JUDGMENT : Ravindra Maithani, J. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 15.06.2012 passed in Sessions Trial No.129 of 2006, State Vs. Liyaqat and others and connected Sessions Trial No. 131 of 2006 and Sessions Trial No. 132 of 2006 by the court of learned second FTC/Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar. 2. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellants Liyaqat, Riyasat, Abid and Julfakar have been convicted of the charge under Section 302/149, 307/149, 147, 148 IPC. In addition to it, appellant Liyaqat has been convicted under section 504 IPC; appellant Riyasat and Abid have been convicted under section 25 Arms Act, 1959 (for short 'the Act') and sentenced as hereunder:- "(i) Under Section 302/149 IPC, the appellants Liyaqat, Riyasat, Abid and Julfakar have been sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.20,000/. In default of payment of fine, it has further been ordered that the appellants shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two years. (ii) Under Section 307/149 IPC, the appellants Liyaqat, Riyasat, Abid and Julfakar have been sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, it has further been ordered that the appellants shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two years. (iii) Under Section 147 IPC, the appellants Liyaqat, Riyasat, Abid and Julfakar have been sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, it has further been ordered that the appellants shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two months. (iv) Under Section 148 IPC, the appellants Liyaqat, Riyasat, Abid and Julfakar have been sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.3,000/-. In default of payment of fine, it has further been ordered that the appellants shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of four months. (v) Under Section 504 IPC, the appellant Liyaqat has been sentenced to one year's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, it has further been ordered that the appellant shall undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two months. (vi) Under Section 3/25 (1B) (a) Arms Act, 1959, the appellant Riyasat has been sentenced to three years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000/- . In default of payment of fine, it has further been ordered that the appellant shall undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two months. (vi) Under Section 3/25 (1B) (a) Arms Act, 1959, the appellant Riyasat has been sentenced to three years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000/- . In default of payment of fine, it has further been ordered that the appellant shall undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two months. (vii) Under Section 4/25 (1B) (b) Arms Act, 1959, the appellant Abid has been sentenced to two years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, it has further been ordered that the appellant shall undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two months." 3. Briefly stated, according to the prosecution, on 15.01.2006, at 08:00 in the morning, PW1 Mashroof along with Maqsood and deceased Jahangir was going to Aqil's STD for a telephone. As soon as they reached at the door of Mehfooz, the appellants Liyaqat, Riyasat, Abid, Julfakar and co-accused Sharafat armed with country-made pistol and Palkati (sharp-edged weapon) reached there. Appellant Liyaqat exhorted the co-accused 'kill them'. All the appellants and co-accused Sharafat fired at them, due to which Jahangir died at the spot. Maqsood and PW1 Mashroof also sustained injuries. Hearing the noise, Mehboob, Javed, Pravez, Nadeem, Salman, Tasawwar, Iqbal, Shahnawaz, Mumtaz and Gulfam came at the spot. The appellants fired at them also and attacked them with Palkati. They all also sustained injuries. The appellants dragged the dead body of Jahangir. When the injured were returning to their homes, the appellant boarded on vehicles, followed them and opened fire in the air to terrorize them. 4. A report of the incident was lodged on the same day at 10:00 AM at Police Station, Roorkee and a Case Crime No. 07 of 2006 under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 r/w 34 and 504 IPC was lodged against the appellants and Sharafat. Inquest of the deceased Jahangir was prepared on the same day and his post-mortem was conducted. According to the doctor, the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injuries caused by some firearm. 5. The Investigating Officer recovered broken body of a gun and a cartridge case from the place of occurrence and prepared a memo thereof, which is Ex. A-35. According to the doctor, the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injuries caused by some firearm. 5. The Investigating Officer recovered broken body of a gun and a cartridge case from the place of occurrence and prepared a memo thereof, which is Ex. A-35. Appellants Abid and Riyasat were arrested. According to the prosecution, they confessed their guilt and at their instance, appellant Abid got a sword recovered and appellant Riyasat got a country-made pistol 12 bore recovered from the shop of appellant Liyaqat; a memo Ex. A-36 was prepared and its site plan Ex. A-38 was also prepared by the Recovery Officer. There are other site plans, Ex.A-45 and 46 which have been prepared by the Investigating Officer. (There is a great discrepancy in the site plans, which will be discussed at a later stage.) The Investigating Officer also took into custody the blood stained clothes and prepared a memo Ex.A-37. Certain recoveries were made from Sharafat. After investigation, chargesheet under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 and 504 IPC was submitted against the appellants and Sharafat. 6. In fact, articles, which were recovered, were sent for forensic examination also. Separate chargesheets were submitted against the appellants Abid and Riyasat under section 25 of the Act. 7. Cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions for trial. 