JUDGMENT : MEHTA, J. 1. These four appeals have been preferred against the judgment dated 20.04.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases) No.2, Kota and thus the same are being heard and decided together by this common judgment. The appellants herein above have been convicted and sentenced as below by the learned trial Court. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentenced awarded to them, the appellants have preferred these appeals under Section 374 Cr.P.C. APPEAL No.1005/2017: Accused appellants Jagdish, Dayaram and Shambhu Dayal convicted for the offences punishable under:- (i) Sec.148 IPC: Sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years. (ii) Sec.323/149 IPC: Sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year. (iii) Sec.302/149 IPC: Sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months. (II) APPEAL NO. 806/2017: Accused appellant Mahaveer convicted for the offences punishable under:- (i) Sec.148 IPC: Sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years. (ii) Sec.323/149 IPC: Sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year. (iii) Sec.302/149 IPC: Sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months. (III) Appeal No. 876/2017: Accused appellants Ashok & Girraj convicted for the offences punishable under:- (i) Sec.148 IPC : Sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years. (ii) Sec.323/149 IPC: Sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year. (iii) Sec.302/149 IPC: Sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months. (IV) Appeal No. 939/2017: Accused appellant Pappu @ Mahendra convicted for offences punishable under :- (i) Sec.148 IPC : Sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years. (ii) Sec.323/149 IPC: Sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year. (iii) Sec.302/149 IPC: Sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months. 2. Succinctly stated the facts relevant and essential for decision of these appeals are noted herein below. (ii) Sec.323/149 IPC: Sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year. (iii) Sec.302/149 IPC: Sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months. 2. Succinctly stated the facts relevant and essential for decision of these appeals are noted herein below. A Parcha Bayan (Ex.P9) of injured Mahesh Gurjar (PW8) was recorded by ASI of Police Station, Kethaun (Kota) at M.B.S. Hospital, Kota wherein, the injured alleged that on the same day, he alongwith his brother Mangi Lal (deceased), maternal uncle Hiralal (PW6) and Mahaveer (PW18) had gone from Rangbadi, Kota in a jeep to the Gram Panchayat Baniyani for submitting tenders. They reached Baniyani at 12:30 p.m. and submitted their tenders. The time for accepting the tenders was up to 1:00 p.m. At about 2:30 p.m. they were informed that the Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch were not available and thus, the tenders would not be opened on the same day and the next date would be informed later on. After this information, the informant and his companions were moving out from Gram Panchayat when the accused Jagdish, Daya Ram, Ramesh, Devlal, Ashok, Girraj, Harji and Pappu Gurjar came there and started hurling abuses towards them and also launched an attack. Jagdish was armed with farsa like an axe, Dayaram was having a gandasi and the other accused were holding iron rods and pipes. It was further alleged that Jagdish and Dayaram inflicted blows with their respective weapons i.e. axe and gandasi on the head of Mangi Lal who fell down. Thereafter, the remaining accused gave a beating to the victim by iron rods and pipes. The informant tried to intervene, on which he too was beaten all over the body. Hiralal also tried to intervene but he also met the same fate. While the incident was going on, Smt. Bhuri Bai, mother of Jagdish and Sugna Bai W/o Shambhu came there and they also participated in the assault. It was alleged that the accused persons had launched the assault on the complainant-party without there being any reason or previous animosity. Their jeep and motorcycle were also damaged. An ambulance was called to the spot and all the three injured were taken to M.B.S. Hospital where they were admitted for treatment. It was alleged that the accused persons had launched the assault on the complainant-party without there being any reason or previous animosity. Their jeep and motorcycle were also damaged. An ambulance was called to the spot and all the three injured were taken to M.B.S. Hospital where they were admitted for treatment. On the basis of this parcha bayan, an FIR No.91/2011 (Ex.P22) came to be registered at the police station, Kethun for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323 and 307 of IPC and investigation was commenced. During the course of investigation, the accused-appellants were arrested whereas, two accused Ramesh and Devlal are reported to be still absconding. 