correct that the CrPC does not oblige the investigating agency to necessarily hold the Test Identification Parade. Failure to hold the test identification parade while in police custody, does not by itself render the evidence of identification in court inadmissible or unacceptable. There have been numerous cases where the accused is identified by the witnesses in the court for the first time. One of the views taken is that identification in court for the first time alone may not form the basis of conviction, but this is" not an absolute rule. The purpose of the Test Identification Parade is to test and strengthen the trustworthiness of that evidence. One of the views taken is that identification in court for the first time alone may not form the basis of conviction, but this is" not an absolute rule. The purpose of the Test Identification Parade is to test and strengthen the trustworthiness of that evidence. It is accordingly considered a safe rule of prudence to generally look for corroboration of the sworn testimony of the witnesses in court as to the identity of the accused who are strangers to them, in the form of earlier identification proceedings. This rule of prudence is, however subjected to exceptions. Reference can be made to Munshi Singh Gautam v. State of M.P. [ (2005) 9 SCC 631 ], Sheo Shankar Singh v. State of Jharkhand and Anr. (2011) 3 SCC 654 ]. 81. Identification Parade is a tool of investigation and is used primarily to strengthen the case of the prosecution on the one hand and to make doubly sure that persons named accused in the case are actually the culprits. The Identification Parade primarily belongs to the stage of investigation by the police. The fact that a particular witness has been able to identify the accused at an identification parade is only a circumstance corroborative of the identification in court. Thus, it is only a relevant consideration which may be examined by the court in view of other attendant circumstances and corroborative evidence with reference to the facts of a given case. 82. In the present case, certainly Shyamal Ghosh, accused was not identified at the time of Test Identification Parade held on 28th November, 2003. However, Sadhu @ Satyajit Das was identified. PW-14 is the learned Judicial Magistrate who had recorded the statement of Manik Das under Section164 CrPC as well as held the Identification Parade on 28th November, 2003. Other accused were neither subjected to Identification Parade nor could the question of identifying mem arise. The mere fact that Shyamal Ghosh accused was not identified by Manik Das is not of great relevancy in the present case. Firstly, for the reason that Manik Das was never examined as a witness in the court and even his statement under Section 164 CrPC has not been relied upon by any court while convicting the accused. The mere fact that Shyamal Ghosh accused was not identified by Manik Das is not of great relevancy in the present case. Firstly, for the reason that Manik Das was never examined as a witness in the court and even his statement under Section 164 CrPC has not been relied upon by any court while convicting the accused. Secondly, not only one, but all the witnesses i.e. PW-7, PW-8, PW-9, PW-11, PW-17 and PW-19, duly identified the accused in Court and they did so without any demur or hesitation. Manik Das was a person who himself was under a threat and was asked to take the gunny bags for their disposal near the Barrackpore Dum Dum Highway. Thus, we are of the considered view that non-identification of Shyamal Ghosh by Manik Das is inconsequential in the present case." 13. According to the learned Addl P.P., there is also undeniable evidence on record to show that accused persons had put the deceased and his other family members in fear of instant hurt and they did so in order to extort money from them. Despite above being the position, the learned Court below was pleased to acquit the accused persons of offence U/s 384 IPC. 14. The learned Court below-argues learned Addl. P.P. -- also concluded that the prosecution could not establish that accused persons committed offences, they were charged with in prosecution of common object. In that connection, the learned trial court presumably relied on the fact that the accused persons, all public servants, came to the house of the deceased on the night in question in discharge of their official duty since they had prior information that the deceased and others were selling liquor illegally and in discharging their duty, they had to take action against some persons who were bent on violating the law in order to gain illegal gains. 15. Therefore, even if some of those public servants committed some offence/offences, all of the cannot be held guilty of such offence/offences on invoking the provisions of section 149 of the IPC, more so, when it is not proved that if five or more of those public servants actually become the members of such an unlawful assembly, when the prosecution could not establish what was the object of such assembly and when the identity of the members of such assembly remained far from being established. 16. 16. But such a finding of the Trial Court is unsustainable. In that connection, learned Addl. P.P. again contends that an assembly of people, which was initially lawful, may subsequently become unlawful and committed offence/offense in prosecution of their common object, and, that is what happened in our instant case. Being so, only for their coming to the locality of deceased and other persons in discharge of their official duty, it cannot be held that such an assembly of public servants cannot be an unlawful assembly under any circumstances. 