8. On 17.07.2006, charges under sections 147, 148, 307/149, 302/149 and 504 IPC were levelled against Liyaqat, Riyasat, Abid, Julfakar and Sharafat. Charges under section 25 of the Act were also levelled against Abid and Riyasat. Appellants denied the charges and claimed trial. (Sharafat was a juvenile, therefore, his file was separated and sent to Juvenile Justice Board, Haridwar.) 9. Prosecution in order to prove its case, examined as many as twelve witnesses. 10. Appellants were examined under section 313 of the Code. According to them, they have been falsely implicated due to enmity and in defense to the cross case. In their defence, they examined DW1 Dr. S.P. Singh and DW2 Dr. Yogesh Kumar. 11. After hearing the parties, based on the evidence, the learned court below vide judgment and order dated 15.06.2012, convicted and sentenced the appellants, as stated hereinbefore. Aggrieved, the instant appeal. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 13. In their defence, they examined DW1 Dr. S.P. Singh and DW2 Dr. Yogesh Kumar. 11. After hearing the parties, based on the evidence, the learned court below vide judgment and order dated 15.06.2012, convicted and sentenced the appellants, as stated hereinbefore. Aggrieved, the instant appeal. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 13. On behalf of the appellants, learned counsel would argue that the prosecution utterly failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Learned counsel raised following points in his arguments:- (i) FIR is not believable. (ii) The specific role of the appellants has not been assigned. (iii) There is no evidence as to who killed Jahangir. (iv) Prosecution sanctions under section 39 of the Arms Act, 1959 has not been obtained with regard to the appellant Riyasat. (v) The weapons allegedly recovered are not connected with the crime. (vi) Alleged recovery of weapons is joint; it is not reliable. (vii) There is no injury of sword. Medical evidence does not support the oral evidence. 14. Learned counsel for the appellants would argue that in fact, due to rivalry of elections, the appellant Riyasat and his parents Ashraf Ali and Asgari were assaulted by Mehboob, Maqsood and their associates. Appellant Riyasat and his parents sustained injuries, which have been proved in this case. The prosecution has not explained the injuries on appellant Riyasat and his parents. It makes the case doubtful. Learned counsel would further argue that the cross case, which was lodged by father of the appellant Riyasat is believable. It is also argued that appellant Riyasat, in his self-defence, gave a few blows of Dandas, but other appellants were not present at the spot. They have been falsely implicated. 15. On the other hand, on behalf of the informant, learned counsel would argue that the cross case filed by the father of the Riyasat was totally false; his FIR was delayed; medical was not supporting the case of the father of appellant Riyasat and about death of the Jahangir, nothing was stated in that case. Learned counsel would argue that there have been grievous injuries, sustained in the instant case by the victims. Learned counsel would argue that there have been grievous injuries, sustained in the instant case by the victims. Jahangir died in the firing done by the appellants, therefore, it is argued that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and learned court below did not commit any error in convicting and sentencing the appellant. 16. Learned State Counsel would submit that the incident occurred at 08:00 in the morning. FIR is prompt. PW1 Mashroof, PW2 Iqbal, PW3 Arshad Ali, PW4 Nisar Ahmad and PW5 Naseem Ahmad have supported the prosecution case. Their statements are corroborating to each other. PW1 Mashroof and PW4 Nisar Ahmad are injured witnesses. Their statements are corroborated by medical evidence. PW6 Dr. Akhilesh Agarwal and PW7 Dr. Swati Murari have supported the prosecution case. Prosecution sanction under section 39 of the Act has been obtained from the District Magistrate. The enmity is admitted. The incident is admitted, as Ashraf Ali, father of the appellant Riyasat has also filed cross case. 17. Admittedly, on an FIR filed by Ashraf Ali, father of Riyasat, investigation was carried out and chargesheet was submitted and proceedings of Session Trial No.277 of 2007 in the court of FTC/Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar was initiated. In that trial, Mashroof, Mehboob Hasan, Abid, Afzal and Gumnam were acquitted on 15.06.2012. The State filed Government Appeal No.46 of 2012 and informant also filed Criminal Appeal No.195 of 2012 before this Court challenging the acquittal. These appeals have been decided earlier today and this Court confirmed their acquittal. It may also be mentioned here that Mashroof in that case had died during the pendency of the appeal and the case was abated against him on 15.10.2019. 18. The law for trial of the cross cases is well settled. Each case has to be decided on its merit. Evidence recorded in one case cannot be used in another case. Whatever evidence is available on the record of the case that has to be considered. The only caution is that the both the trials should be conducted simultaneously or in case of the appeal, they should be heard simultaneously. 19. Each case has to be decided on its merit. Evidence recorded in one case cannot be used in another case. Whatever evidence is available on the record of the case that has to be considered. The only caution is that the both the trials should be conducted simultaneously or in case of the appeal, they should be heard simultaneously. 