3. The injured Mangi Lal passed away while undergoing treatment at M.B.S. Hospital, on which, the offence under Section 302 IPC was added to the case. The dead body of Mangi Lal was subjected to postmortem by a Medical Board constituted at M.B.S. Hospital which issued the postmortem report (Ex.P14) proved by Dr. Arun Sharma (PW-13), taking note of the following antemortem injuries:- (1) Stitched wound 5 cm long on the back side of head near middle line. (2) Cut wound 2 ½ cm x ½ cm on the proximal part of ring finger. (3) Cut wound 1 ½ x ¼ cm skin deep on the left middle finger. (4) Abrasions 1 ½ x 1 ½ cm on the upper back of the right leg. (5) Bruises ad measuring 6x2 cm on the left forearm. On opening the head injury, the right frontal bone was found fractured and underneath the wound, a thick subdural haematoma was seen which damaged the brain and proved fatal. The injury no.2 was also found to be grievous in nature. Opinion was expressed by the Board that head injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and proved fatal. 4. After concluding the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellants herein. As the offence under Section 302 IPC was exclusively triable by the Court of sessions, the case was committed and transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases) No.2, Kota for trial where charges were framed against the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 148, 323/149, 302/149, 427/129 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 36 witnesses and exhibited 48 documents to prove its case. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 36 witnesses and exhibited 48 documents to prove its case. Upon being questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and when confronted with the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence, the accused claimed to be innocent but did not lead any evidence in defence. After hearing the arguments advanced by the defence counsel and the learned Public Prosecutor, and appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned trial Court proceeded to convict and sentence the appellants as above. Hence these appeals. 5. Learned counsel representing the accused-appellant vehemently and fervently, urged that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. The appellants herein are residents of Village Baniyani whereas, members of the complainant party were outsiders and they had no business to be in the village Baniyani at the time of incident. The pretext that they had come to village Baniyani for submitting some tender is totally false. As a matter of fact, the complainant party had come to village Baniyani for oblique motives with an intention to commit an offence. They forcibly entered into the Panchyat Bhawan and damaged public property and also caused injuries to various persons, for which an FIR No.90/2011 prior in point of time to the FIR of the present case came to be registered against the members of complainant party who have been charge-sheeted in that case after investigation. While the complainant party was indulging in the mischief and violence at the Panchayat Bhawan, the villagers of the village Baniyani came there with a bonafide intention to protect the public property of their village and in this process a free fight ensued and an unintentional injury landed on the head of Mangi Lal which unfortunately proved fatal. It was vehemently and fervently urged that the case is of exercise of right of private defence or alternatively of a free fight, and therefore, the provisions of Sections 148 and 149 IPC which provide for vicarious liability, could not have been applied and each accused could only have been held responsible for his individual act. It was submitted that the fatal injury caused to deceased Mangi Lal is specifically attributed to the accused-appellant Jagdish. It was submitted that the fatal injury caused to deceased Mangi Lal is specifically attributed to the accused-appellant Jagdish. However, the contention of the defence counsel was that the prosecution theory regarding accused Dayaram having inflicted the sharp weapon injury on the hand of the deceased Mangi Lal, is totally unreliable. Learned counsel thus urged that as there is no plausible evidence regarding the specific role of accused persons other than Jagdish, the remaining accused persons deserve to be acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt. They sought acceptance of these appeals on these grounds. 6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. Suresh Sahni, learned counsel representing the complainant vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellants’ counsel. They contended that the complainant party had bonafide gone to the village Baniyani for submitting their tenders. The villagers of the village Baniyani were angered by the fact that the outsiders were trying to file tenders in their village and thus they launched an indiscriminate unprovoked assault on the complainant party. The common object of the unlawful assembly formed by the accused persons was to assault and kill the members of the complainant party. On these submissions learned Public Prosecutor and the counsel representing the complainant party sought affirmation of the impugned judgment and prayed that the appeals should be dismissed. 