JUDGMENT : 1. A bailable warrant was issued to the appellant but it has been returned un-served with an endorsement that the appellant has left the place where he was residing which is also supported by a certificate issued by Municipal Corporation, Chirimiri to fortify the fact that the appellant is not residing, as such, the bailable warrant is not served. Since the instant appeal is of the year 2000 whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court dated 15.03.2000 is under challenge, the case was allotted to Legal Aid. M. Diksha Gauraha, Advocate appeared through Legal Aid and made her submissions on behalf of the appellant. 2. This appeal is filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.03.2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh in Sessions Trial No.136/1994 wherein out of 11 accused, 3 were convicted, one of them is Lalit Pandey who is appellant in the instant Appeal. The appellant Lalit Pandey has been convicted for the offence punishable under sections 148, 326 read with Section 149 IPC and section 436/149 of the IPC and was sentenced as under : Conviction Sentence u/s 148 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year u/s 326 read with section 149 of IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for one year. u/s 436/149 of the IPC Rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of fine, further RI for one year 3. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 11.05.1993 at about 9 to 10 p.m., the accused armed with deadly weapons like sword, Axe and wooden clubs entered into a grocery shop of victim Simhasan and ransacked the goods and after pouring Kerosene set ablaze the shop. Thereafter, in the same locality they entered into the house of Simhasan and abused his family members and after hearing commotion Baduram who came out was assaulted by Farsa and Knife and Baduram was rescued by his wife Munni Devi. Thereafter, the accused also intruded in the house of Paltu and abused his wife Prabhavati and left the place. Thereafter Baduram who was injured in the incident was brought to the hospital by Paltu. Thereafter, the accused also intruded in the house of Paltu and abused his wife Prabhavati and left the place. Thereafter Baduram who was injured in the incident was brought to the hospital by Paltu. In the said assault, victim Baduram has received a 3” x 3” cut injury on his right hand, and the bone of his hand was broken. There was another cut wound in size of 5” x 1” x 1” on the back of his waist. There was also a small wound near the clavicle bone apart from minor injuries on the right ear. Baduram was admitted in hospital for 15 days. Antu Singh has made report of incident. The police reached the place of incident on 12.05.1993 and prepared the inventory in presence of Panch members regarding panic created at the house of Antu Singh where the doors were broken and the things were lying scattered. The further Panchnama was also prepared regarding havoc created in the residential house and shop of Simhasan where the goods were burnt and things were vandalized which were lying scattered. Apart from that, the burnt articles and goods were also seized. After recording the statements, charge sheet was filed. 4. The accused including the appellant abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited 23 documents. The learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid and one of the accused Lalit Pandey, the present appellant, has preferred this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that no one has categorically stated against the appellant that he has caused the assault as material contradiction exists in the court statement of Baduram (P.W.4) as against the statement given to the Police u/s 161 of CrPC which is marked as Ex.P-6. She would further submit that the injured witness tried to improve his statement and inculpated the present applicant along with others whereas his 161 statement would show that the place of incident was some-where else. However, in the statement made before the Court, he stated that the accused came to his house and assaulted him by creating havoc which shows animosity and false allegations have been made. He further submits that there is no evidence on record that the present appellant has set ablaze the shop of Simhasan and only on presumption, conviction has been made. He further submits that there is no evidence on record that the present appellant has set ablaze the shop of Simhasan and only on presumption, conviction has been made. He submits that when such a contradiction appears, the conviction cannot be based on omni-bus statement. She further submits that the statement of witnesses P.W.4, P.W.5 & P.W.6 are contradictory to each other thereby the benefit of doubt should have been given in favour of the accused. Accordingly, the impugned judgment needs interference. 6. Per contra, learned State Counsel would submit that the evidence of injured witnesses was corroborated by the Statement of Doctor P.W. 4. Therefore having established the categorical assault, there cannot be any escape apart from the fact that the people in group of around 10 persons initially ransacked the shop of Simhasan and thereafter when Badu Ram tried to intervene, he was severely assaulted. He submits that those statements remain unrebutted and therefore, the conviction, is well merited which do not call for any interference. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records. 