19. On the question of free fight in the case Sikhar Behera1 Hon'ble Supreme Court, inter alia, held that "in view of the findings of both the courts below that neither party was in peaceful possession of the lands in dispute and that there was a scramble for possession and that both parties were prepared for a fight and in fact fought, the accused cannot have a 1- Sikhar Behera and others Vs. State of Orissa, (1994) Supp1 SCC 493 right of private defence. In such a free fight, the question of one party being aggressor may not rise. However, the members of each party would be members of the unlawful assembly with the common object to fight. But the nature of the participation, the weapons used and the injuries caused would also be relevant to infer the nature of the common object." 20. In the case of Chittarmal, Chittarmal Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2003) 2 SCC 266 , Hon'ble Supreme Court held as hereunder:- "14. It is well settled by a catena of decisions that Section 34 as well as Section 149 deal with liability for constructive criminality i.e. vicarious liability of a person for acts of others. Both the sections deal with combinations of persons who become punishable as sharers in an offence. Thus they have a certain resemblance and may to some extent overlap. But a clear distinction is made out between common intention and common object in that common intention denotes action in concert and necessarily postulates the existence of a prearranged plan implying a prior meeting of the minds, while common object does not necessarily require proof of prior meeting of minds or preconcert. Though there is a substantial difference between the two sections, they also to some extent overlap and it is a question to be determined on the facts of each case whether the charge under Section 149 overlaps the ground covered by Section 34. Though there is a substantial difference between the two sections, they also to some extent overlap and it is a question to be determined on the facts of each case whether the charge under Section 149 overlaps the ground covered by Section 34. Thus, if several persons numbering five or more, do an act and intend to do it, both Section 34 and Section 149 may apply. If the common object does not necessarily involve a common intention, then the substitution of Section 34 for Section 149 might result in prejudice to the accused and ought not, therefore, to be permitted. But if it does involve a common intention then the substitution of Section 34 for Section 149 must be held to be a formal matter. Whether such recourse can be had or not must depend on the facts of each case. The non-applicability of Section 149 is, therefore, no bar in convicting the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, if the evidence discloses commission of an offence in furtherance of the common intention of them all. (See Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor, (1925) AIR PC 1: 26 Cri LJ 431 , Mannam Venkatadari v. State of A.P., (1971) 3 SCC 254 : 1971 SCC (Cri) 479: AIR 1971 SC 1467 , Nethala Pothuraju v. State of A.P., (1992) 1 SCC 49 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 20 : AIR 1991 SC 2214 and Ram Tahal v. State of U.P., (1972) 1 SCC 136 : 1972 SCC (Cri) 80: AIR 1972 SC 254 ). 21. In the case of Subal Ghorai, Subal Ghorai and others Vs. State of West Bengal, (2013) 4 SCC 607 Hon'ble Supreme Court, inter alia, held as hereunder: "53. But this concept of constructive liability must not be so stretched as to lead to false implication of innocent bystanders. Quite often, people gather at the scene of offence out of curiosity. They do not share common object of the unlawful assembly. If a general allegation is made against large number of people, the court has to be cautious. It must guard against the possibility of convicting mere passive onlookers who did not share the common object of the unlawful assembly. Unless reasonable direct or indirect circumstances lend assurance to the prosecution case that they shared common object of the unlawful assembly, they cannot be convicted with the aid of Section 149 IPC. It must guard against the possibility of convicting mere passive onlookers who did not share the common object of the unlawful assembly. Unless reasonable direct or indirect circumstances lend assurance to the prosecution case that they shared common object of the unlawful assembly, they cannot be convicted with the aid of Section 149 IPC. It must be proved in each case that the person concerned was not only a member of the unlawful assembly at some stage, but at all the crucial stages and shared the common object of the assembly at all stages. The court must have before it some materials to form an opinion that the accused shared common object. What the common object of the unlawful assembly is at a particular stage has to be determined keeping in view the course of conduct of the members of the unlawful assembly before and at the time of attack, their behaviour at or near the scene of offence, the motive for the crime, the arms carried by them and such other relevant considerations. The criminal court has to conduct this difficult and meticulous exercise of assessing evidence to avoid roping innocent people in the crime. These principles laid down by this Court do not dilute the concept of constructive liability. They embody a rule of caution." 22. The question of non-explanation of injuries have also been raised during the course of an argument. It is really very important for the prosecution to place before the Court, the true story. If accused sustains injuries in an incident, it is always incumbent upon the prosecution to explain as to how did accused sustain injuries. This aspect has come up for consideration several times before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 23. In the case of Lakshmi Singh, Lakshmi Singh and others vs. State of Bihar, (1976) 4 SCC 394 , Hon'ble Supreme Court, inter alia, held as hereunder: "This Court clearly pointed out that where the prosecution fails to explain the injuries on the accused, two results follow: (1) that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is untrue: and (2) that the injuries probabilise the plea taken by the appellants. The High Court in the pre-sent case has not correctly