7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced on behalf of counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned judgment and have minutely re-appreciated the evidence available on record. 8. Firstly, we propose to consider the submission that the case is of free fight and hence, Section 149 IPC providing for vicarious liability would not have any application in this case. In this regard, we have minutely scrutinized the allegations set out in the Parcha Bayan (FIR) (Ex.P9) and the evidence of material prosecution eye witnesses i.e. Hiralal (PW6), Mahesh Gurjar (PW8) and Mahaveer (PW18). From a consideration of these narratives, it becomes crystal clear that the prosecution has come with a pertinent theory that the complainant party had gone to village Baniyani for submitting their tenders in relation to some ‘Narega Work’. Hiralal (PW6) stated that they reached the Gram Panchayat in the afternoon and were told that as the Sarpanch and up-sarpanch were not present, the tender slips would not be accepted. Hiralal (PW6) stated that they reached the Gram Panchayat in the afternoon and were told that as the Sarpanch and up-sarpanch were not present, the tender slips would not be accepted. In cross-examination, witness admitted that neither he, nor Mangi Lal were doing any contract jobs. The witness feigned ignorance to the question whether he or Mangi Lal had gone to the village Baniyani for submitting their tenders. Rather, in answer to a pertinent question in cross-examination the witnesses admitted that it was wrong to say that they had gone to the village Baniyani for submitting tenders or that they had submitted the tenders. He admitted that a fight erupted on the issue of submitting the tenders. Mahesh (PW8) stated that he and his companions had gone to village Baniyani for submitting tenders. They reached village Baniyani at 12:30 p.m and filed their tenders. They were told that the tender boxes would be opened at 3 O’ clock but then an information was given that as the Sarpanch and up-sarpanch were absent, the tenders would not be opened. While they were coming out, accused persons launched an assault on the informant and his companions. In crossexamination witness claimed that he had filed a tender but then he accepted that the tender was submitted by Mangi Lal. The witness admitted that a criminal case was registered against them for indulging in violence and causing damage at the Panchayat Bhawan. The witness Mahaveer (PW18) stated that Mahesh and Mangi Lal submitted their tenders but later on they were told that tenders would not be opened and the date would be intimated. The fight took place thereafter. In cross-examination the witness feigned ignorance as to what was the work for which the tender was submitted. 9. The investigation of the case was undertaken by the Investigating Officer namely Chagan Singh (PW23) who admitted in his crossexamination that a cross case was registered against the members of the complainant party at police station Kethun for causing damage to the public property and regarding beating. No document pertaining to the tender allegedly submitted by the deceased was available on file. No document pertaining to the tender allegedly submitted by the deceased was available on file. During investigation, he found the claim of the complainant party, that they had gone to village Baniyani for filing tenders or that they actually filed the tender, to be false and that there was no reason for the deceased and companions to have gone to the village Baniyani. During investigation, he found the claim of the complainant party, that they had gone to village Baniyani for filing tenders or that they actually filed the tender, to be false and that there was no reason for the deceased and companions to have gone to the village Baniyani. This admission of the Investigation Officer would have a material bearing on the outcome of the case and the relevant portion of his testimony is being reproduced herein below for the sake of ready reference: ^^;g dguk lgh gS fd bl dsl dk bUkosLVhxs'ku eq>s fn;s tkus ckcr~ dksbZ fyf[kr vkns'k i=koyh ij miyC/k ugha gSA vt [kqn dgk fd ekSf[kd vkns'k ls fn;k x;k FkkA ;g dguk lgh gS fd tqckuh vkns'k ls eq>s buosLVhxs'ku fn;k x;k bl lanHkZ esa i=koyh esa ,slk dksbZ uksV Hkh vafdr ugha gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd bl i=koyh ds eqrkfcd bl i=koyh dk vuqla/kku ?ku';ke nkl ,Œ,lŒvkbZŒ dks lqiqnZ fd;k x;k FkkA i=koyh ÁkIRk gksus ds nwljs fnu ls gh eSaus buosLVhxs'ku 'kq: dj fn;k FkkA ;g dguk lgh gS fd bl dsl ls lacaf/kr Økl dsl Hkh gekjs Fkkus esa ntZ gqvk tks ljdkjh lEifRr dks uqdlku o ekjihV fd, tkus ds lEcU/k esa ntZ gqvk FkkA ;g lgh gS fd e`rd }kjk Vs.Mj Mkyus ls lacaf/kr nLrkost i=koyh ij miyC/k ugha gS vkSj uk gh e`rd ds lkFk x;s egs'k o ghjkyky ds }kjk Vs.Mj Mkyus ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ nLrkost i=koyh ij miyC/k gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd ftlds uke Vs.Mj Fkk og O;fDr ml fnu ogka ugha x;k FkkA ;g dguk lgh gS fd esjs vuqla/kku esa Vs.Mj Mkyus o Vs.Mj Mkyus tkus okyh ckr xyr ik;h x;h FkhA ;g dguk lgh gS fd blds vykok vU; dksbZ dkj.k