17. In support of such contention, the decision of the Apex Court in the State of Rajasthan v. Shiv Charon reported in 2013 (12) SCC 76 have been relied on. The relevant part of the judgment is reproduced below:-- "19. The pivotal question of applicability of Section 149 IPC has its foundation on constructive liability which is the sine qua non for its application. It contains essentially only two ingredients, namely, (I) offence committed by any member of any unlawful assembly consisting five or more members and; (II) such offence must be committed in prosecution of the common object (Section 141 IPC) of the assembly or members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object. It is not necessary that for common object there should be a prior concert as the common object may be formed on spur of the moment. Common object would mean the purpose or design shared by all members of such assembly and it may be formed at any stage. Even if the offence committed is not in direct prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly, it may yet fell under second part of Section 149 IPC if it is established that the offence was such, as the members knew, was likely to be committed. For instance, if a body of persons go armed to take forcible possession of the land, it may be presumed that someone is likely to be killed, and all the members of the unlawful assembly must be aware of that likelihood and, thus, each of mem can be held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 149 IPC. For instance, if a body of persons go armed to take forcible possession of the land, it may be presumed that someone is likely to be killed, and all the members of the unlawful assembly must be aware of that likelihood and, thus, each of mem can be held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 149 IPC. The court must keep in mind the distinction between the two parts of Section 149 IPC, and, once it is established that unlawful assembly had a common object, it is not necessary that all persons forming the unlawful assembly must be shown to have committed some overt act, rather they can be convicted for vicarious liability. However, it may be relevant to determine whether the assembly consist of some persons which were merely passive witnesses and had joined the assembly as a matter of ideal curiosity without intending to entertain the common object of the assembly. However, it is only the rule of caution and not the rule of law. Thus, a mere presence or association with other members alone does not per se be sufficient to hold everyone of them criminally liable for the offence committed by the others unless there is sufficient evidence on record to show that each intended to or knew the likelihood of commission of such an offending act, being a member of unlawful assembly as provided for under Section 142 IPC. It may also not be a case of group rivalry or sudden or free fight or an act of the member of unlawful assembly beyond the common object. (Vide: Baladin & Ors. v. State of U.P., AIR 1956 SC 181 ; Masalti v. State of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 202 ; Chandra Bihari Gautam & Ors. v. State of Bihar, AIR 2002 SC 1836 ; Ramesh & Ors. v. State of Haryana, AIR 2011 SC 169 ; Ramachandran & Ors. Etc. v. State of Kerala. AIR 2011 SC 3581; Onkar & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 2 SCC 273 ; Roy Farnandez v. State of Goa & Ors., AIR 2012 SC 1030 ; and Krishnappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2012 SC 2946 ). 20. Etc. v. State of Kerala. AIR 2011 SC 3581; Onkar & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 2 SCC 273 ; Roy Farnandez v. State of Goa & Ors., AIR 2012 SC 1030 ; and Krishnappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2012 SC 2946 ). 20. Thus, for resorting to the provisions of Section 149 IPC, the prosecution has to establish that (i) there was an assembly of five persons; (ii) the assembly had a common object; and (iii) the said common object was to consist one or more of the five illegal objects specified in Section 141 IPC." 18. Learned Addl. P.P., therefore, urges this Court to convict the accused persons of the offences, they were charge with on setting aside the judgment under challenge. The arguments advanced by learned Addl. P.P. for the State has also been adopted by Mr. G. Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl. Revn. Petn. No. 486 of 2010. 19. On the other hand, Mr. A.K. Bhattacharyya learned Senior Counsel submits that there is no convincing evidence on record to show that the accused persons on the fateful night formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of killing the deceased. There is also no evidence on record to show that all or some of the persons of such unlawful assembly in prosecution of common object assaulted the deceased which occasioned his death next day in the morning. 20. He further submits that there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that at any point of time, relevant, accused persons had shared common object to extort money from the deceased or from his family members since materials on record do not disclose that any of the accused persons had ever demanded any money from the deceased or any other members of his family. According to him, the evidence on record are too shaky and too vague and therefore, such evidence, under no circumstances, can establish the charges leveled against the accused persons. 21. On the other hand, Mr. N. Dutta, learned Sr. counsel submits that there is absolutely no evidence on record against A1, A3, A8, A9, A12 and A13 to substantiate any of the allegations leveled against them. Therefore, they deserve to be acquitted of the all charges leveled against them. Therefore by acquitting the accused persons aforesaid, the learned Trial Court committed no wrong whatsoever. 22. N. Dutta, learned Sr. counsel submits that there is absolutely no evidence on record against A1, A3, A8, A9, A12 and A13 to substantiate any of the allegations leveled against them. Therefore, they deserve to be acquitted of the all charges leveled against them. Therefore by acquitting the accused persons aforesaid, the learned Trial Court committed no wrong whatsoever. 22. Mr. N. Dutta, learned Sr. counsel further submits that though PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4, PW7 and PW15 tried to implicate A 2, A 3 and A 5 with the crime, they were charged with, yet, their testimonies do not stand the test of judicial scrutiny because their testimonies are found to be inconsistent, self contradictory and defective on material points. Therefore, no reliance, whatsoever, can be placed on the evidence of PW1, PW 2, PW 3, PW 4, PW 7 and PW 15. 