JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in the above numbered criminal appeals, hence the same are being taken up together and adjudicated by this common judgment. In order to maintain clarity, the facts of Criminal Appeal No.293 of 2011 have been taken into consideration. 2. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 21.10.2011, rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge/6th FTC, Dehradun in Sessions Trial No.89 of 2005, whereby the accused-appellants, were charged with and tried for the offences under Section 302 of IPC read with Sections 147 and 149 of IPC. The accused were convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-(each) and in default of payment of fine to undergo additional imprisonment for three years. They were further convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each under Section 147 of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-(each) and in default of payment of fine to undergo additional imprisonment for a period of six months. All the sentences imposed under the aforesaid sections were directed to run concurrently. 3. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that PW1 Sri Krishna has lodged a complaint on 07.05.2005 vide exhibit A-1. According to the averments contained in the FIR, a feast was organized by Birble on 06.05.2005 in the locality for celebrating his son’s marriage. His brother Sonu and his nephew Ravi also went to attend the feast. A quarrel took place with Rahul over the issue of spoon. The matter was pacified. Around 11:00 PM, Sonu, Ravi, Chandan, Pappu and Hemant went to buy cigarette from the shop of Wasim. Rahul, Bablu, Raja, Shiv Prasad, Guruprasad, Anish, Wasim, Jai Karan and Mukesh and 3-4 more persons, armed with cricket bat and sticks started giving beatings these persons. Sonu and his nephew Ravi have received multiple injuries. Ravi Kumar was declared dead. Sonu was referred to CMI Hospital. His condition was serious. The body was sent for postmortem examination. The FIR was lodged. The matter was investigated and the challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities. The prosecution has examined as many as ten witnesses in its support. Ravi Kumar was declared dead. Sonu was referred to CMI Hospital. His condition was serious. The body was sent for postmortem examination. The FIR was lodged. The matter was investigated and the challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities. The prosecution has examined as many as ten witnesses in its support. The statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. They have denied the case of the prosecution. The accused were convicted and sentenced, as noticed hereinabove. Hence, these appeals. 4. Learned Senior counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused-appellants. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has supported the judgment dated 21.10.2011. 5. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the judgment carefully. 6. PW1 Sri Krishna is the material witness. He testified that on 06.05.2005, a feast was organized in the house of Birble. A quarrel took place at 10:15 PM between Rahul, Sonu and his nephew Ravi over a spoon. He reached the spot. The matter was pacified. Thereafter, Rahul and others went to their houses. Sonu came back to his house at about 10:50 PM. Ravi, Chandan, Hemant, Pappu and Sonu met them on the way. Ravi told him that they were going to buy cigarette. He also followed them. These persons reached the shop of Wasim. The moment they tried to turn back near Guru’s house, Rahul, Bablu, Wasim, Anish, Guru Prasad, Shiv Prasad, Guru Prasad, Jai Karan, Shiv Karan, Raj Karan met him. Bablu was carrying cricket bat. Rahul was carrying baton. Guru Prasad was carrying sanitary plank. Jai Karan was also carrying sanitary plank. The other accused were armed with sticks and baton. He identified Rajaram, Guru Prasad, Wasim, Chand Ali, Shiv Prasad, Jai Karan, Anish, Guru Prasad, S/o Sri Pal, Jai Karan and Raj Karan in the Court. Bablu was not present in the Court. According to him, these persons have beaten up Ravi, Sonu, Chandan, Hemant and Pappu. Chandan, Hemant and Pappu managed to escape. Ravi and Sonu were encircled. They were beaten up with sticks and planks. He was informed that Ravi and Sonu were beaten up. He shouted “Bachao, Bachao”. The accused left the victims on the spot. The injured were taken to hospital. Ravi was declared dead. The FIR was registered. Chandan, Hemant and Pappu managed to escape. Ravi and Sonu were encircled. They were beaten up with sticks and planks. He was informed that Ravi and Sonu were beaten up. He shouted “Bachao, Bachao”. The accused left the victims on the spot. The injured were taken to hospital. Ravi was declared dead. The FIR was registered. In his cross-examination, he admitted that near the shop of Wasim, the house of Rajaram was situated. 