esjs buosLVhxs'ku esa ugha vk;k FkkA ;g dguk lgh gS fd tc e`rd o mlds lkfFk;ksa us Vs.Mj Mkyk gh ugha rks mudk ogka tkus dk dksbZ dkj.k curk Hkh ugha gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd tc e`rd o mlds lkfFk;ksa }kjk Vs.Mj Mkyk gh ugha x;k rks ml Vs.Mj dks [kksys tkus o ugha [kksys tkus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; Hkh ugha gSA Án”kZ ihŒ9 dk Hkkx th ls ,p esjs vuqla/kku ds nkSjku xyr o vk/kkjghu Ikk;k x;k FkkA Án”kZ ihŒ9 dk Hkkx vkbZ ls ts Vs.Mj Mky-------------dj fn;k esa Vs.Mj Mkyus okyh ckr dh esjs vuqla/kku esa iqf"V ugha gqbZ Fkh vt [kqn dgk fd esjs vuqla/kku esa vk;k Fkk fd ysfdu e`rd ogka x;k FkkA** The Investigating Officer further admitted that the incident happened when the persons who were arraigned in the FIR No.90/2011 started a ruckus in the Panchayat Bhawan and had obstructed the public officials and damaged the furniture. 10. A part of investigation was conducted by Smt. Uma (PW29), Additional S.P., who admitted in her cross-examination that a cross case of the present incident being FIR 90/2011 was registered at police station, Kethun for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 323, 353 IPC and Section 3 of PDPP Act. The incident erupted because of the offensive activity of the persons who were arraigned in this FIR. The witnesses pertaining to FIR No.90/2011 were not examined as such during its investigation, because they were accused in this case (91/2011). The incident started inside the Panchayat Bhawan and then spilled outside. What can be culled out from the evidence of these witnesses is that there was no prior animosity between them and the accused who had no motive whatsoever to launch an unprovoked attack on the complainant party. 11. From an overall appreciation of the above evidence, it becomes apparent that the claim of the complainant party that they submitted their tenders in the village Baniyani and that the assault was unilaterally launched by the accused persons without any provocation is highly doubtful. It appears that the complainant might have actually gone to the village Baniyani for filing their tenders but they were unsuccessful in doing so for reasons which were not probed properly by the investigating agency. Feeling frustrated by their inability to file tenders, members of the complainant party created a ruckus and indulged in violence inside the Panchayat Bhawan. The furniture was damaged, the public officials were obstructed and injuries were also caused to some persons. It appears that when this offensive activity was undertaken by the members of the complainant party the accused persons, who are all residents of the village Baniyani, picked up the arms to stop them. Manifestly thus, the case has all elements of a free fight between the parties. Once it is concluded that the case is of free fight, apparently the concept of vicarious liability under Section 149 IPC cannot be applied to such a case. As the fight was provoked by the complainant party, the assembly of the accused persons who are local residents (as opposed to the complainant side) cannot be held to be an unlawful assembly within the meaning of Section 141 IPC. Reference in this regard may be had to the Supreme Court decision in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Reference in this regard may be had to the Supreme Court decision in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Kalicharan reported in AIR 2019 (SC) 2637 , wherein it was observed as under: “2. We have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties, the findings recorded by the High Court and considering the evidence on record, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, insofar as accused Kalicharan, Amar Singh, Kedar, Abhilakh, Ramgopal, Tejsingh, Gangaram and Vedari are concerned, is not required to be interfered with. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that there was a free fight and the role attributed to the aforesaid accused, the High Court has rightly acquitted the aforesaid accused for the offences under Sections 148, 302/149 and 325/149 of the IPC. The same is absolutely in consonance with the decision of this Court in the case of Kanwarlal v. State of M.P. (2002) 7 SCC 152 . Therefore, the present appeal qua the aforesaid accused (except the accused-Ramavtar) deserves to be dismissed. 3. Now, so far as the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court altering the conviction of the accused- Ramavtar from Sections 302/149 to Section 304 Part II of the IPC is concerned, it is required to be noted that the fatal blow was caused by the said accused Ramavtar. The deceased Kalyan sustained the injury on his head which was caused by the accused Ramavtar. The said injury caused by the accused Ramavtar was on the vital part of the body i.e. head and proved to be fatal. Merely because the accused Ramavtar caused the injury on the head by the blunt side of Farsa, the High Court is not justified in altering the conviction to Section 304 Part II of the IPC. As held by this Court in catena of decisions, even in a case of a single blow, but on the vital part of the