23. That apart, they made some allegations of extremely serious in nature against those accused persons when they tendered evidence before this Court. However, they did not disclose such information to the I/O when he examined those witnesses U/s.161 of the CrPC. In other words, they disclosed such evidence before the court only during trial. This clearly shows that the evidence of those witnesses is struck with vice which is commonly called as contradiction which, in turn, makes their evidence unreliable. Such revelations, contends learned Sr. counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 3, make the evidence of aforesaid PWs, more and more unreliable. 24. Mr. N. Dutta, Learned Senior counsel further submits that under the Indian Law, a person is ordinarily presumed to be innocent unless contrary is found and such presumption gets strengthened more and more when he gets an order of acquittal from the competent Court. Therefore, in order to reverse an order of acquittal rendered by trial court, the Appellate Court must come to the conclusion that the judgment of acquittal under challenge is perverse or it is wholly unreasonable or such judgment was rendered on misconception of facts and misconception of law. 25. In support of such contention, our attention has been drawn to (2013) 15 SCC 315 :S. Govindaraju v. State of Karnataka). The relevant part of the judgment is reproduced below:-- "20. 25. In support of such contention, our attention has been drawn to (2013) 15 SCC 315 :S. Govindaraju v. State of Karnataka). The relevant part of the judgment is reproduced below:-- "20. It is a settled legal proposition that in exceptional circumstances, the appellate court, for compelling reasons, should not hesitate to reverse a judgment of acquittal passed by the court below, if the findings so recorded by the court below are found to be perverse i.e. if the conclusions arrived at by the court below are contrary to the evidence on record, or if the court's entire approach with respect to dealing with the evidence is found to be patently illegal, leading to the miscarriage of justice, or if its judgment is unreasonable and is based on an erroneous understanding of the law and of the facts of the case. While doing so, the appellant court must bear in mind the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, and also that an acquittal by the court below bolsters such presumption of innocence." 26. However, in the present case, the appellant could not show any of the aforesaid grounds on which the Appellate Court can reverse an order of acquittal existing in the present appeal. The learned counsel for the respondents, therefore, urges this Court not to interfere with the judgment under challenge. 27. We have already found that learned Addl. P.P. places enormous reliance on the evidence rendered by several PWs, more particularly on the testimonies rendered by PW1, PW10, PW11, PW14 and PW15 since they claim to be the eye witnesses to the incident in question or part thereof and since their evidence, if read together-argues learned Addl. P.P.-----would unquestionably show that charges, against accused persons are well founded. Therefore, we find it necessary to reproduce such parts of the judgment which deal with the evidence of witnesses, aforesaid and said parts of judgment are reproduced below:-- "PW1, Shri Mukul Kalita was the driver of 609 Bus, bearing registration No. AS-01/C 9781 (here-in-after mentioned as the "said vehicle") which was used by the police and excise raid party during the relevant time. From his evidence, it reveals that on 11.9.96 at about 3.30 P.M. he went to Police Reserve with the said vehicle wherein men of Excise Department was boarded and from the Police Reserve more or less 7(seven) police personnel boarded the said vehicle. From his evidence, it reveals that on 11.9.96 at about 3.30 P.M. he went to Police Reserve with the said vehicle wherein men of Excise Department was boarded and from the Police Reserve more or less 7(seven) police personnel boarded the said vehicle. That in total about 20 (twenty) persons from the Excise Department as well as, Police Department boarded in the said vehicle and amongst them one was in civil dress and others were in army dress. PW 1 further deposed that the raid party caught drunkards from various places such as, Sipajhar, Bijulibari, Dipila, Kharupeta etc. That amongst the drunkards one Bodo man was also caught by the raid party and the man who was not in uniform asked PW1 to put on the head light of the said vehicle and he did it accordingly and then the man assaulted the Bodo man and put in the said vehicle. Again PW 1 stated that the did not see as to who assaulted the Bodo man. PW 1 further deposed that he saw that the police personnel and men of Excise Department assaulted the Bodo man in the said vehicle. In Examination-in-chief, the PW 1 has stated that the man who was in civil dress is the Superintendent of Excise, Chiranjib, who is present in the dock. In cross-examination of PW 1 the defence side raised objection that he did not state before the I.O. that the man without dress asked him to put on the head light of the said vehicle and he did it accordingly and then the man assaulted the Bodo man by means of stick, which was confirmed by the I.O. in negative and in favour of the defence version during his examination as PW16. In cross-examination, the PW 1 has disclosed the source of identification of the Superintendent of Excise. In this regard, PW 1 has stated that on the following day morning of the occurrence, he could know from others that the man who was in civil dress is the Superintendent of Excise but he cannot remember the name of the person who gave such information. In this regard, PW 1 has stated that on the following day morning of the occurrence, he could know from others that the man who was in civil dress is the Superintendent of Excise but he cannot remember the name of the person who gave such information. From the evidence of PW 1 it has become crystal clear that the man who was in civil dress was not known to him prior to the day of occurrence and he identified the man in the dock for the first time on the basis of identification of another whose name he cannot