8. A reading of the primary evidence of injured Baduram shows that he has deposed that the incident took place 5 ½ years ago at about 8.30 to 8.45 p.m. He states that at that time, he was taking rest and heard the uproar in his locality and people making noise came in front of his house while passing through the locality. Having seen the crowd, his wife Munni came out of the house and tried to close the door but the accused forcibly pushed the door from from outside and entered the room. When he came out of the house with his wife Munni, the accused Kaushal and his sons Purnendra, Vinod & Lalit were standing in his front. He states that at that time, there were 40-50 people along with accused who were there at some distance. After he came out, he asked the accused Vinod Pandey about the panic created by them, on which, accused Vinod Pandey said to the other accused “Kill him”. Thereafter, accused Vinod’s younger brother and two other boys caught hold of the witness whereas accused Vinod assaulted him and when he tried to defend himself with his right hand, in such process his right hand got cut injury. Thereafter, accused Vinod’s younger brother and two other boys caught hold of the witness whereas accused Vinod assaulted him and when he tried to defend himself with his right hand, in such process his right hand got cut injury. Thereafter accused Lalit Pandey, the present appellant hit him on his back, due to which, he sustained cut injury on the right side of the waist. In order to save Baduram, Munni fell over her husband Baduram, thereby Baduram ran-away to save his life and on the way entered the house of Virjhu Driver’s house, where he became unconscious. Next day he regained consciousness in the hospital and he was admitted in hospital for about 2 months. He further states that due to injury on his right hand which could not heal for long, he was unable to do his duties for about 9-10 months and had to stay at home. 9. The aforesaid version is corroborated by P.W.3 Munni Devi. She has deposed that after hearing the commotion, she came out of the house, at that time, accused Vinod shouted taking the name of her husband Baduram. Hearing the noise she started going inside the house and was closing the door, on which, accused Vinod Pandey was forcibly trying to open the door of the house by pushing the door from outside. Thereafter her husband came out and asked the accused Vinod and his frends what is happening. At that time accused Kaushal, Lalli, Vinod, Purnendra and others whom she did not recognize were present. As soon as his husband came out of the house, accused Kaushal and his three sons Vinod, Lalli and Purnendra started assaulting her husband with Axe and sword. She further states that while her husband was the accused caught hold by Lalli, Purnendra and others, accused Vinod Pandey started assaulting him by way of Axe and sword. At that time, she heard the sound of bullet fire arm. Thereafter they fled away. Her husband has received injury on his hand and waist. Thereafter, the husband ran away to the house of neighbor and subsequently, he was admitted to the hospital. She also supports the statement that while the husband was being assaulted, she tried to save him and fell over him. She further stated that because of injury, the husband was admitted to the hospital and he could not perform his duty for one year. She also supports the statement that while the husband was being assaulted, she tried to save him and fell over him. She further stated that because of injury, the husband was admitted to the hospital and he could not perform his duty for one year. 10. Another injured is P.W.7 Mutur Singh. He has identified the accused including the present appellant. Narrating the incident, he has stated that at about 9 p.m., he was coming back to his shop and accused Vinod Pandey and Lalit Pandey (present appellant) were sitting near a beetle shop. Without saying anything , accused Vinod and Lalit started beating him whereby he sustained injuries on his face and waist. He has some how escaped. Thereafter, the present appellant along with 10-15 others came to his grocery shop. Vinod Pandey was having sword and Lalit Pandey was having an axe and others were holding wooden clubs. Having seen them, he fled away and saw from a distance that Vinod Pandey and Lalit Pandey and others set his shop on fire. After sometime, they went to the house of Simhasan Singh. He saw the house of Simhasan Singh was ransacked. The tiles were broken. Simhasan and his wife were also injured. However subsequently he states that neither he had seen Simhasan being beaten nor had seen his wife being brutally beaten. He has not been cross examined. Therefore, this fact that the shop was set ablaze remains unrebutted. 11. P.W.6 Simhasan has stated that when he was going to his shop he heard the noise near his shop and saw a crowd of 15-20 people. He has identified the present appellant Lalit Pandey and one of the other accused Vinod Pandey was holding a pistol (Desi Katta) and fired the pistol in the air. At that time, his shop remains opened. Thereafter, the present appellant along with others went inside his shop and all the accused Kaushal, Lalit, Purnendra and Vinod sprinkled kerosene oil in the shop and set ablaze. In the cross examination of this witness, nothing has been eliminated. A minor contradiction has been tried to be projected, however, that does not dislodge the primary statement. 12. P.W.8 Narsingh has made similar statement that on the date of incident, 15-20 people came there wherein the present appellant Lalit along with Kaushal, Purnendra, Vinod Pandey was present. In the cross examination of this witness, nothing has been eliminated. A minor contradiction has been tried to be projected, however, that does not dislodge the primary statement. 12. P.W.8 Narsingh has made similar statement that on the date of incident, 15-20 people came there wherein the present appellant Lalit along with Kaushal, Purnendra, Vinod Pandey was present. They first went to the house of Paltu Singh and hurled abuses. After hearing the noise, he came out of his house. Thereafter, the crowed went to the shop of Mutur and set ablaze his shop. When the shop of Mutur started burning they went to the house of Simhasan. He followed them and reached to the house of Sinhasan along with the crowed where the appellant Lalit Pandey and other accused hurled abuses and when nobody was there to meet, they came back and went to the house of Badu Ram, the injured (P.W.4). He was standing in front of door of his house. He has stated one of the accused Vinod attacked him. Thereafter accused started beating Baduram with sword & Axe and after Baduram fell down, they went to the house of Antu Singh. This witness followed them and reached to the house of Antu Singh where the accused broke open the door. Though Antu Singh was not there, his house was ransacked by them. The witness (P.W.8 Narsingh) further states that they took Baduram to the hospital. 