applied the principles laid down by this Court in the decision referred to above. In some of the recent cases, the same principle was laid down. The High Court in the pre-sent case has not correctly applied the principles laid down by this Court in the decision referred to above. In some of the recent cases, the same principle was laid down. In Puran Singh v. The State of Punjab, (1975) 4 SCC 518 : 1975 SCC (Cri) 608 Criminal Appeal No. 266 of 1971 decided on April 25, 1975: which was also a murder case, this Court, while following an earlier case, observed as follows: In State of Gujarat v. Bai Fatima, (1975) 2 SCC 7 : 1975 SCC (Cri) 384 one of us (Untwalia, J., speaking for the Court, observed as follows: SCC p.13 : SCC (Cri) p.390. Para 17 (Ravindra Maithani, J.) (Alok Singh, J.) In a situation like this when the prosecution fails to explain the injuries on the person of an accused, depending on the facts of each case, any of the three results may follow: (Ravindra Maithani, J.) (Alok Singh, J.) (1) That the accused had inflicted the injuries on the members of the prosecution party in exercise of the right of self defence. (2) It makes the prosecution version of the occurrence doubtful and the charge against the accused cannot be held to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. (3) It does not affect the prosecution case at all " (Para 12) 24. In the case of Mohd. Khalil Chisti Vs. State of Rajasthan and others, (2013) 2 SCC 541 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that " it is clear that it is the duty of the prosecution to explain the injuries sustained by the accused and establish the genesis of the incident by placing acceptable material." 25. Is it a case of free fight or aggression or defence? Has the role of each person been individually assigned or the criminal liability vicarious or constructive, as defined under section 34 and 149 IPC has been established? These and many more legal aspects would also come up for discussion in the instant case. The charges against the appellants is that they were members of the unlawful assembly and used force, committed rioting, attacked the injured by Palkati and fired with country-made pistol as well as killed Jahangir. 26. Pw1 Mashroof is a person who was along with deceased Jahangir and Maqsood, when according to the prosecution, they were attacked in front of the house of Mehfooz. 26. Pw1 Mashroof is a person who was along with deceased Jahangir and Maqsood, when according to the prosecution, they were attacked in front of the house of Mehfooz. PW1 Mashroof has categorically stated that on 15.01.2006 at 08:00 in the morning, he along with Jahangir @ Bhura and Maqsood was going at the STD booth of Aqil. As soon as they reached in front of the door of the Mashroof, the appellants Liyaqat, Riyasat, Abid, Julfakar and co-accused Sharafat reached there, armed with country-made pistol and Sharafat also had Palkati. Liyaqat exhorted 'kill them'. All the appellants attacked them and fired at them. Jahangir, this witness and Maqsood were hit by the fireshot. Jahangir fell down and was killed. According to PW1 Mashroof, he tried to lift Jahangir, but appellants did not allow them to do so. Appellant Liyaqat put his foot on Jahangir and threatened that he will see who lifts Jahangir. Meanwhile, hearing the firearm shots, Mehboob, Javed, Pravez, Nadeem, Salman, Tasawwar, Iqbal, Shahnawaz, Mumtaz and Gulfam reached there at the spot. They also tried to lift Jahangir, but appellants fired at them also. They all sustained injuries. Appellants dragged Jahangir towards their house. Jahangir died. When this witness and others were returning to their respective houses, the appellants followed them in their vehicles and opened fire in the air. They reached hospital. PW2 Iqbal is the son of Maqsood. He has corroborated the statement of PW1 Mashroof. Similarly, PW3 Arshad Ali, PW4 Nisar Ahmad and PW5 Naseem Ahmad have also corroborated the statements of PW1 Mashroof. In fact, Nisar Ahmad is another injured, who reached at the spot and tried to lift Jahangir, but according to this witness, he was also fired at and he sustained injuries. His clothes were stained with blood. 27. Pw6 Dr. Akhilesh Agarwal conducted post-mortem of Jahangir. According to him, there were multiple lacerated wounds in the area of 28 X 22 cm on the chest. This witness has given detailed description of the injuries. According to him, cause of the death was shock and haemorrhage, due to ante mortem injuries caused by firearm. He proved post-mortem report as Ex. A-2. This post-mortem of Jahangir was conducted on 15.01.2006 at 07:40 PM and according to doctor conducting the post-mortem, duration of the death was 1/2 to 1 day, as rigor-mortis was present at upper and lower part of the body. 28. He proved post-mortem report as Ex. A-2. This post-mortem of Jahangir was conducted on 15.01.2006 at 07:40 PM and according to doctor conducting the post-mortem, duration of the death was 1/2 to 1 day, as rigor-mortis was present at upper and lower part of the body. 28. Pw7 Dr. Swati Murari examined the injured on 15.01.2006 in Civil Hospital, Roorkee. According to her, on the examination of Mehboob Hasan, she found the following injuries:- (i) Contusion 7cm x 3 cm on the left forearm including wrist. (ii) Lacerated wound 4cm x 3cm on left wrist lateral aspect kept under observation. (iii) Multiple small lacerated wound 2cm x 2cm on the front and back forearm and back on left hand 20cm x 8 cm. (iv) Lacerated wound 4cm x 1cm x bone deep on front of forehead 6cm above the bridge of nose. (v) Incised wound 5cm x 1cm bone deep on left side of head 10 cm above left ear. 29. Pw7 Dr. Swati Murari examined Nisar Ahmad on the same day and found the following injuries: (i) Lacerated wound 0.5cm x 0.5 cm x skin deep right upper arm on the lateral aspect 10 cm below shoulder joint. (ii) Lacerated wound 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm left side of back below the shoulder joint. (iii) Multiple lacerated wounds in an area of 50cm x 2 cm measuring each 0.5 cm x 0.5cm on the back. (iv) Lacerated wound 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm left upper arm 9 cm above elbow joint. (v) Lacerated wound 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm right buttock. (vi) Lacerated wound 0.5cm x 0.5 cm left buttock. (vii) Lacerated wound 0.5cm x 0.5 cm on back of right thigh middle part. 30. Pw7 Dr. Swati Murari examined Maqsood Ahmad on the same day and found the following injuries: (i) Lacerated wound 0.2 cm x 0.2 cm on front and middle of left leg. (ii) Lacerated wound 0.2 cm x 0.2cm on medial aspect of left hand. (iii) Lacerated wound 0.2cm x 0.2cm on front of middle of left thigh. 