ORDER 1. In this group of appeals, six (06) accused persons who have been convicted under Sections 148 and 302 IPC have challenged their conviction and sentence of life imprisonment imposed on them. 2. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 3rd June, 2007 at about 9.30 p.m. Murugan (P.W.2), the uncle of the deceased Manikandan, claimed to have overheard the accused persons discussing amongst themselves that Manikandan (deceased) should be put to death immediately. On hearing the said conversation, P.W.2 is reported to have rushed to the house of the deceased and conveyed the said information to the family members of the deceased. Thereafter, according to the prosecution, Marichamy (P.W.1), the father of the deceased, and Murugan (P.W.2) went out in the Car driven by one Gopal in search of the deceased and at certain point of time (around 11.00 p.m.) near the Race Course Road they found Mappillaisamy (P.W.3) and Ramakrishnan (P.W.4.) running towards their car. The said witnesses (i.e. P.W.3 and P.W.4), according to the prosecution, informed P.W.1 and P.W.2 that the deceased was being assaulted at a place a little ahead, where after P.W.1 and P.W.2 reached the spot in the vehicle and saw the accused persons assaulting the deceased with sickles and sword. According to the prosecution, by the time P.W.1 could come out from the vehicle (car) his son had passed away. The incident was reported to the Police at about 11.50 p.m. of the same date where after the crime was registered and investigated and tried by the learned Sessions Judge who found the accused persons guilty. The said conviction has been affirmed in appeal(s) by the High Court. 4. Learned counsels for the appellants have argued that as the charge of conspiracy under Section 120B IPC has been found to be not established by the prosecution, the story unfolded by P.W.2 that on hearing the conversation between the accused he had rushed to the house of P.W.1 to inform him of the same necessarily has to fall through. Learned counsels have carried the matter further by contending that the search for the deceased and the incident as claimed by the prosecution necessarily has to be disbelieved. Learned counsels have carried the matter further by contending that the search for the deceased and the incident as claimed by the prosecution necessarily has to be disbelieved. The unnatural conduct on the part of the P.W.1, the father, in not trying to save his son who was being repeatedly assaulted by the accused persons has also been stressed upon by the learned counsels to persuade the Court to take the view that the prosecution case reflects an unnatural version of human conduct and, therefore, ought not to be accepted. 5. The failure of the prosecution to examine the driver of the vehicle, one Gopal, who could have been an independent witness has also been urged on behalf of the appellants. The fact that both P.W.1 and P.W.2 are related to the deceased has been adversely commented upon by the learned counsels for the appellants who have contended that the version unfolded by the said prosecution witnesses are not worthy of credence. The failure of the learned trial Court to frame a charge under Section 302 IPC with the aid of Section 149 IPC and the conviction by the learned Courts for the offence under Section 302 IPC simpliciter has also been urged at the hearing on behalf of the appellants. 6. Learned counsel for the State as well as the learned counsel for the complainant who have been heard have contended that P.W.1 and P.W.2 have unfolded a consistent version of the events that had occurred and merely because they are related to the deceased the said versions do not become unacceptable in law. In so far as the conduct of P.W.1 in not coming out of the car to save his son is concerned it has been contended on behalf of the State that not much significance ought to be attached to the said fact, perhaps, on the basis that the reaction of different persons to different situations would vary. The failure of the prosecution to examine Gopal, the driver of the vehicle (car), has been sought to be explained by contending that the said fact does not affect the core of the prosecution case unfolded by P.W.1 and P.W.2 whose evidence otherwise is creditworthy. The failure of the prosecution to examine Gopal, the driver of the vehicle (car), has been sought to be explained by contending that the said fact does not affect the core of the prosecution case unfolded by P.W.1 and P.W.2 whose evidence otherwise is creditworthy. In so far as omission/ failure to frame charge under Section 149 IPC is concerned, learned counsels for the State and the complainant have urged that the same is merely a technical omission and hence an irregularity within the meaning of section 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In this regard, learned counsels have pointed out that the accused persons have also been convicted separately under Section 148 IPC and the said conviction would make the accused persons vicariously liable for the consequences resulting from the acts committed by the members of the unlawful assembly. It is also pointed out that the accused persons cannot be understood to have, in any way, been prejudiced by the aforesaid technical omission/failure to frame a separate charge under Section 149 IPC. 7. We have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. 8. Having read and considered the order of the learned trial Court (particularly Para 39) we find that the evidence of P.W.2 with regard to hearing the conversation between the accused as such has not been disbelieved. What has been held by the learned trial Court is that on the basis of the aforesaid statements made by P.W.2 the ingredients of the offence under Section 120B and 109 IPC cannot be said to have been made out i.e. the charge of criminal conspiracy is not fully established. At no point of time, the learned trial Court has disbelieved P.W.2 on the said part of the prosecution story. 9. If that is so, the version unfolded by P.W.2 that after hearing the conversation he had gone to the house of the deceased and along with P.W.1 had gone in search of the deceased does not suffer from any blemish. P.W.1 and P.W.2 have been clear, categorical and consistent in stating that the accused persons named by them in their depositions had committed the assault on the deceased with sharp weapons like sickles and sword. P.W.1 and P.W.2 have been clear, categorical and consistent in stating that the accused persons named by them in their depositions had committed the assault on the deceased with sharp weapons like sickles and sword. This part of the evidence is corroborated by the medical testimony inasmuch as in the postmortem report, thirteen (13) different injuries which are cut injuries and stab injuries have been found on the body of the deceased. The fact that P.W.1 did not come to the rescue of his son can be explained and understood in a manner different from what has been urged, which necessarily would not go contrary to the prosecution case. 10. Apart from P.W.1 stating on oath that the entire incidence had occurred in moments it is a time tested proposition acceptable in law that people react differently to different situations. The conduct of P.W. 1 has to be seen and viewed in the light of the above. The non-examination of the driver Gopal in the light of the evidence that the prosecution has led cannot be held to be fatal to the prosecution story. The examination of the said witness could have further strengthened the prosecution case. The reverse is not necessarily true, namely, that the failure to examine would have the effect of destroying the prosecution case. 11. Coming to the last issue, namely, omission/failure to frame charge under Section 149 IPC and consequential obligation on the part of the prosecution to explain the particular injuries caused by each of the accused would pale into insignificance once we take into account the conviction of the accused persons under Section 148 IPC and the separate sentence imposed for that offence. If the accused persons were members of an unlawful assembly as has been established by the conviction under Section 148 IPC, it is unassailable in law each one of the accused persons must necessarily be responsible for the consequence that the illegal acts committed by the members of the unlawful assembly had given rise to. Viewed in the said context, the failure to frame charge under Section 149 IPC and the conviction under Section 302 IPC simpliciter must be understood to be a mere irregularity which would not warrant the acquittal of the accused persons. 12. Viewed in the said context, the failure to frame charge under Section 149 IPC and the conviction under Section 302 IPC simpliciter must be understood to be a mere irregularity which would not warrant the acquittal of the accused persons. 12. The net result of the above discussion is that this Court can find no ground to interfere with the conviction recorded and the sentence imposed by the learned trial Court as affirmed by the High Court. All the appeals, therefore, have to fail and are accordingly dismissed.