remember. No Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted to identify the man who was in civil dress. In this regard, I have gone through the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court of India reported in "(1992) 1 SCC 700" (Mohanlal Gangaram Gehani.... Appellant v. State of Maharashtra............Respondent, submitted by defence side. In para 25 of the ruling (supra) it has been observed that testimony of a witness who identified the accused for the first time in Court without knowing him before, in the absence of T.I. Parade would be valueless and unreliable. On scrutiny of entire evidence of PW1, it is found that his testimony is shaky, not chained and not concrete at all and as such, it is not safe at all to place reliance upon the testimony of PW 1 without sufficient corroboration. PW 10 Shri Hiren Kumar Deka has claimed to be an eye witness of the occurrence. From his evidence, it reveals that on 11.9.1996 Havilder Chiranjib Das alongwith 13-number of people picked off him putting hand-cuffs from the house of Piti Deka and produced him before the Deputy Commissioner, Darrang, Mangaldoi with an allegation that he consumed liquor. But the D.C. asked them to release PW 10 but they did not release him and instead, they took him at Habibhanga village under Kalaigaon Police Station where they dragged out Chana Ram Boro from his house and assaulted him by their legs. That inside the Excise Office also the accused assaulted Chanaram Boro by cane. That on the morning of the following day, the accused persons forced him and other detainees to sweep out the courtyard of the office and thereafter, the accused persons brought them to Tea Stall and offered tea and snacks. That inside the Excise Office also the accused assaulted Chanaram Boro by cane. That on the morning of the following day, the accused persons forced him and other detainees to sweep out the courtyard of the office and thereafter, the accused persons brought them to Tea Stall and offered tea and snacks. That after returning from the tea stall he saw Chanaram Boro was lying on the floor and shouting for water and after drinking water, he died instantly. In cross-examination, PW10 has stated that he was picked off from the house of Piti about 6.30 P.M. That he saw excise people along with police personnel numbering 4/5 with fire arms. That he was sent to MCH on the very night of the incident by the accused where he was attended by doctor. He has stated again in his cross-examination that during the material time of the incident he was confined in Mangaldoi Police Station for the whole night and subsequently, he was released on 13.09.1996 by Judicial Magistrate after recording his statement u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. In cross-examination, he admitted that he did not mention the name of any of the accused in his statement u/s. 161 Cr.P.C., as well as, u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. That he did not state before the Magistrate and police that he was able to recognize the accused persons by name and face. That he did not implicate accused Havilder Chiranjib Das and 13/14 others with the alleged crime. On scrutiny of the entire testimony of PW 10, it is found that his testimony is shaky, ambiguous and not concrete. Hence, it is not safe at all to place reliance upon the testimony of PW 10 without sufficient corroboration. PW11, Sri Nakul Das was also a detainee. From his evidence, it reveals that the accused persons standing in the dock were not acquainted with him at the material time of the incident That on 11.9.96 he was picked off from the house of his elder sister Bhabeswari. That excise personnel also apprehended 4/5 persons from their village. That they also brought Chanaram Boro (deceased) from his house and picked off to the vehicle after assaulting him. That on the following day morning all detainees had been brought to the Excise Office at Mangaldoi where they were kept confined. That excise personnel also apprehended 4/5 persons from their village. That they also brought Chanaram Boro (deceased) from his house and picked off to the vehicle after assaulting him. That on the following day morning all detainees had been brought to the Excise Office at Mangaldoi where they were kept confined. That Chanaram Boro (deceased) was confined in a separate room and he could heard sound of beating on Chanaram Boro. But he did not see who assaulted Chanaram Boro. In cross-examination, PW 1 has stated that about 20/25 persons of Excise Department of Mangaldoi conducted raid during the relevant time of occurrence. The following points have been established from the evidence of PW 11:-- (1) That he saw on police personnel at the house of his elder sister Bhabeswari during the relevant time. (2) That 20/25 persons of the Excise Department Mangaldoi conducted raid during the relevant time. (3) That the accused persons were not acquainted with him at the material time of the occurrence; (4) That the excise personnel assaulted the deceased and the deceased died. PW 14, Shri Kulen Boro is the son of the deceased. From his evidence, it cannot be ascertaine Mangaldoi d as to whether he was an eye witness of the occurrence of assault to his father or gathered knowledge about it from others subsequently. Anyway, from his evidence it reveals that on the night of occurrence at about 2.30 A.M., accused No. 2 came to their residence along with the raid party and picked off his father and at the time of picking off his father accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5 assaulted his father by means of stick. That on the following day, that is, on 12.9.96 he came to Magaldoi and visited excise office, where he found his father was lying dead. That he informed the matter to PW 2 Shri Khagen Boro, his paternal uncle, who came to the excise office and after taking stock of the situation, informed the matter to the Mangaldoi Police Station. In cross-examination, PW 14 stated that his statement may have been recorded by police after two months from the day of occurrence. In this regard, I/O, PW 16 confirmed during his cross-examination that he examined PW 14 on 16.11.96. In cross-examination, PW 14 stated that