31. Pw7 Dr. Swati Murari examined Javed Ahmad on the same day and found the following injuries: (i) Two lacerated wounds each measuring 0.2 cm x 0.2cm, on the front of left thigh at an area of 7cm x 3cm with a distance of 3cm. (iii) Lacerated wound 0.2cm x 0.2cm on front of middle of left thigh. 31. Pw7 Dr. Swati Murari examined Javed Ahmad on the same day and found the following injuries: (i) Two lacerated wounds each measuring 0.2 cm x 0.2cm, on the front of left thigh at an area of 7cm x 3cm with a distance of 3cm. (ii) Lacerated wound of 0.2cm x0.2cm on the medial aspect of left thigh (iii) Lacerated wound 0.2cm x 0.2 cm on front and lateral side of left knee. (iv) Lacerated wound of 0.2cm x 0.2cm on medial aspect of right thigh. (v) Lacerated wound 0.2 cm x 0.2 cm on back and middle of left forearm. (vi) Lacerated wound 0.2 cm x 0.2 cm on the back of left hand. (vii) Lacerated wound 0.2 cm x 0.2 cm on back of left hand. (viii) Lacerated wound 0.2cm x 0.2 cm on the front of left leg. 32. Pw7 Dr. Swati Murari examined Masroof Ahmad on the same day and found the following injuries: (i) Lacerated wound 5cm x 0.5 cm x scalp deep on the top of head 13 cm above right ear. (ii) Abrasion 3cm x 1cm on the back of right forearm. (iii) Lacerated wound 0.2cm x 0.2cm, on back of left index finger. (iv) Abrasion 3cm x 1cm on front of left leg, 3cm above left ankle. (v) Multiple lacerated wounds 0.2cm x 0.2cm on antemeridian aspect of left leg in an area of 15cm x 10cm (vi) Lacerated wound 0.2cm x 0.2cm on medial aspect of left knee. (vii) Abrasion 5cm x 2cm on right side of back. (viii) Abrasion 5cm x 2cm on left side of back 10cm below left scapula. 33. Pw7 Dr. Swati Murari examined Salman on the same day and found the following injuries: (i) Abrasion 0.5cm x 0.5cm on the right eyebrow. (ii) Abraded contusion 3cm x 2cm on the right side of face just below lower eyelid. (iii) Abrasion 1cm x 0.2cm on base of right ring finger of right hand. (iv) Abrasion 1cm x 0.5cm on right hand in between ring finger and middle finger. (v) Lacerated wound 0.5cm x 0.5cm on the tip of ring finger. (vi) Abrasion 3cm x 1cm on the front of left leg joint below knee joint. (vii) Abrasion 3cm x 2cm on front of left leg middle part. 34. Pw7 Dr. (iv) Abrasion 1cm x 0.5cm on right hand in between ring finger and middle finger. (v) Lacerated wound 0.5cm x 0.5cm on the tip of ring finger. (vi) Abrasion 3cm x 1cm on the front of left leg joint below knee joint. (vii) Abrasion 3cm x 2cm on front of left leg middle part. 34. Pw7 Dr. Swati Murari examined Pravez Alam on the same day and found the following injury: (i) Traumatic swelling 10cm x 8cm on dorsal of right foot. 35. Pw6 Dr. Swati Murari examined Tasawwar Ali on the same day and found the following injuries: (i) Lacerated wound 0.2cm x 0.2cm on medial aspect of left thigh 5cm above knee. (ii) Lacerated wound 0.2cm x 0.2cm on front aspect of left thigh 3cm above. (iii) Lacerated wound 0.2cm x 0.2cm on medial aspect of left knee. (iv) Lacerated wound 0.2cm x 0.2cm on medial aspect of left leg 6cm below knee. (v) Lacerated wound 0.2cm x 0.2cm on the front and middle of right leg. (vi) Lacerated wound 0.2cm x 0.2cm on front of right knee. 36. Pw7 Dr. Swati Murari examined Iqbal on the same day and found the following injuries: (i) Lacerated wound 0.2cm x 0.2cm on left side of chest 11cm below left nipple 4 O'clock position. 37. Pw7 Dr. Swati Murari examined Shahnawaz on the same day and found the following injury: (i) Abrasion 1cm x 0.5cm on inner aspect of right upper arm 13 cm above elbow joint. 38. Pw7 Swati Murari examined Mumtaz on the same day and found the following injuries: (i) Lacerated wound 0.2cm x 0.2cm below right nipple on right side of chest. (ii) Lacerated wound 0.2cm x 0.2cm right side of abdomen 9cm above umbilicus. (iii) Lacerated wound 0.2cm x 0.2cm exterior aspect of right thigh 5cm above knee joint. (iv) Lacerated wound 0.2cm x 0.2cm on front of right leg 15cm below right knee joint. 39. Pw7 Dr. Swati Murari examined Gulfam on the same day and found the following injuries: (i) Lacerated wound 0.2cm x 0.2cm right forehead 1cm above right eyebrow. (ii) Lacerated wound 0.2cm x 0.2cm outer aspect of right leg 9cm below knee joint. (iii) Lacerated wound 0.2cm x 0.2cm outer aspect of right leg 4cm below injury no.2. 40. Pw7 Dr. Pw7 Dr. Swati Murari examined Gulfam on the same day and found the following injuries: (i) Lacerated wound 0.2cm x 0.2cm right forehead 1cm above right eyebrow. (ii) Lacerated wound 0.2cm x 0.2cm outer aspect of right leg 9cm below knee joint. (iii) Lacerated wound 0.2cm x 0.2cm outer aspect of right leg 4cm below injury no.2. 40. Pw7 Dr. Swati Murari examined Nadeem on the same day and found the following injuries: (i) Lacerated wound 0.2cm x 0.2cm left side of chest below the outer aspect of left clavicle. (ii) Lacerated wound 0.2cm x 0.2cm left side of abdomen 8 cm from umbilicus 3 O'clock position. (iii) Lacerated wound 0.2cm x 0.2cm on outer aspect of right wrist. (iv) Lacerated wound 0.2 cm x 0.2 cm with swelling 6cm x 4cm on back of right hand base of thumb. (v) Traumatic swelling 4cm x 3cm at the base of right thumb. PW7 Dr. Swati Murari examined Naseem on the same day and found the following injuries: (i) Lacerated wound 0.2cm x 0.2cm on the back of hand (right) between the index of and middle finger. (ii) Lacerated wound 0.2cm x 0.2cm on the middle and interior aspect of right leg. (iii) Lacerated wound 0.2cm x 0.2cm on the front of left leg 6cm below the knee. (iv) Abrasion 0.5cm x 0.5cm on the front of right shoulder. 