10-12 persons have also come on the spot. 7. PW2 Chandan Singh has deposed that he was in the feast, organized by Birble at 10:00 PM. He was taking his meals. Rahul was carrying spoon. Sonu and Ravi were demanding spoon. The quarrel has taken place between Rahul and Sonu. The matter was pacified. Around 11:00 PM, Sonu, Ravi, Hemant and Pappu went to the shop of Wasim to buy cigarette. The maternal uncle of Ravi namely Sri Krishna met them on the way and asked where they were going. Ravi and Sonu told him that they were going to Wasim’s shop to buy cigarette. He also went with them. Wasim was not in the shop. Nasim was on the shop. Sonu and Ravi bought the cigarette. The altercation took place between Wasim and Ravi. Thereafter, Rahul, Wasim, Anish, Guru Prasad, Shiv Prasad, Jai Karan, Shiv Karan, Rajaram Chand Ali, Guru Prasad and some other persons came on the spot. They were carrying sticks and planks. They started giving beatings to Sonu and Ravi. He along with Pappu and Hemant ran away from the spot. He saw the accused gave beatings to Ravi and Sonu. There was mercury light near the house of Balram. There was light near the shop of Wasim. The injured were taken to hospital. He identified the accused Shiv Prasad, Rahul, Rajaram, Wasim, Anish, Guru Prasad and Chand Ali and after seeing accused Guru Prasad, Jai Karan, Raj Karan, Shiv Karan, he told that he did not know them but he used to see them occasionally. He recognized them by face. 8. PW3 Pappu Kumar has corroborated the statement of PW2 Chandan Singh. He also disclosed the manner in which the incident has taken place in the house of Birble and thereafter, when Ravi along with Sonu had gone to buy the cigarette. He saw that Rahul, Wasim, Chand Ali, Jai Karan, Shiv Karan, Rajaram and Bablu had encircled the victims. 8. PW3 Pappu Kumar has corroborated the statement of PW2 Chandan Singh. He also disclosed the manner in which the incident has taken place in the house of Birble and thereafter, when Ravi along with Sonu had gone to buy the cigarette. He saw that Rahul, Wasim, Chand Ali, Jai Karan, Shiv Karan, Rajaram and Bablu had encircled the victims. Bablu was carrying cricket bat, Jai Karan and Shiv Karan were carrying batons and other persons were armed with sticks. They started giving beatings to Ravi and Sonu. He, Hemant and Chandan escaped from the spot. They narrated the incident to PW1 Sri Krishna. There was light in the shop of Wasim. There was mercury bulb in front of the house of Balram Gaur. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he did not know the name of the parents of the accused, who were recognized by him. According to him, Chand Ali, Rahul, Wasim, Bablu and Anish used to play cricket with them. He did not know the rest of the people. He was residing in the neighbourhood of Sri Krishna. In his re-examination, he has deposed that the persons who have been named by him above, their names were disclosed to him by other persons. 9. PW4 Mansha Ram has deposed that on 06.05.2005, he has gone to attend the marriage party in the house of Birble. Rahul was carrying spoons in his hand. Sonu and Ravi demanded spoon from Rahul. Some altercation took place between Sonu, Ravi and Rahul. The matter was pacified. Thereafter, Hemant and Chandan came to the spot where party was going on and told that Sonu and Ravi were beaten up seriously. These persons have disclosed the names of the accused. He reached the spot. The clothes of Sonu and Ravi were soaked with blood. 10. PW5 Dr. K.C. Pant has conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Ravi. According to him, death was caused due to shock and hemorrhage due to ante mortem injuries which led to excessive blood. The injuries received were resulted into the death. He prepared the postmortem report. According to him, the injuries were received by the deceased on 06.05.2005 at 11:00 PM with sticks, baton, planks etc. 11. PW6 Rajesh has deposed that at about 11-11:15 PM, he heard the noise. He was told that Sonu and Ravi were beaten up by Rahul and others. He prepared the postmortem report. According to him, the injuries were received by the deceased on 06.05.2005 at 11:00 PM with sticks, baton, planks etc. 11. PW6 Rajesh has deposed that at about 11-11:15 PM, he heard the noise. He was told that Sonu and Ravi were beaten up by Rahul and others. Later on, Ravi has died and Sonu was admitted in the hospital. 12. PW7 Dr. Manoj Sharma is the Radiologist. He has examined injured Sonu. According to him, injury nos.1 to 7 were caused by blunt and hard object. The injuries were fresh. Injury no.8 was caused by some sharp edged weapon. It was also fresh. He referred the injured to higher centre. 13. PW9 Kuldeep Singh was the Investigating Officer. He has admitted that the parentage of few accused was not written in the FIR. However, he denied that the accused were falsely implicated. 14. PW10 Dr. Y.S. Thapliyal has corroborated the statement of PW5 Dr. K.C. Pant. He has identified the signature of Dr. Pant. 15. What emerges from the statement of witnesses recorded hereinabove is that Sonu and Ravi with their friends had gone to attend the feast organized by Birble in his house. The quarrel took place between Sonu, Ravi and Rahul. Thereafter, Sonu and Ravi with his friends went to the shop of Wasim to buy cigarette. They were attacked by accused with sticks, baton, cricket bat and planks. Sonu and Ravi received serious injuries. Ravi died in the hospital. 