his statement may have been recorded by police after two months from the day of occurrence. In this regard, I/O, PW 16 confirmed during his cross-examination that he examined PW 14 on 16.11.96. In cross-examination, PW 14 has stated that he reported PW 2 prior to the filing of FIR, regarding picking off his father by the accused persons including accused No. 2, 3 and 5 and at time of picking off, they assaulted his father. Again PW 14 in his cross-examination admitted that he did not state the name were not known to him at the time of making statement before police on 16.11.96. In cross-examination, he again clarified it that he could not recognize them at the material time of incident. From his statement, it reveals that he saw more or less 10(ten) police personnel alongwith the incumbent of excise department, who cordoned off his house. From the evidence of PW 14, it transpires that he informed about the incident of previous night to his paternal uncle PW 2 on 12.9.96 at Excise Office Mangaldoi and accordingly PW2 lodged FIR with the Mangaldoi Police Station but in the FIR, marked as Ext.-1, there is no mention of any name of the assailants. On the other hand, PW2 deposed that he got information about the incident on 11.9.96 at about 2.30 A.M. at his residence from PWs 14 and 15. On careful scrutiny of entire evidence of PW 14 it is held that his testimony is shaky, ambiguous, unfounded and not chained. Hence, it if not safe at all to place reliance upon such testimony. PW 15, Smti. Renu Boro is the wife of PW 14. From her evidence it reveals that on the right of occurrence at the relevant time excise people came to their residence and picked off her father-in-law (deceased) putting him hand-cuffs and at that time they assaulted her father-in-law by stick, that she tried to resist but she was threatened by the excise people. In cross-examination, she has confirmed that 15/20 persons came to their residence at the relevant time, and there are 13/14 houses in the vicinity of her homestead. That the neighbouring people witnessed the occurrence. Considering her entire testimony, I find needless to discuss her testimony in details." 28. In cross-examination, she has confirmed that 15/20 persons came to their residence at the relevant time, and there are 13/14 houses in the vicinity of her homestead. That the neighbouring people witnessed the occurrence. Considering her entire testimony, I find needless to discuss her testimony in details." 28. In this connection, I also find it necessary to have a look at the evidence rendered by PW 2. The trial court too considered the evidence of such a witness. The same is reproduced below-- "PW2 Shri Khagendra Nath Boro is the First Informant-cum-younger brother of the deceased. Ext.-1 is the FIR wherefrom it reveals that it bears two sets of information. The first part of information was that PW 2 got information to the effect that on 12.9.96 at about 2.30 the deceased was beaten in his house by putting hand-cuffs and also beat the deceased across the whole road while he was taken away from the house and the second part was that about 9.30 A.M. he got information from his brother's son that his elder brother (deceased) was lying dead in the dwelling house of Abul Hussain, E.I. Mangaldoi. The first part of information is without foundation since there is nothing to show in the FIR as to how he got such information. The base of the second information is the brother's son of PW 2. But there is no specification regarding the informant. It reveals from the FIR that it was lodged on 12.9.96 at 6.15 RM. From the evidence of PW 2 it reveals that on 11.9.96 at about 2.30 A.M. his brother's son Kulen and Kulen's wife went to his house and informed him that about half an hour prior to their arrival to his house, many people alongwith policemen came to their house and 3/4 of them brought the deceased from inside the dwelling house to the courtyard, where assaulted him by putting hand-cuffs. That Kulen and his wife tried to resist the men but two of them threatened to keep off. PW 2 has further deposed that about three days prior to the incident, one day, accused No. 4 and 7 went to his office and demanded Rs. That Kulen and his wife tried to resist the men but two of them threatened to keep off. PW 2 has further deposed that about three days prior to the incident, one day, accused No. 4 and 7 went to his office and demanded Rs. 7500/- to settle a liquor's case standing in the name of the deceased and asked him to produce the deceased in excise office and in this regard an altercation took place between him and the aforesaid two excise incumbents. During cross-examination of PW 2, the defence side raised objection that the above portion of evidence had not been stated by bin before the I/O during his examination u/s. 161 Cr.P.C., which was confirmed by the I.O. in favour of the defence version during his examination as PW 16. That for the aforesaid reason, PW 2 believes that incumbent of excise department brought his deceased brother from his residence. Further it has been revealed from the testimony of PW 2 ghag his brother's son Kulen stated before him that the deceased had been brought by boarding a motor vehicle and on the road, the deceased was beaten in the focus of head light of the vehicle. PW 2 has deposed that he found his elder brother Chanaram Boro was lying dead in the house of accused No. 3. PW2 has exhibited seizure list, marked as Ext. 03 wherefrom it reveals that police seized bail bonds, numbering 13, one Case Register of Excise Department of Mangaldoi Circle containing 96 pages maintained from 2.8.95 to 1.9.96 and one Station Diary of Mangaldoi Excise Circle containing 307 pages. Material Exhibits 1 to 13 are bail bonds, material Ext.-14 is the Case Register and Material Exhibit -15 is the Station Diary. On sifting of the material Ext.-1 to 13, it is found that there is no signature of officers and the documents are almost blank. These documents cannot be termed as official document of any office, not to speak of excise department of Mangaldoi Excise Circle. I have gone through the Material Ext.