body, the case may fall under Section 302 of the IPC and the accused can be held guilty for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. As held by this Court in catena of decisions, even in a case of a single blow, but on the vital part of the body, the case may fall under Section 302 of the IPC and the accused can be held guilty for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly that it was a case of free fight, considering the fact that the weapon used by the accused Ramavtar was Farsa and he caused the injury on the vital part of the body i.e. head which proved to be fatal, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the High Court has committed a grave error in altering the conviction of the accused Ramavtar from Sections 302/149 of the IPC to Section 304 Part II of the IPC. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the evidence on record, more particularly, the medical evidence and the manner in which the incident took place, we are of the opinion that the accused Ramavtar should have been held guilty for the offence under Section 304 Part I of the IPC. To that extent, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court deserves to be quashed and set aside. The conviction of the accused Ramavtar is to be altered from Section 304 Part II to Section 304 Part I of the IPC.” 12. Once we have held that the learned trial court was not justified in invoking the provisions of Sec. 149 CrPC attributing vicarious liability to the accused persons, manifestly, specific role attributed to individual accused by the prosecution witnesses would have to be culled out for fixing their liablity. In this regard, the complainant’s counsel tried to impress upon the court that a specific role for causing fatal injuries to the deceased Mangilal has been attributed by the prosecution witnesses to accused Jagdish and Dayaram inasmuch as Jagdish inflicted the fatal axe blow on the head of deceased Mangilal whereas the accused Dayaram gave him a Gandasi blow on the fingers, which resulted into grievous as well as simple injuries. 13. In the Parcha Bayan (Ex.P9), the injured Mahesh (PW8) alleged that Jagdish gave an axe blow on the head of Mangilal whereas Dayaram gave a Gandasi blow which also landed on the head of Mangilal. 13. In the Parcha Bayan (Ex.P9), the injured Mahesh (PW8) alleged that Jagdish gave an axe blow on the head of Mangilal whereas Dayaram gave a Gandasi blow which also landed on the head of Mangilal. Eventually, this allegation as set out in the FIR is not corroborated and is rather contradicted by Medical evidence. As per the deposition of Medical Jurist Dr. Arun Sharma (PW-13), who was a member of the Medical Board which issued the postmortem report (Ex.P14), one injury was noticed on the head of deceased which too was caused by a blunt weapon. This injury proved fatal. 14. The three star prosecution eye witnesses, who gave evidence against the accused, are Hiralal, Mahesh Gurjar and Mahaveer. Hiralal (PW-6) alleged in his examination-in-chief that Jagdish gave an axe blow on the head of Mangilal and thereafter Dayaram and the remaining accused, who were armed with Gandasis and iron rods & pipes also inflicted injuries to Mangilal. The witness alleged in his examination in chief that Dayaram inflicted a Gandasi blow on the hand of Mangilal. Mahesh Gurjar, upon being examined as PW-8 stated that Jagdish was having an axe in hand, of which he gave a blow to Mangilal. Dayaram was having a Gandasi of which he aimed a blow on the head of Mangilal but the same landed on the hand. Ramesh, Devlal, Ashok, Girraj, Shambhu, Harji and Pappu Gurjar inflicted blows by rods and pipes to Mangilal. This witness was confronted with his Parcha Bayan (Ex.P9) and the statement recorded under Sec.161 Cr.PC (Ex.D-1) regarding the specific role attributed by him in the sworn testimony to the accused Dayaram and he denied having given such statements. Mahaveer (PW18) alleged in his testimony that Jagdish gave an axe blow on the head of his brother-in-law Mangilal which he parried by raising his hand. Mangilal’s finger was severed by the blow and he fell down whereafter, the other accused assailants attacked him by iron pipes. Thus the witness Mahaveer did not make any allegation whatsoever regarding the accused Dayaram having inflicted Gandasi blow on the hand of deceased Mangilal. 15. Mangilal’s finger was severed by the blow and he fell down whereafter, the other accused assailants attacked him by iron pipes. Thus the witness Mahaveer did not make any allegation whatsoever regarding the accused Dayaram having inflicted Gandasi blow on the hand of deceased Mangilal. 15. On a threadbare analysis of the Parcha Bayan and the testimony of three material prosecution eye witnesses, it becomes apparent that there is a grave discrepancy in their evidence regarding the specific role attributed to the accused Dayaram that he inflicted a sharp weapon and thus it would not be safe to rely upon their evidence so as to hold that Dayaram caused a grievous injury by a Gandasi on the fingers of the deceased Mangilal. 