16. Learned Advocates appearing on behalf of accused-Mukesh Yadav, Shiv Kiran, Rajaram and Chand Ali have vehemently argued that their names were not in the FIR and they have also not been identified by the prosecution witnesses. According to the FIR lodged by PW1 Sri Krishna, Rahul, Bablu, Raja, Shiv Prasad, Guru Prasad, Guru Prasad Yadav, Wasim, Anish, Jai Karan and Mukesh Yadav were present on the spot, armed with sticks, batons and cricket bat and they gave beatings to Sonu and Ravi. 17. PW1 Sri Krishna, in his statement has deposed that when Ravi and Sonu along with their friends were asked by him as to where they were going, they told him that they were going to buy cigarette. He also followed them. 17. PW1 Sri Krishna, in his statement has deposed that when Ravi and Sonu along with their friends were asked by him as to where they were going, they told him that they were going to buy cigarette. He also followed them. They reached the shop of Wasim and when they were coming back, Rahul, Bablu, Wasim, Anish, Guru Prasad, Shiv Prasad, Guru Prasad, Jai Karan, Shiv Karan and Raj Karan gave beatings to Sonu and Ravi. He identified Rajaram, Guru Prasad, Wasim, Chand Ali, Shiv Prasad, Jai Karan, Anish, Guru Prasad, S/o Sri Pal, Jai Karan and Raj Karan in the Court. PW1 Sri Krishna has not named Mukesh Yadav in his statement but he has got mentioned his name in the FIR as Exhibit A-1. 18. PW2 Chandan Singh has not named Mukesh Yadav-accused but he has stated that he did not remember the name of other accused. 19. PW3 Pappu Kumar has also deposed that Rahul, Wasim, Chand Ali, Jai Karan, Shiv Karan, Rajaram and Bablu encircled the victims but he did not remember the names of other accused. Thus, the name of Mukesh Yadav finds mention in the FIR. There were twelve accused. The statements of PW1 Sri Krishna, PW2 Chandan Singh and PW3 Pappu Kumar were recorded on 24.09.2007, 11.10.2007 and 31.10.2007 respectively. The incident has happened on 06.05.2005. These witnesses were bound to forget one or two names since they were deposing after more than two years before the Court. 20. It is also argued by learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the appellants that the names of Shiv Karan and Rajaram were not mentioned in the FIR, however, PW1 Sri Krishna has stated the names of Shiv Karan as well as Rajaram. PW2 Chandan Singh has also named Shiv Karan and Rajaram. PW3 Pappu Kumar, another eye-witness, has seen Shiv Karan and Rajaram gave beatings to Ravi and Sonu. 21. In the FIR, PW1 Sri Krishan has named ten persons. He has also mentioned that there were 3-4 persons who have also given beatings to Ravi and Sonu. No suggestion was put to PW1 Sri Krishna why he has falsely implicated Mukesh Yadav. 22. It is clear that the accused inflicted fatal injuries which led to the death of Ravi. 23. The accused have also been charged with and tried for the offence under Section 304 read with Section 149 of IPC. No suggestion was put to PW1 Sri Krishna why he has falsely implicated Mukesh Yadav. 22. It is clear that the accused inflicted fatal injuries which led to the death of Ravi. 23. The accused have also been charged with and tried for the offence under Section 304 read with Section 149 of IPC. All the accused formed an unlawful assembly and with a common object, they have beaten Ravi and Sonu. Ravi has died due to shock and hemorrhage due to ante mortem injuries. Ravi has received as many as fifteen injuries. 24. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 1974 (4) SCC 568 , in the case of “Bhajan Singh & others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh”, have held that even if the accuse were originally members of an unlawful assembly with the common object of only beating the deceased, having come armed with deadl weapons, some with spear and gandasa and some with lathis, in the desperate manner they have done, and if the members of the assembly knew that by using these weapons upon the deceased death would be caused, they are guilty of Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC. Their Lordships have held as under: - “10. The learned counsel strenuously contends that the accused cannot be convicted under Sections 302/149 IPC as the common object of the assembly was not to kill the deceased. Their Lordships have held as under: - “10. The learned counsel strenuously contends that the accused cannot be convicted under Sections 302/149 IPC as the common object of the assembly was not to kill the deceased. The learned Counsel, however, fails to take note of the fact that Section 149 has got two limbs: “If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly know to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.” Even if, therefore, the accused were originally members of an unlawful assembly with the common object of only beating Bakhsheesh Singh having come armed with deadly weapons, some with spear and gandasa and some with lathis, in the desperate manner they have done, and if the members of the assembly knew that by using these weapons upon Bakhsheesh Singh death would be caused, they are guilty under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC There is no circumstance in this case which can bring down this case to one under Section 304 IPC. The intention was clear to kill Bakhsheesh Singh and all the accused are guilty of the offence charged, namely under Sections 302/149 IPC. 13. Section 149 IPC constitutes, per se, a substantive offence although the punishment is under the section to which it is tagged being committed by the principal offender in the unlawful assembly, known or unknown. Even assuming that the unlawful assembly was formed originally only to beat, it is clearly established in the evidence that the said object is well-knit with what followed as the dangerous finale of, call it, the beating. This is not a case where something foreign or unknown to the object has taken place all of a sudden. It is the execution of the same common object which assumed the fearful character implicit in the illegal action undertaken by the five accused. (See also K.C. Mathew v. State of Travancore-Cochin).” 