-14 and 15. From the evidence of PW 2, I find no relevancy of me aforesaid documents with the alleged occurrence. In cross-examination, PW2 fairly conceded that he visited the house for the first time where the dead body of his elder brother was found. I have gone through the Material Ext.-14 and 15. From the evidence of PW 2, I find no relevancy of me aforesaid documents with the alleged occurrence. In cross-examination, PW2 fairly conceded that he visited the house for the first time where the dead body of his elder brother was found. That he could know from others that the owner of the house is accused No. 3. That he could know from his brother's son Kulen and daughter-in-law Renu about the fact that his deceased brother had been taken away from his house and accordingly, he lodged an FIR. That he has no personal knowledge about it. During cross-examination, defence side has raised objection that PW 2 did not state before the I.O. that his nephew reported him that the deceased was assaulted in focus of head light of the vehicle, which was confirmed by the I.O. (PW16) in favour of the defence version. The following points have been established from the evidence of PW 2:-- (1) That PW 2 lodged FIR marked as Ext.-1 on the basis of information gathered from others and he has no personal knowledge about the occurrence; (2)That PW 2 saw the dead body of his elder brother in the dwelling house of accused No. 3 which house he visited for the first time; (3) That PW 2 could know from others that the house where the dead body was lying was the house of accused No. 3. On scrutiny of entire evidence, it is found that the testimony of PW 2 cannot be taken into consideration without sufficient corroboration." 29. We have considered the discussions, so made by the learned Court below, in the light of evidence on record as well as submissions, advanced by learned counsel for the parties. On making such an exercise, we have found that PW 2 who lodged the FIR was not an eye witness to the incident in question. He came to know about such incident from PW14 and PW1. Now, let us see how their (PW 14 and PW 15) evidence was assessed by the Trial Court. 30. In his evidence, PW14 deposes that the accused persons including A2, A3 and A5 had assaulted his father on the night in question and he reported such facts to the PW 2 before his lodging the FIR. Now, let us see how their (PW 14 and PW 15) evidence was assessed by the Trial Court. 30. In his evidence, PW14 deposes that the accused persons including A2, A3 and A5 had assaulted his father on the night in question and he reported such facts to the PW 2 before his lodging the FIR. However, the FIR admittedly did not disclose the names of any of the assailants and this is despite PW14's divulging the names of some of the assailants to the PW2 well before his lodging the FIR in the case in hand. PW 14 seems to have offered explanation as to why the names of the assailants could not make their way to the FIR. 31. Explanation so tendered shows that the names of the assailants of father of the PW14 could not be incorporated since PW14 was not aware of the names of the assailants of his father since he could not recognize the assailants of his father on the night in question and since he did not know their names till the time of his recording statements by the I/O which I/O had done after two months of the incident. Such revelations only serve to show that his evidence cannot be relied on without liberal doses of suspicion. 32. We have also found that prosecution places heavy reliance on the testimonies of the PW 1, the driver of the vehicle, used in conducting raids on the night in question. Though he is found saying that on such a night, a man in civil dress asked him to put on the head light of the vehicle which he did so and in the light of the vehicle, he saw that said man in civil dress to assault a Bodo man, yet, it is found from the record that PW 1 did not disclose such vital information to the I/O during investigation. 33. The evidence of PW1 also shows that he did not know the A2 since before the incident in question. He saw him for the first time on the night aforesaid of incident and thereafter he saw him for second time when he came to the court to tender his evidence. 33. The evidence of PW1 also shows that he did not know the A2 since before the incident in question. He saw him for the first time on the night aforesaid of incident and thereafter he saw him for second time when he came to the court to tender his evidence. His identifying the accused in the dock coupled with his non disclosure of a very vital fact to the I/O during investigation has again showed that the evidence of PW 1 that he saw the A2 assaulting the deceased in the light of the vehicle cannot be accepted as truthful evidence. 34. Coming to the evidence of PW 10, we have found that in his evidence, he stated that on the fateful night, A2 along with 13 (thirteen) other persons arrested him from the house of one Piti Deka, then, took him in their vehicle to the house of the Chanaram Boro, the deceased, where they apprehended the later, assaulted him and took all of them to the Excise office at Mangaldai where the excise personnel again assaulted Chanaram Boro for which he died in the office of Exercise, Mangaldai. 35. However in his cross-examination, he is also found saying that he did not mention the names of those persons while he was being examined u/s. 161 CrPC as well as 164 CrPC. His evidence rather reveals that he could not recognize the accused persons by name and face at all the time relevant. What is more, the evidence, tendered by him could hardly implicate A1 with the crime in question, much less such evidence implicating other accused persons. Being so, no implicit reliance can also be placed on the testimony of PW 10. 36. In so far, evidence of PW 11 is concerned, it may be stated he saw the Excise personnel in the house of elder sister Bhabeswari on the night in question. Though he stated that excise personal had assaulted the deceased at his house on the night in question, he too could not recognize the assailants. Similarly, though PW15 deposes that Excise Officials raided their house on the night aforesaid, yet, she too could not recognize any of the assailants of her father. The evidence so rendered by PW 11 and PW15, in our opinion, could not throw any light in ascertain the allegations leveled against the accused persons. 