41. Pw7 Dr. Swati Murari proved the medical reports Ex.A-3 to Ex.A-16. PW7 Dr. Swati Murari has also stated that she prepared supplementary reports on the basis of X-ray report and found as hereunder:- (i) In the x-ray of Nisar Ahmad, small-size round shaped radio opaque shadow of foreign body was detected. (Supplementary Report Ex.A-17) (ii) In the x-ray of Mehboob Hassan, small-size round shaped radio opaque shadow of foreign body was detected and the fracture on the left hand also. (Supplementary Report Ex.A-18) (iii) In the x-ray of Javed Ahmad, small-size round shaped radio opaque shadow of foreign body was detected. (Supplementary Report Ex.A-19) (iv) In the x-ray of Nadeem, small-size round shaped radio opaque shadow of foreign body was detected. (Supplementary Report Ex.A-20) (v) In the x-ray of Naseem, small-size round shaped radio opaque shadow of foreign body was detected. (Supplementary Report Ex.A-21) (vi) In the x-ray of Iqbal also, small-size round shaped radio opaque shadow of foreign body was detected. (Supplementary Report Ex.A-20) (v) In the x-ray of Naseem, small-size round shaped radio opaque shadow of foreign body was detected. (Supplementary Report Ex.A-21) (vi) In the x-ray of Iqbal also, small-size round shaped radio opaque shadow of foreign body was detected. (Supplementary Report Ex.A-22) (vii)Nothing was detected on the x-ray of Parvez Alam (Supplementary Report Ex.A-23) (viii) In the x-ray of Mumtaz and Salman, small-size round shaped radio opaque shadow of foreign body was detected. (Supplementary Report Ex.A-24 and Ex.A-25) (ix) In the x-ray of Tasawwar also, small-size round shaped radio opaque shadow of foreign body was detected. (Supplementary Report Ex.A-26) (x) In the x-ray of Mashruf also, small-size round shaped radio opaque shadow of foreign body was detected. (Supplementary Report Ex.A-27) (xi) In the x-ray of Maqsood Ahmad also, small-size round shaped radio opaque shadow of foreign body was detected. (Supplementary Report Ex.A-28) 42. Pw12 Yogesh Kumar proved the x-ray reports of Naseem. (Ex.A-50), Salman (Ex.A-51), Tasawwar Ali (Ex.A-52), Iqbal (Ex.A-53), Parvez (Ex.A-54), Maqsood Ahmad (Ex.A-55), Javed Ahmad (Ex.A-56), Nadeem (Ex.A-57), Nisar Ahmad (Ex.A-58), Mashroof Ahmad (Ex.A-59), Mumtiaz (Ex.A-60) and Mehboob Hassan (Ex.A-61). He also proved the x-ray plates. 43. Pw8 Surendra Singh Bisht is the Investigating Officer in the case. According to PW8 Surendra Singh Bisht, on 17.01.2006, in the early hours, appellants was arrested and brought to the Police Station. They confessed their guilt and at the instance of appellants Abid and Riyasat, a sword and a country-made pistol with cartridges were recovered and a recovery memo Ex.A-36 was prepared by Rohtas Singh, which was signed by this witness. He also took into custody the clothes worn by the injured and prepared a memo thereof, which is Ex.A-37. PW8 Surendra Singh Bisht also prepared site plans of the recovery of country-made pistol and sword and submitted chargesheet against the appellants. He proved the country-made pistol Ex.-21, cartridge Ex.-22, cartridge case Ex.-23 and sword Ex.-24. 44. Pw9 Anil Kumar is a formal witness, who wrote the chik FIR and entry in the general diary. Before case was lodged an information was received at the Police Station about the fight, and on this information, Sub-Inspector Rajesh Kumar along with Police force was sent at the spot. 45. Pw10 Constable Sanjay Ram lodged Case Crime No. 11 of 2006 and Case Crime No. 12 of 2006 under section 25 Arms Act, 1959 against appellants Abid and Riyasat respectively. 45. Pw10 Constable Sanjay Ram lodged Case Crime No. 11 of 2006 and Case Crime No. 12 of 2006 under section 25 Arms Act, 1959 against appellants Abid and Riyasat respectively. He proved chik FIR and general diary entries. 46. Pw11 J.P. Thapliyal is the Investigating Officer in the Arms Act, 1959 case. He prepared the site plans, which are Ex.A-45 and A-46 (in two cases against Riyasat and Abid, separate site plans were prepared). He submitted the chargesheet against the appellants Abid and Riyasat for the offence under section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. According to him, he also obtained prosecution sanction from District Magistrate and proved prosecution sanction Ex. A-39. 47. It is argued that FIR is not believable because the informant was not at the spot. It is true that the informant PW3 Arshad Ali was not at the spot. But, in all cases, it is not necessary that the informant should be an eye-witness also. PW3 Arshad Ali has stated that on that day he was in Roorkee and at about 08:30 in the morning, some person told him that there was a fight in his village and many persons have been injured. He reached to the hospital, where he met Mashroof, Iqbal and other injured. They narrated him the story as to how the incident occurred. This witness has stated about it. According to him, he narrated the FIR to Sazid and gave it at Police Station. Merely, because PW3 Arshad Ali is not an eye-witness, FIR does not become unbelievable. Its veracity has to be tested. Reliability has to be seen. 48. It is argued that specific role has not been assigned. The Court can very well visualize as to the scene when two groups armed with firearms and other weapons were clashing. The liability of 'constructive criminality' or 'vicarious liability' for the acts of other meets such contingencies. The provisions of section 149 IPC are taken for assistance under such situation. As in the case of Subal Ghorai (supra), the Hon'ble Court has cautioned that this concept of 'constructive liability' must not be so stretched, as to lead to false implication of innocent bystandard. A person of unlawful assembly is definitely liable for the act committed by any other member of the assembly which is done in furtherance of the common object. 