25. This is not a case where something foreign or unknown to the object has taken place all of a sudden. It is the execution of the same common object which assumed the fearful character implicit in the illegal action undertaken by the five accused. (See also K.C. Mathew v. State of Travancore-Cochin).” 25. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in AIR 1993 SC 1175 , in the case of “Nallamsetty Yanadaiah & others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh”, have held where the presence of all the accused was mentioned consistently by all the witnesses and there is also, the evidence of the injured witnesses who consistently deposed that all the accused who were convicted under Sections 302/149, IPC, were present and also participated in the occurrence by inflicting injuries on some of the eye-witnesses. Hence conviction of all the accused under Section 149 was justified. Their Lordships have held as under: - “13. Section 149 IPC constitutes, per se, a substantive offence although the punishment is under the section to which it is tagged being committed by the principal offender in the unlawful assembly, known or unknown. Even assuming that the unlawful assembly was formed originally only to beat, it is clearly established in the evidence that the said object is well-knit with what followed as the dangerous finale of, call it, the beating. This is not a case where something foreign or unknown to the object has taken place all of a sudden. It is the execution of the same common object which assumed the fearful character implicit in the illegal action undertaken by the five accused. (See also K.C. Mathew v. State of Travancore-Cochin).” 25. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2007 (3) SCC 120 , in the case of “Sheo Prasad Bhor @ Sri Prasad vs. State of Assam and analogous matter”, have held that it is not necessary that each person of the assembly should be assigned independent part in the commission of crime. If it is found that one of them was as member of unlawful assembly and that unlawful assembly assaulted the deceased which ultimately caused death of the deceased, then all who were members of the unlawful assembly can be held liable. Their Lordships have held as under: - “6. If it is found that one of them was as member of unlawful assembly and that unlawful assembly assaulted the deceased which ultimately caused death of the deceased, then all who were members of the unlawful assembly can be held liable. Their Lordships have held as under: - “6. We have gone through the statements made under Sections 161, 164 CrPC of these witnesses and before the trial court, after going through the statements, we are of opinion that the approach of the learned Single Judge of the High Court appears to be justified. So far as PW 2, Faizul Hussain is concerned, he has named accused Manik Keot and Jaharlal Bhor. PW 3 has also named accused Manik Keot and Jaharlal Bhor in the Court though not before the police and not before the Magistrate. PW 4 has named accused Sheo Prasad Bhor, Champalal Bhor and Jaharlal Bhor. PW 6 has also alleged that Champalal Bhor, Manik Keot and Sheo Prasad Bhor were lifting Rehmat Ali from the spot and were dragging him to the bank of the river. He has also stated that accused Jaharlal also gave a baitha-blow to the deceased and accused Champalal Bhor gave a dagger-blow and when he tried to intervene, he was threatened by accused Sheo Prasad Bhor. Similarly, PW 7 has also mentioned that accused Sheo Prasad Bhor was there and participated in the assault. He also mentioned the name of Jaharlal Bhor before the Magistrate and the court. His statement was sought to be controverted by PW 9, the investigating officer. Small contradiction and omission are natural when body of persons attacked the deceased. One has to only assure that there should not be overimplication. After review of statements both the courts below have correctly appreciated the testimony of witnesses. We have also perused the statements made by the witnesses, it is clear that some took part in the assault while others actively assisted them. When charge under Section 149 IPC is there, it is not necessary that each one should be assigned independent part played in the beating. If it is found that one of them was a member of the unlawful assembly and that unlawful assembly assaulted the deceased which ultimately caused the death of the deceased, then all who were members of the unlawful assembly can be held liable. If it is found that one of them was a member of the unlawful assembly and that unlawful assembly assaulted the deceased which ultimately caused the death of the deceased, then all who were members of the unlawful assembly can be held liable. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case the view taken by the trial court convicting the accused-appellant under Section 304 Part II IPC read with Section 149 IPC cannot be said to be bad. The High Court has rightly observed that it was a case under Section 302 IPC but since there was no appeal preferred by the State, therefore, the High Court did not interfere with the conviction of the appellants. Be that as it may, we are satisfied that the learned Single Judge as well as the trial court have correctly appreciated the testimony of the witnesses and there is no ground to interfere in these appeals. Consequently, the appeals are dismissed. 26. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2008 (16) SCC 73 , in the case of “State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Kishanpal and others”, have held that once a membership of an unlawful assembly is established it is not incumbent on the prosecution to establish whether any specific overt act has been assigned to any accused. Mere membership of the unlawful assembly is sufficient and every member of an unlawful assembly is vicariously liable for the acts done by others either in the prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly or such which the members of the unlawful assembly knew were likely to be committed. Their Lordships have held as under: - “47. Now let us consider the other relevant issue, namely, allegation of absence of evidence relating to the specific overt act or role attributed to each accused as well as the evidence of the prosecution in respect of a charge under Section 149 IPC. Before going into the merits of the above issue, it is useful to refer to Section 149 which reads thus: “149. Before going into the merits of the above issue, it is useful to refer to Section 149 which reads thus: “149. Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.—If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.” It is well settled that once a membership of an unlawful assembly is established it is not incumbent on the prosecution to establish whether any specific overt act has been assigned to any accused. In other words, mere membership of the unlawful assembly is sufficient and every member of an unlawful assembly is vicariously liable for the acts done by others either in the prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly or such which the members of the unlawful assembly knew were likely to be committed. 48. In Bhagwan Singh v. State of M.P. this Court while considering unlawful assembly/sharing of common object held as under: (SCC p. 90, para 9) “9. Common object, as contemplated by Section 149 of the Penal Code, does not require prior concert or meeting of minds before the attack. Generally no direct evidence is available regarding the existence of common object which, in each case, has to be ascertained from the attending facts and circumstances. When a concerted attack is made on the victim by a large number of persons armed with deadly weapons, it is often difficult to determine the actual part played by each offender and easy to hold that such persons who attacked the victim had the common object for an offence which was known to be likely to be committed in prosecution of such an object. It is true that a mere innocent person, in an assembly of persons or being a bystander does not make such person a member of an unlawful assembly but where the persons forming the assembly are shown to be having identical interest in pursuance of which some of them come armed, others though not armed would, under the normal circumstances, be deemed to be the members of the unlawful assembly.” The same principle has been stated in State of A.P. v. Veddula Veera Reddy and Sahdeo v. State of U.P. 49. In the case on hand, the accused persons have been proved to be on inimical terms with the complainant party. The accused persons who came on the spot are shown to have armed with deadly weapons i.e. guns and pistols. The facts and circumstances of the case unequivocally prove the existence of the common object of such persons forming the unlawful assembly who had come on the spot with weapons and attacked the complainant’s party. In consequence of which three precious lives were lost and another three sustained firearm injuries. 50. In State of Rajasthan v. Nathu this Court held: (SCC p. 544, para 17) “17. … If death had been caused in prosecution of the common object of an unlawful assembly, it is not necessary to record a definite and specific finding as to which particular accused out of the members of the unlawful assembly caused the fatal injury. Once an unlawful assembly has come into existence, each member of the assembly becomes vicariously liable for the criminal act of any other member of the assembly committed in prosecution of the common object of the assembly.” 51. In Rachamreddi Chenna Reddy v. State of A.P. with reference to common object and how the same has to be interfered with, this Court held thus: (SCC pp. 100-01, paras 7 & 9) “7. … The question whether the group of persons can be made liable for having caused murder of one or two persons by virtue of Section 149 IPC depends upon the facts and circumstances under which the murder took place. 