37. Similarly, though PW15 deposes that Excise Officials raided their house on the night aforesaid, yet, she too could not recognize any of the assailants of her father. The evidence so rendered by PW 11 and PW15, in our opinion, could not throw any light in ascertain the allegations leveled against the accused persons. 37. We have already found that PW 2, the informant was not a witness to the incident. He came to know about the same from PW14 and PW15. However, none of those two witnesses could give any concrete and reliable information about the culprits who assaulted the deceased at his house and other places on the night in question. More importantly, their evidence is found unreliable for their testimonies being found riddled with serious infirmities. Being so, no reliance can be placed on the testimonies of PW 1 and PW 14 or for that matter on the testimony of PW 2. 38. It is worth noting that in his evidence, PW2 stated that A2, A3 and A5 came to his house few days before the incident in question and demanded money to settle a case against the deceased. However, such demand was not met for which, according to PW 2, on the fateful night the excise party came to their house, apprehended father of the PW14 and assaulted him brutally which occasioned his death next day. 39. However, PW 2 admitted that such information was not divulged to the I/O during investigation. Non disclosure of aforesaid statement once again casts a serious doubt about the authenticity of claim of PW 2 that few days before the incident in question, A 2, A3 and A5 came to their house and demanded money to settle a case against his father. 40. We have found that learned Addl. P.P. had placed enormous reliance on the dock identification of A2 by the PW14 to contend that since A2 was identified by PW 14 in the dock, it goes a long way to show that A2 was the person responsible for the crime in question since he had not only took part in such an incident but also exhorted other officials to assault the persons apprehended on that night which included the luckless father of PW 14. 41. It may be stated that it is no longer res-integra that dock identification of the accused is permissible in law. 41. It may be stated that it is no longer res-integra that dock identification of the accused is permissible in law. However, such dock identification needs to be considered in the light of attending facts and circumstances. We have already found that the testimonies of PW14, PW15 or for that matter, the testimonies of other witnesses are found unreliable for reasons more that than which we have already discussed herein before and same needs no further re-instatement. Suffice it to say, evidence of those witnesses cannot be relied on without a large grain of salt. 42. It is worth noting here that prosecution has laid some documentary evidence to show that on the night in question officials under the leadership of the A2 had raided very many places including the residence of deceased and in carrying such raids, those officials including A2 had assaulted several persons including the deceased. However, learned Trial Court considered those documents and concluded that such documentary evidence cannot at all be relied on since such documents were not made part of the record in accordance with principle of law. 43. Such inadmissible documents------according to the Trial Court-----------could not establish that on the night in question, persons, shown as accused persons in sessions case No. 1 (DM)/1999, had actually participated in conducting raid in different households including the house of the brother of the PW 2. We have considered such finding of the learned Trial Court in the light of evidence on record, the documents aforesaid, in particular, and found no reason to differ with the finding arrived at by the Trial Court requiring us to hold that those documents could not establish that on the night aforesaid accused persons in the case in hand raided the houses of persons aforesaid. 44. We may also note here that learned Addl. 44. We may also note here that learned Addl. P.P., vehemently contends that since there is evidence on record to show that A1 to A13 had conducted raid in different households on the night aforesaid, since there is evidence on record to show that in carrying out such raids, party so raiding the households also arrested the father of the PW 14,assaulted him brutally after taking him into custody and such assaults, father of the PW 14 died in the office of Excise department Mongaldai next day in the morning and since such death was homicidal in nature, it needs to be concluded that object of all accused persons was to kill him and in prosecution of such object, accused persons, who were members of said unlawful assembly, killed the brother of PW 2. 45. However such an argument holds no water since we have already found that prosecution miserably fails to show that all the accused persons had participated in some way or other in committing the crime under scrutiny. We have also found that the prosecution could not establish that who were the perpetrators who actually took part in torturing the victim on the night of 11.09.1996. Our foregoing discussion has made it more than clear and same needs no further re-statements. 