49. A person of unlawful assembly is definitely liable for the act committed by any other member of the assembly which is done in furtherance of the common object. 49. Pw1 Mashroof was the person who was first hit by the appellants. He categorically states that appellants opened FIR at them and when other injured reached there, they also fired at them and attacked with a Palkati. In his examination recorded on 15.04.2007, PW1 Mashroof at the beginning page, very candidly admitted that how could he say as to who fired at whom? How can it be known? This statement of PW1 Mashroof inspires confidence. At page no.10 of his examination, PW1 Mashroof has stated that all appellants and Sharafat fired at Jahangir. In fact, according to PW1 Mashroof, it was a case of indiscriminate firing by all the appellants. There are many injured. PW4 Nisar Ahmad is another witness who was injured in the firing. He sustained injuries. Medical evidence and radiologist's reports support the case that firearms were used. Injuries were sustained by the firearms also. All the appellants were together. They fired at PW1 Mashroof, Maqsood and Jahangir and subsequently they opened fire at the witnesses also, who are injured. In such situation if even specific role is not assigned, it does not make the prosecution case doubtful. As stated, when members of unlawful assembly, in furtherance of any common object, commit any offence, each member of unlawful assembly is liable. 50. It cannot be expected that some of the injured would be telling in the court as to who did what in the case like the instant one and if someone meticulously speaks perhaps it may make his statement doubtful because it cannot be done. 51. It is argued that weapons are not connected with the crime. This case is on two parts. One is attack, injuries and killing of Jahangir and other is recovery of country-made pistol and sword. The other part of recovery will be examined at a later stage. It is true that there is no forensic report, which would prove that it is the weapon recovered which is used in the incident. There is a report of forensic science. 52. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that the cross case filed by the father of appellant Riyasat is true and appellant Riyasat gave danda blows in his defense. There is a report of forensic science. 52. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that the cross case filed by the father of appellant Riyasat is true and appellant Riyasat gave danda blows in his defense. As stated, in the cross case filed by Ashraf Ali, father of appellant Riyasat, the accused in the case were acquitted by the court below and the appeal filed by Ashraf Ali and the State, that being Criminal Appeal No. 195 of 2012 and Government Appeal No.46 of 2012 have already been dismissed today by a judgment passed earlier. 53. The question is about non-explanation of injuries on the appellant Riyasat and on his parents. PW7 Dr. Swati Murari has proved the injuries on the parents of the appellant Riyasat. According to PW7, Dr. Swati Murari, on 15.01.2006, she examined Asgari at Civil Hospital, Roorkee and found the following injuries:- (i) Lacerated wound 0.5 x 0.2 cm, on the right forearm, 2 cm below the elbow joint, swelling 7 cm x 3cm. (ii) Lacerated wound0.2 x 0.2 cm x skin deep on the right side of elbow joint. (iii) Lacerated wound 0.5 cm x 0.2 cm, right side of abdomen, 9 cm from umbilicus at 2 O'clock position. (iv) Lacerated wound 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm skin deep, on the right side of abdomen, 6cm below the umbilicus. (v) Lacerated wound 0.5cm x 0.5cm, left side of abdomen, 11 cm from umbilicus at 5O'clock position. (vi) Abrasion 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm, on the left foot, 5 cm below the knee joint. (vii) Lacerated wound 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm, on the right knee. 54. Pw7 Dr. Swati Murari also stated that she examined Ashraf Ali and found the following injuries:- (i) Lacerated wound 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm x scalp deep, left side of head, 10 cm above the left ear. (ii) Lacerated wound 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm x scalp deep, left side of head, 7cm above the left eyebrow. (iii) Lacerated wound 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm, left side .7 cm below the knee joint. (iv) Contusion left upper arm 10 cm x 8 cm. 55. Pw7 Dr. Swati Murari has also stated about the supplementary reports given by her on the basis of x-ray reports. There was fracture, lacerated wounds and detection of radio opaque shadow of foreign body. 56. Dw2 Dr. (iv) Contusion left upper arm 10 cm x 8 cm. 55. Pw7 Dr. Swati Murari has also stated about the supplementary reports given by her on the basis of x-ray reports. There was fracture, lacerated wounds and detection of radio opaque shadow of foreign body. 56. Dw2 Dr. Yogesh Kumar, radiologist proved the x-ray reports of Asgari and Ashraf. In fact, Dr. Yogesh Kumar has been examined twice in this case. (Defence would have questioned about the reports of Ashraf Ali and Asgari, when PW12 Dr. Yogesh Kumar was examined, but it was not done). DW1 Dr. S.P. Singh examined Riyasat on 15.01.2016 at Community Health Center, Bhagwanpur and found the following injuries:- "(i) An incised wound size 0.2cm x 0.5cm x bone deep on the head, parital bone just right lateral to median line. Clotting is present. Margins are sharp." 