100-01, paras 7 & 9) “7. … The question whether the group of persons can be made liable for having caused murder of one or two persons by virtue of Section 149 IPC depends upon the facts and circumstances under which the murder took place. Whether the members of an unlawful assembly really had the common object to cause the murder of the deceased has to be decided on the basis of the nature of weapons used by such members, the manner and sequence of attack made by those members on the deceased and the settings and surroundings under which the occurrence took place. *** 9. In Bolineedi case this Court held that for arriving at a conclusion of constructive liability, what the courts have to see is whether they had the common object and members of the assembly knew it likely to be committed in prosecution of that object. In the aforesaid case, the fact that all the accused persons chased and surrounded the deceased and inflicted injuries with their respective weapons was held to be sufficient to conclude that they had the common object to kill the deceased.” 52. In the case on hand, the prosecution witnesses have clinchingly demonstrated how the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly at a particular spot with deadly weapons like guns and pistols and that all had fired at the injured and the deceased. The number of injuries on the deceased as per the post-mortem report as well as the firearm injuries sustained by the three injured persons clearly demonstrate the common object of Accused 1 to 10 was to kill the complainant’s party. 53. In Yunis v. State of M.P. this Court held: (SCC p. 430, para 9) “9. … Even if no overt act is imputed to a particular person, when the charge is under Section 149 IPC, the presence of the accused as part of an unlawful assembly is sufficient for conviction. The fact that [the accused] was a member of the unlawful assembly is sufficient to hold him guilty.” Following the above principle, in Jaishree Yadav v. State of U.P., in an identical circumstance, this Court interfered with the acquittal of the High Court. It is relevant to refer to para 28 of the said decision: (SCC pp. 802-03) “28. The fact that [the accused] was a member of the unlawful assembly is sufficient to hold him guilty.” Following the above principle, in Jaishree Yadav v. State of U.P., in an identical circumstance, this Court interfered with the acquittal of the High Court. It is relevant to refer to para 28 of the said decision: (SCC pp. 802-03) “28. In view of the above principle in law, since the trial court has found these respondent-accused guilty of being members of an unlawful assembly with the common object of causing the murder of the deceased, and the High Court having not differed from the said finding, it erred in acquitting these respondent-accused solely on the ground that there is no evidence to show that they had taken part in the actual assault. In our opinion, assuming that the High Court was correct in coming to the conclusion that these respondent-accused have not taken part in the attack even then they having come together with the other accused armed, and having been members of the unlawful assembly and having shared the common object, they will be guilty of an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC.” 54. In the earlier part of our discussion, we referred to the evidence of PWs 1, 5, 7 and 9 and CW 1 as well as the two doctors and the post-mortem reports, Exts. Ka-19, Ka-20, Ka-21 and injury reports, Exts. Ka22, Ka-23 and Ka-24. As observed in the above decisions, even though specific overt act had been attributed only to Accused 1, 5 and 6 and not to each of the other accused in view of the fact that there is ample evidence for the presence of all the accused as part of unlawful assembly and firing by all of them, all of them have to be held guilty of offence charged against them. 55. We are satisfied that the High Court has committed an error in acquitting all the accused except Onkar Singh only on the ground that specific overt act or involvement had not been highlighted by the prosecution witnesses. The High Court has observed that the testimony of PW 9 Resham Devi inspires their confidence fully. PW 9 has given evidence of the unlawful assembly of the ten accused and indiscriminate firing by the ten accused, apart from referring to the specific acts of Accused 1, 5 and 6. The High Court has observed that the testimony of PW 9 Resham Devi inspires their confidence fully. PW 9 has given evidence of the unlawful assembly of the ten accused and indiscriminate firing by the ten accused, apart from referring to the specific acts of Accused 1, 5 and 6. Therefore, the High Court could not have acquitted Accused 2, 4, 7, 8, 9 and 10.” 27. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2012 (6) SCC 204 , in the case of “Jitendra Kumar vs. State of Haryana and analogous matter”, have held that it would not always result in acquittal of accused person whose name was omitted from FIR. Even though accused is not named in FIR, if a definite role is attributed to him and same is proved beyond reasonable doubt, he is liable to be convicted. Their Lordships have further held that primary object is to be set the criminal law into motion and it may not be possible to give every minute detail with unmistakable precision in the FIR. The FIR itself is not the proof of a crime, but is piece of evidence which could be used for corroborating the case of the prosecution. Their Lordships have held as under: - “18. The court has also to consider the fact that the main purpose of the FIR is to satisfy the police officer as to the commission of a cognizable offence for him to conduct further investigation in accordance with law. The primary object is to set the criminal law into motion and it may not be possible to give every minute detail with unmistakable precision in the FIR. The FIR itself is not the proof of a case, but is a piece of evidence which could be used for corroborating the case of the prosecution. The FIR need not be an encyclopaedia of all the facts and circumstances on which the prosecution relies. It only has to state the basic case. The attending circumstances of each case would further have considerable bearing on application of such principles to a given situation. Reference in this regard can be made to State of U.P. v. Krishna Master and Ranjit Singh v. State of M.P. 19. It only has to state the basic case. The attending circumstances of each case would further have considerable bearing on application of such principles to a given situation. Reference in this regard can be made to State of U.P. v. Krishna Master and Ranjit Singh v. State of M.P. 19. In the present case, despite the fact that the accused Jitender has not been named in the FIR, a definite role has been attributed to this accused by PW 10. Further, it was on his disclosure statement that the motorcycle, Ext. P-44, has been recovered. 20. PW 10 Surender has specifically stated in his statement before the court that Jitender was his brother-in-law. According to this witness, after midnight at about 12.30 a.m., accused Satish and Jitender, while driving a motorcycle, had come to him in the fields. They gave him beating and insisted that he should ask his wife to open the door of the chobara. He was taken to his residence in the village and out of fear, he asked his wife to open the door which she did as earlier she had bolted the shutters from inside. After the door was opened, Ratti Ram, Pawan, Satish and Sunil entered the chobara. Jitender thereafter is stated to have taken out a synthetic rope from the dicky of the motorcycle and handed over the same to Satish. After handing over the rope, Jitender declared that he would take Sunder back to the fields and exhorted that Indra be killed to solve all problems in the future. 21. According to this witness (PW 10), he was forced by Jitender to drive the motorcycle back to the fields. Further, Jitender is stated to have been a party to illegally confining PW 10 after the commission of the crime. Moreover, in the cross-examination of this witness, not even a suggestion was put to him that Jitender was not present and/or had not accompanied him on the motorcycle to the fields. On the contrary, the matters in relation to the property, for which protest was raised by Indra have clearly been stated therein. 22. We must also notice that the fact that PW 11 did not name the accused Jitender in the FIR adds to the credibility of this witness rather than creating a doubt in the case of the prosecution. On the contrary, the matters in relation to the property, for which protest was raised by Indra have clearly been stated therein. 22. We must also notice that the fact that PW 11 did not name the accused Jitender in the FIR adds to the credibility of this witness rather than creating a doubt in the case of the prosecution. PW 11 in his statement clearly stated that all the accused except Jitender were present in the chobara and had murdered his sister Indra. This reflects the truthfulness of PW 11. The occurrence of the events as per the case projected by the prosecution is that PW 11 had not met Jitender in the chobara because Jitender had gone to the fields to bring PW 10 forcibly and under threat to his house and after getting the door opened by Indra and handing over the rope to the other accused, Jitender had taken PW 10 back to the fields. 23. When PW 11 came to the chobara and noticed the other accused persons killing Indra, Jitender had already left along with PW 10 and as such, there was no occasion for PW 11 to see Jitender at the place of occurrence in the chobara. Therefore, he rightly did not name Jitender in the FIR as one of the persons present in the chobara who committed the murder of his sister. There was no occasion or reason for PW 10 to implicate Jitender falsely as Jitender was also known and related to him. This accused was duly identified in the court by this witness.” Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, we do not find any reason to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment of the Trial Court convicting and sentencing the appellants/accused, as discussed hereinabove. There is no merit in these appeals and the same are hereby dismissed. The appellants are on bail. Their bail is cancelled. Let they be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence awarded to them by the Trial Court. Let a copy of this judgment along with LCR be sent back to the trial court for forthwith compliance.