46. In view of above, only the victim being arrested by a joint team of police and excise personnel and only for his death for alleged torture at the hands of some of the members of tea stated above, it cannot be said that the accused persons in sessions case No. 1 (DM)/1999 killed the victim and they did so in furtherance of common objects. Resultantly, we find no difficulty in rejecting the contention so put forwarded by leaned Addl. P.P. 47. Yet another factor has thrown its weight behind the above conclusion of us. One may notice here that the Doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased was Dr. P.K. Tahbildar and was examined as PW 8. His evidence is as follows: "(1) Abrasion 5 cm x 4 cm over the outer side of the left arm. (2) Abrasion 2 cm x 2 cm over the left forearm. (3) Abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm over the dorsal aspect of left elbow. (4) Swelling of dorsal aspect of the right hand. His evidence is as follows: "(1) Abrasion 5 cm x 4 cm over the outer side of the left arm. (2) Abrasion 2 cm x 2 cm over the left forearm. (3) Abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm over the dorsal aspect of left elbow. (4) Swelling of dorsal aspect of the right hand. (5) Abrasion 3 cm x 1 cm- 2 nos with swelling and crythuma in the buttock. (6) Abrasion 3 cm x 4 cm over the left knee joint. (7) Erylhemons marking 5 cm x 1 cm over the left thigh. (8) 14 Nos of abrasion of varying sizes from 5 cm x 12 cm length and Erythema over the back. (9) Faecal materials seen around the anal canal. Cranium and spinal canal Scalp skill vertebrae -Intact and Healthy. Membrane, Brain and spinal cord - Congested and healthy. Thorax - Walls, ribs and cartilages - Nothing abnormality detected. Pleurae-NAD Larynx and trachea - congested filled with froths. Right lung - Both the lungs are healthy, congested and collapsed. Pericardium - Intact. Heart - All the chambers of the heart are empty. Vessels - NAD. Abdomen - Intact and healthy. Peritoneum. Intact, congested, peritoneal cavity soiled with indigested food materials and bile and blood. Mouth, Pharynx and Esophagus - Congested, filled with food materials mixed froths. Stomach and its contents -Anterior wall of the stomach is lacerated by 4 cm x 1 cm kecking the gastric contents into the peritoneal cavity. Small intestine and its contents - Healthy. Lagge intestines and its contents - Healthy. Liver congested but healthy, Spleen - Healthy, Kidneys - Contend healthy, Bladder- Empty and healthy, Organs of generation extreme, and internal- Intact and healthy. Muscles, bones and joints: Injury, diese or deformity, fracture, dislocation - Absent. Injuries described are ant mortem in nature and were caused by blunt object. Opinion- The deceased died of shock due to injuries sustained according to opinion of Dr. Dulal Kalita. Dr. Kalita prepared the P.M. Report. Dr. A.K. Pathak was also present. Lacerated injury of the stomach through which contents of the stomach came out along with ante mortem clotted blood is sufficient to cause death of a person in the ordinary course of nature. Ext. 4 is the P.M. report of Dr. Dulal Kalita and A.K. Pathak. Ext. 4(1) is my signature. Ext. 4(2) is the signature of Dr. A.K. Pathak. Ext. Ext. 4 is the P.M. report of Dr. Dulal Kalita and A.K. Pathak. Ext. 4(1) is my signature. Ext. 4(2) is the signature of Dr. A.K. Pathak. Ext. 4(3) is the signature of Dr. Dulal Kalita. Post mortem was done by Dr. Dulal Kalita and I helped him. I am acquainted with the handwritings and signatures of Dr. Kalita and Dr. Pathak." Cross-examination for all the accused: "All the injuries found were multiple injuries. Abrasions are simple injuries. Abrasions are superficial injuries. It bleeds slightly. Most of the injuries found are not extensive. In my opinion, I have mentioned that patient died of shock due to the injuries sustained. I have not mentioned in my opinion that the patient died due to injuries over interior wall of the stomach. To cause these injuries of the interior wall of the stomach there must be some blunt impact with force in the outer abdominal wall. But I did not find any external injury corresponding to the injury found in the interior wall of the stomach. If the disease processed in the injury wall of stomach, these type of injuries may be easily caused. Due to process there my not be any laceration; there may be perforation. Such type of injury will be enhanced when there is a disease process. These type of injuries will be extended if the patient is not treated and ultimately laceration will lead to perforation". 48. The evidence of Doctor, we find, reveals that the deceased died basically due to intestinal perforation and such intestinal perforation is generally caused by disease. Though the Doctor found some external injuries such injuries did not correspondent to internal intestinal wound meaning thereby that the deceased did not die due to external injuries found on the body of the deceased. Therefore, even one assumes for the sake of arguments that deceased died because of alleged assault, unleashed by accused persons, as alleged by prosecution, yet then, in view of opinion, rendered by Doctor on the cause of death of the deceased, it cannot be said that common object of the accused persons was to cause the death of the deceased. 49. It may be noted here that there are materials on record which prima facie show that the general heath of the victim was very sound at the time of his death. 49. It may be noted here that there are materials on record which prima facie show that the general heath of the victim was very sound at the time of his death. Such disclosure coupled with the evidence of the Doctor again demonstrates that none of the members of the aforesaid party, even if it is presumed for the sake of argument that some of the accused persons had actually participated in the crime in question, had any object to cause the death of deceased. 50. Such revelation further fortifies our conclusion that on the materials on record, it cannot be concluded that accused persons formed an unlawful assembly at the place of occurrence on the night of 11.09.1996 with the common object of liquidating victim and in prosecution of such a common, all or some of them, being members of said unlawful assembly, had actually assaulted the deceased which occasioned his death next day in the morning. 51. In view of what we have disused above and what have emerged there-from, we have found that the judgment under challenge cannot be said to be perverse or illegal or rendered on misconception of law and facts. 52. Situations being such, the present appeal is required to be dismissed and same is accordingly dismissed. 53. Since the petitioner in the Criminal Revision No.486 of 2010 questioned the judgment in Crl. Appeal No. 129 of 2010 and since the Cril. Appeal No. 129 of 2010 is dismissed being found devoid of merit, the Crl. Revn. 486 of 2010 is also liable to be dismissed which we accordingly do. Return the LCR. Appeal Dismissed.