57. Fir of the cross case is not proved in this case. Injury on Riyasat is, in fact, a point. The size of the injury 0.2 x 0.2 cm. It is very insignificant. According to the prosecution, appellants opened indiscriminate fire. Jahangir died and many other persons injured in the incident. Father and mother of Riyasat also sustained injuries. That is also not so grave. It also does not make the prosecution case doubtful. Having considered the injuries sustained by the victims in the case, the Court is of the view that non-explanation of the injuries on the person of Riyasat, Ashraf Ali and Asgari does not affect the prosecution case, at all. 58. In the instant case, inquest of deceased Jahangir was not prepared at the spot, where he was killed. It was prepared in the hospital. Prosecution has not proved as to who brought this dead body to hospital. But, it is revealing from the record. 59. Pw9 Anil Kumar is the person, who lodged chik FIR and according to him, report of the incident was earlier received at the Police Station and Sub-Inspector Rajesh along with Police force was deputed at the spot. Sub-Inspector Rajesh would have been one witness to tell about it, but he has not been examined, but it also does not affect the prosecution case. 60. In the instant case, FIR is prompt. It inspires confidence. Injured PW1 Mashroof and PW4 Nisar Ahmad another injured have proved the prosecution case. Sub-Inspector Rajesh would have been one witness to tell about it, but he has not been examined, but it also does not affect the prosecution case. 60. In the instant case, FIR is prompt. It inspires confidence. Injured PW1 Mashroof and PW4 Nisar Ahmad another injured have proved the prosecution case. Their statements have been corroborated by the statement of PW2 Iqbal, PW3 Arshad Ali, and PW5 Naseem Ahmad. Nothing has been elicited in their cross-examination, which may doubt their credibility. Oral evidence is supported by the medical evidence. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has been able to prove the charges under sections 147, 148, 307 r/w 149 and 302 r/w 149 IPC against all the appellants. The learned court below did not commit any error in convicting the appellants of the charges. 61. Appellant Liyaqat has been charged under section 504 also. Specific words spoken by him have not been proved by the prosecution, which may attract the provision of Section 504 IPC. It is not even stated by the prosecution as to who was intentionally insulted by the Liyaqat to give provocation. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the appellant Liyaqat deserves to be acquitted of the charge under section 504 IPC and the learned court below committed an error in convicting and sentencing the appellants of this charges. 62. There is another issue with regard to section 25 Arms Act, 1959. There is only one witness of the recovery. According to PW8 S.S. Bisht, on 17.01.2006, when appellants were brought at the Police Station, they confessed their guilt and at the instance of Abid and Riyasat, the weapons were recovered. According to him, from a shop of Liyaqat, appellant Abid recovered a sword and appellant Riyasat recovered a country-made pistol 12 bore and cartridges. This witness has proved recovery memo Ex.A-36. According to him, it was written by Rohtas Singh. 63. Pw8 Surendra Singh Bisht also proves site plan from where those weapons were recovered, which is Ex. A-38. Investigation of the case of Arms Act, 1959 was done by PW11 J.P. Thapliyal. He prepared two site plans. There are contradictions in these two site plans. According to him, it was written by Rohtas Singh. 63. Pw8 Surendra Singh Bisht also proves site plan from where those weapons were recovered, which is Ex. A-38. Investigation of the case of Arms Act, 1959 was done by PW11 J.P. Thapliyal. He prepared two site plans. There are contradictions in these two site plans. A bare perusal of these site plans would reveal that in Ex.A-38, alleged recovery is shown to have been made from a shop which is second shop from right and the shop left to it is vacant, whereas in the site plans prepared by PW11 J.P. Thapliyal, in Ex.A-45 and 46, recovery has been shown to have been made from a shop, which is third shop from the right and the shop right to it, is shown as vacant. The shop from where recovery was made has been shown different in the different maps, one prepared by PW8 S.S. Bisht and other two maps prepared by PW11 J.P. Thapliyal. It doubts the recovery. There is no independent witness to it. 64. The question of prosecution sanction also gains importance. Chargesheets under section 25 Arms Act, 1959 were prepared by PW11 J.P. Thapliyal. According to PW11 J.P. Thapliyal, he sought prosecution sanction after he submitted the chargesheet. Prosecution sanction is not a formality. How did PW11 J.P. Thapliyal took the country-made pistol, sword, etc. for placing it before District Magistrate? When were those articles taken? When were they produced before the District Magistrate? These details have not been revealed by PW11 J.P. Thapliyal even when asked, he could not tell about it. It doubts the authenticity of the sanction. Site plan prepared by PW8 S.S. Bisht and prepared by PW11 J.P. Thapliyal are inconsistent with regard to the shop from which recovery was made. It further doubts the factum of recovery. Therefore, this Court is of the view that insofar as recovery of sword at the instance of Abid and recovery of country-made pistol at the instance of Riyasat is concerned, prosecution has not been able to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt and appellant Abid and Riyasat are entitled to benefit of doubt for the charge under section 25 of Arms Act, 1959. 65. 65. In view of the foregoing discussion; (i) the conviction and sentence of the appellants for the charges under sections 147, 148, 302 r/w 149 and 307 r/w 149 IPC is upheld and confirmed. (ii) Appellant Liyaqat is acquitted of the charge under section 504 IPC and (iii) Appellant Abid and Riyasat are acquitted of the charge under section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. 66. Impugned judgment and order is modified to the extent, as indicated above and the appeal is partly allowed accordingly. 67. Let a copy of this judgment along with Lower Court Record be transmitted to the Court below for compliance.