JUDGMENT : RAJESH KUMAR, J. 1. Although the present appeal has been preferred by seven appellants, but out of which, two appellants have died, during the pendency of the present appeal. Vide order dated 22.11.2021, the present criminal appeal stands abated so far as appellants namely, Mahendra Bhagat and Rajesh Bhagat are concerned. Thus, the present appeal survives only with respect to five appellants, namely, Mani Lal Bhagat, Gopal Bhagat, Manoj Bhagat, Rama Bhagat and Prem Bhagat. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.P.P 3. The present appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction dated 04.06.2004 and order of sentence dated 16.06.2004, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C), Latehar, in Sessions Case No.404 of 2000, arising out of Latehar P.S. Case No.70 of 1998 (G.R. No.211 of 1998), whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Sections 148, 323/149, 325/149 and 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and have been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 148 I.P.C, rigorous imprisonment for one year under Sections 323/ 149 I.P.C, rigorous imprisonment for four years under Sections 325/ 149 I.P.C and rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs.2000/- (Two thousand) each with default clause under Sections 307/ 149 I.P.C. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 4. The criminal law has been put into motion by lodging an F.I.R being Latehar P.S. Case No.70 of 1998 against the appellants under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323 & 324 I.PC. The F.I.R has been lodged on the fardbeyan of informant namely, Ajay Mochi (P.W.-5). Vide order dated 10.08.1998, Sections 307, 325 & 326 IPC were added. The brief facts of the case, as has been disclosed in the written report dated 06.07.1998 by the informant, Ajay Mochi, is that while he was ploughing his land along with his brother Pramod Mochi, then all the accused persons/appellants came there and restrained them from sowing seeds in the lands on which the informant objected and told them that the land belongs to them. Then the accused Maheshwar Bhagat abused them and ordered to assault. Then all the appellants started assaulting them with lathi, axe and spear and on commotion when informant's wife and mother came there, they were also assaulted. The said occurrence was seen by several co-villagers. 5. Then the accused Maheshwar Bhagat abused them and ordered to assault. Then all the appellants started assaulting them with lathi, axe and spear and on commotion when informant's wife and mother came there, they were also assaulted. The said occurrence was seen by several co-villagers. 5. On the basis of the said fardbeyan, the police, instituted the F.I.R and after investigation, has submitted charge-sheet on 30.09.1998 against seven accused persons namely, Rama Bhagat, Mani Lal Bhagat, Gopal Bhagat, Manoj Bhagat, Prem Bhagat, Rajesh Bhagat and Mahendra Bhagat for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 325, 326 & 307 IPC. Upon which cognizance has been taken and charges has been framed under Sections 147, 148, 307/ 149 I.P.C and the case has been committed to the court of Sessions to which the appellants have pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried. 6. For substantiating the prosecution story, altogether seven witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution. 7. P.W.-1, Pramod Mochi, is brother of the informant and an injured witness. He has stated in examination-in-chief that on the date of occurrence when he was ploughing and sowing seeds in his field along with the informant, the accused came there and restrained them from doing so. He has stated that on the order of the accused Maheshwar Bhagat, Mani Lal Bhagat assaulted on his head twice with "GANDASA" and Rama Bhagat assaulted on the head of the informant with an axe and on commotion, when his family members came there they were also assaulted by all the accused persons. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that a case under Section 144 Cr.P.C has been contested between them due to the land dispute. 8. P.W.-2, Shyam Bihari Mochi, is the brother of the informant and has supported the incident. He has stated that accused Mani Lal Bhagat assaulted Pramod Mochi with "GANDASA" and accused Rama Bhagat assaulted Ajay Mochi with "FARSA", Gopal Bhagat assaulted his mother with "LATHI" and Kausalya Devi also sustained cut injury on her head. He has further stated that on commotion he went at the place of occurrence, where accused Maheshwar was saying to chop and kill the injured persons and he was ready to spend money whatsoever required. 9. P.W.-3, Kausalya Devi, is the sister-in-law of the informant and an injured witness. He has further stated that on commotion he went at the place of occurrence, where accused Maheshwar was saying to chop and kill the injured persons and he was ready to spend money whatsoever required. 9. P.W.-3, Kausalya Devi, is the sister-in-law of the informant and an injured witness. She has supported the incident and also narrated the same facts, as deposed by other witnesses. 10. P.W.-4, Dhaneshwari Devi, is the mother of the informant. She has also suffered injury and the same was found grievous in nature. She has also supported the incident. In her cross-examination, she has denied any previous land dispute between the parties. 11. P.W.-5, Ajay Mochi, is the informant. In his examination-in-chief, he has stated that on 06.07.1998, (Monday), at about 07.00 0'clock morning his brother Pramod Mochi was plaughing the harvest field and he was plucking the grass etc. there, in the meantime all accused persons came there and accused Maheshwar Bhagat abused them and ordered to be killed and thrown as he was ready to spend money whatsoever required. Then, the accused Mani Lal Bhagat assaulted Pramod Mochi on his head twice with "GANDASA", accused Rama Bhagat assaulted him on his head with "TANGI" and on commotion when his sister-in-law, Kausalya Devi, Mother, Dhaneshwari Devi and brother Shyam Bihari came there to save them then they all were also assaulted by rest of the accused persons with Lathi due to which they all sustained injuries. He has denied regarding land dispute between the parties. 12 . P.W.-6, Dr. Ashok Kumar Das, is the doctor who has examined the injured persons. He has examined the Ajai Mochi (P.W.-5) and found the following injuries:- (i) One lacerated wound 1"X1/4"X1/4" over mid of scalp ( ii) Swelling over the left fore-head. As per opinion of the Doctor, nature of both injuries were simple, caused by hard & blunt substance. He has also examined Kausalya Devi (P.W.