13. The injury of Baduram has been proved by Dr. S.K. Agrawal, P.W.12. Like wise, the injuries of P.W.7 Mutur Singh who also suffered injuries was also medically examined, which has been proved by P.W.12 S.K. Agrawal. According to the Doctor, the following injuries were found on the person of injured Baduram (I) A stitched wound of 5 cm long was placed on the right side of the back. (ii) A stitched wound of 3 cm long was placed on the middle part of the right forearm (iii) A stitched wound of 0.6cm long stitch was placed on the left clavicular region (iv) An abrasion in size of 4 x 0.1 cm length on frontal left ear in vertical shape. (v) An abrasion in size of 6 x 0.1cm length on the left clavicular and infra clavicular region, slightly curved. The doctor opined that injuries 4 & 5 were caused by sharp edged weapon. 14. (v) An abrasion in size of 6 x 0.1cm length on the left clavicular and infra clavicular region, slightly curved. The doctor opined that injuries 4 & 5 were caused by sharp edged weapon. 14. The injury report is filed as Ex.P-17 and the MLC report is marked as Ex.P-18. The MLC shows that injured Baduram was having fracture in right forearm as fractureal radius bone is seen in M/3. The injury report (Ex.P-17) shows that on the back of Badhuram, the doctor found stitched wound on his right loin, forearm and clavicular region. Likewise, he also examined the injured Mutur Singh and the MLC was given by Ex.P-15, wherein the following injuries were found: (i) A Contusion admeasuring 2 x 1 cm below right eye (ii) A Contusion admeasuring 3 x 1 cm on the right scapular area. (iii) Complaint of Head ache sustained by injured but there was no sign of external injuries found (iv) Complaint of pain in the right chest was made but no external injuries were found. Injured was advised to undergo Chest X-Ray Test. 15. The statement of injured witness and eye-witnesses when are read along with the statements of Doctor both the acts of assault by weapon and setting ablaze the shops have been established. In the cross-examination of the injured witnesses, though contradiction has been tried to be pointed-out but nothing has been elicited to deny the same. 16. The Supreme Court in Mohd. Khalid Veru State of W.B (2002) 7 SCC 334 has observed that in the case of conspiracy there cannot be any direct evidence. The ingredients of offence are that there should be an agreement between persons who are alleged to conspire and the said agreement should be for doing an illegal act or for doing by illegal means an act which itself may not be illegal. Therefore, the essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act and such an agreement can be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence or by both, and it is a matter of common experience that direct evidence to prove conspiracy is rarely available. Therefore, the circumstances proved before, during and after the occurrence have to be considered to decide about the complicity of the accused. The Court further held at Paras 19 & 20 which reads thus : 19. Therefore, the circumstances proved before, during and after the occurrence have to be considered to decide about the complicity of the accused. The Court further held at Paras 19 & 20 which reads thus : 19. In Halsbury’s Laws of England (vide 4th Ed. Vol.11, page 44 page 58), the English Law as to conspiracy has been stated thus: "58. Conspiracy consists in the agreement of two or more persons to do an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act by unlawful means. It is an indictable offence at common law, the punishment for which is imprisonment or fine or both in the discretion of the Court. The essence of the offence of conspiracy is the fact of combination by agreement. The agreement may be express or implied, or in part express and in part implied. The conspiracy arises and the offence is committed as soon as the agreement is made; and the offence continues to be committed so long as the combination persists, that is until the conspiratorial agreement is terminated by completion of its performance or by abandonment or frustration or however, it may be. The actus reus in a conspiracy is the agreement to execute the illegal conduct, not the execution of it. It is not enough that two or more persons pursued the same unlawful object at same time or in the same place; it is necessary to show a meeting of minds, a consensus to effect an unlawful purpose. It is not, however, necessary that each conspirator should have been in communication with every other." 20. There is no difference between the mode of proof of the offence of conspiracy and that of any other offence, it can be established by direct or circumstantial evidence. (See: Bhagwan Swarup Lal etc. etc. v. State of Maharashtra, AIR (1965) SC 682 at p. 686]. 17. Applying the above principles to the facts and evidence of the present case, the statements made by all witnesses would show that their evidence remain unrebutted to the effect that 10 to 15 persons formed a group and went from one place to another and armed with deadly weapons. During such process, they went on rampage and set ablaze the shops and ransacked the house of Baduram and severely injured the victims. The factual statements are uncontroverted with respect to the primary assault made. During such process, they went on rampage and set ablaze the shops and ransacked the house of Baduram and severely injured the victims. The factual statements are uncontroverted with respect to the primary assault made. In view of above discussion, I am of the view that the judgment passed by the court below does not suffer from any illegality. Accordingly, the appeal sans merit and is dismissed. If the accused is still absconding, law will take it own course.