16. At this stage, it may be mentioned here that none of these three witnesses alleged that accused Jagdish gave the blow of axe on the head of Mangilal from the reverse side. For the sake of repetition, it may be reiterated that as per evidence of Dr.Arun Sharma (PW-13), Medical Jurist and Dr.Mamraj (PW-14), the solitary injury as noticed on the head of Mangilal was a blunt weapon injury. 17. The prosecution has tried to corroborate the evidence of eye witnesses by the factum of recovery of weapons but when we go through the statement of Chagan Singh (PW23) Investigating Officer, we find that the evidence given by him regarding the informations provided by accused under Sec. 27 of the Evidence Act is totally perfunctory and lacking the mandatory details of the alleged informations provided by the accused and thus, the recovery of weapons effected at the instance of accused are not reliable. 18. In view of the discussion made herein above, this court has no hesitation in reaching to a conclusion that the material prosecutions witnesses i.e. Hiralal (PW6), Mahesh Gurjar (PW8) and Mahaveer (PW18) have tried to hide the genesis of the occurrence. As a matter of fact, the incident is of a free fight which seems to have flared up after the violent acts committed by the complainant party in the Panchayat Bhawan because they were frustrated by non-acceptance of their tenders. After the free fight started between the parties, the accused Jagdish allegedly inflicted an axe blow on the head of deceased Mangilal. After the free fight started between the parties, the accused Jagdish allegedly inflicted an axe blow on the head of deceased Mangilal. As per the medical evidence, the solitary head injury caused to Mangilal which proved fatal was caused by a blunt weapon. None of the prosecution witnesses stated that the accused Jagdish wielded the axe by the reverse side. However, we can presume that in a free fight and the ongoing melee, it would not have been possible for any witness to precisely point out how the axe landed on the head of Mangilal. The evidence of material witnesses regarding specific role of the remaining accused persons in causing injuries either to the deceased or to the injured, is neither convincing nor reliable. As the incident involves a free fight between the parties, the trial court was absolutely unjustified in invoking Sections 148 & 149 IPC for convicting the accused appellants in the above terms. The only permissible view would be to hold each accused responsible for his individual act. As the incident took place at the spur of moment after the violence acts committed by the members of the complainant party at the Panchayat Bhawan, the accused cannot be clothed with either the knowledge or intention to commit murder of deceased Mangilal. Accused Jagdish who was armed with an axe did not use the same with sharp side and rather caused one injury by its reverse side on the head of Mangilal which proved fatal. 19. Thus we are of the view that accused Jagdish is liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 part I IPC Simplicitor whereas the conviction of the remaining appellants Dayaram, Shambhu Dayal, Mahaveer, Ashok, Girraj and Pappu @ Mahendra deserves to be set aside because their conviction for the substantive offence under Section 302 IPC with the aid of Sec. 149 IPC is not permissible/warranted by law. 20. In view of discussion made above, conviction of accused appellant Jagdish as recorded by the trial court for the offence punishable under Secs. 302/149 IPC is altered to one under Sec. 304 part I IPC simplicitor and on this count, he is sentenced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/-; in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months’ simple imprisonment. 302/149 IPC is altered to one under Sec. 304 part I IPC simplicitor and on this count, he is sentenced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/-; in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months’ simple imprisonment. He is acquitted of the charges for offences punishable under Section 148 IPC and Section 323/149 IPC. The conviction of remaining appellants Dayaram, Shambhu Dayal, Mahaveer, Ashok, Girraj and Pappu @ Mahendra recorded for offences under Secs. 148, 323/149 and 302/149 IPC is hereby quashed and set aside. They are acquitted of these charges by giving them the benefit of doubt. The impugned judgment is modified accordingly. 21. Accused Dayaram is in jail. He shall be released from custody, if not wanted in any other case. The remaining accused appellants Shambhu Dayal, Mahaveer, Ashok, Girraj and Pappu @ Mahendra are on bail. Their bail bonds are discharged. 22. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C., each of the appellant Dayaram, Shambhudayal and Mahaveer are directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount before the learned trial court, which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the present judgment on receipt of notice thereof, the appellants shall be required to appear before the Supreme Court. 23. The appeals are partly allowed in the above terms. 24. The record be returned to the trial court forthwith.