-3) and found one linear bruise over her back. The injury was found to be simple in nature, caused by hard and blunt substance. He has also examined the injured Dhaneshwari Devi (P.W.-4) and found the following injury on her person:- (i) Fracture of ninth and tenth ribs of the right side of the chest with a swelling at the same side. As per his opinion, the nature of injury was grievous, caused by hard-blunt weapon. He has also examined the injured Dhaneshwari Devi (P.W.-4) and found the following injury on her person:- (i) Fracture of ninth and tenth ribs of the right side of the chest with a swelling at the same side. As per his opinion, the nature of injury was grievous, caused by hard-blunt weapon. He has also examined Pramod Mochi (P.W.-1) and found the following injuries on his person:- (i) One incised cut wound 1½"X1/4"X bone deep situated over front of skull. (ii) One incised cut wound 2½"X¼"X¼" over occipital part of scalp. (iii) One lacerated wound over right wrist. As per his opinion, nature of injury Nos.(i) and (ii) 'was dangerous to life, hence grievous and caused by sharp-cutting weapon and nature of injury no.(iii) is simple, caused by hard-blunt substance. 13. P.W.-7, Ajay Kumar Singh, is an Advocate-Clerk. He is a formal witness and has proved formal F.I.R and other exhibits. 14. Further, several documents have been exhibited by both the parties to suggest that there is land dispute between the parties. In fact, in cross-examination also, some of the witnesses have stated that there was land dispute between the parties and it is the cause of the present incident. Ext.-1 to 1/3 i.e. the injury reports. Ext.-2 is the formal F.I.R. Ext.-3 is the written report of the informant. Ext.-4 is the case diary. Ext.-5 is the certified copy of judgment in Misc./ Revenue Case No.03/ 1995-96. Ext.-6 is the Sketch map. Ext.-7 is the certified copy of the settlement case No.30/68-69. Ext.-8 is the certified copy of sketch map. Ext.-9 is Parcha and Ext.-10 is the new rent receipts. 15. The trial Court, after evaluating the evidence and material available on record, has convicted the appellants under Section for the offence under Sections 148, 123/149, 325/149 and 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code. 16. Referring to the above evidence available on record, the learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the judgment of conviction, mainly on the following five grounds :- (a) There is no specific allegation of one or other injury vis-a-vis one or another accused. (b) no independent witness has been examined. (c) there is no recovery of any weapon from the place of occurrence. (d) there is no forensic evidence regarding the place of occurrence. (b) no independent witness has been examined. (c) there is no recovery of any weapon from the place of occurrence. (d) there is no forensic evidence regarding the place of occurrence. (e) admittedly, there is land dispute between the parties and as such there is motive for false implication of the appellants. On the above grounds, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the conviction of the appellants is bad in law. 17. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of conviction, stating that there is four injured witnesses and they have made specific allegation that the assault has been made by the unlawful assembly, consisting of seven accused persons/ appellants. The injury has been proved by the doctor and the occular evidence is also there. Thus, no specific allegation is required as the appellants have been roped in on the basis of unlawful assembly. 18. The law is settled that every person is responsible for all the injuries caused by the unlawful assembly. So far as the materials available on record, there is enough materials, suggesting the involvement of the appellants in the crime and as such no interference is required in the impugned judgment of conviction. 19. Further, so far as the sentencing part is concerned, neither any mitigating circumstances has been brought on record nor anything has been placed, warranting any interference of the same. 20. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the record, it appears that the injured witness, i.e., P.Ws.- 1, 3, 4 & 5 have clearly stated that the assault has been made by these appellants after formation of unlawful assembly. The unlawful assembly has been formed for using force, for evicting the informant party from the land in question while they were ploughing it. Thus, there is evidence, regarding formation of unlawful assembly and that assembly has caused injury, which has been substantiated by the medical evidence as well as occular evidence and such the conviction of the appellants under Sections 148, 123/149, 325/149 of the Indian Penal Code is fully justified and requires no interference. 21. Thus, there is evidence, regarding formation of unlawful assembly and that assembly has caused injury, which has been substantiated by the medical evidence as well as occular evidence and such the conviction of the appellants under Sections 148, 123/149, 325/149 of the Indian Penal Code is fully justified and requires no interference. 21. So far as the conviction of the appellants under Section 307/ 149 IPC is concerned, the injury Nos.(i) and (ii) inflicted upon the brother of the informant, i.e., P.W.-1 as has been opined by the doctor (P.W.-6) are grievous in nature and dangerous to life, caused by sharp-cutting weapon. The weapon of assault is also sharp-cutting weapon. Thus, the conviction of the appellants under Section 307/ 149 IPC also does not warrant any interference. So far as the sentencing part is concerned, no mitigating circumstances has been brought on record suggesting any interference. 22. Accordingly, I do not find any reason/ material to interfere with the judgment of conviction dated 04.06.2004 and order of sentence dated 16.06.2004, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C), Latehar, in Sessions Case No.404 of 2000, arising out of Latehar P.S. Case No.70 of 1998 (G.R. No.211 of 1998). 23. In the result, the present appeal fails 24. Since the appellants are on bail, their bail is, hereby, cancelled. They are directed to surrender in the court below immediately for serving out rest of the sentence, as has been imposed by the trial court. 25. The trial court is also directed to take all coercive steps for apprehension of the appellants and to commit them to jail custody to serve out rest of the sentence, as awarded to them by the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 26. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with the copy of this Judgment.