2012 PLP 1156 (SCMR)

DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

This ap peal has been preferred against the judg ment and order dated 7-4-2005 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Criminal Appeals Nos.1675 and 1955 of 2003 by which the High Court, while af firming the findings of fact, modified the judgment and order of the trial Court dated 29-8-2003 in Sessions Case No.58 of 2001 i.e. Criminal Appeal No.1675 of 2003 stood dismissed, while Criminal Appeal No.1955 of 2003 was partly allowed.

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that:-- A. Babu (P.W.1); Sobhanan (P.W.2); and Parvathy (P.W.4) all relatives were having inimical terms with the appellants. Several criminal cases were pending between them. In order to take revenge, the appellants formed an unlawful assembly for the pur pose of committing murder of Sobhanan (P.W.2). They waited in the house of Sudhakaran (A.1) on 12-4-2000, which was the last day of Mahotsavam conducted in the Shanmughaviiasam temple at Kulasekharamangalam, at about 10-00 p.m. B. Sobhanan (P.W.2) came along with his 8 years old son along the pathway on the eastern side of the house of Sudhakaran (A.1) from the temple. Sudhakaran (A.1) repeatedly shouted "catch him". The ac cused chased him and on seeing this, Sobhanan (P.W.2) ran from the place leav ing his son there towards the house of Sobhana (P.W.3) i.e. "Sophia Bhawan". However, before Sobhanan (P.W.2) could enter "Sophia Bhawan", Sudhakaran (A.1) inflicted cut injury on his hand. Sobhanan (P.W.2) entered the said house and succeeded in closing the door from inside. All the accused except Shaji (A.18) broke open the door and inflicted injuries on Sobhanan (P.W.2) with their respective weapons and he was dragged to the western courtyard and again beaten. In this process, 'a large number of articles of the use of "Sophia Bhawan" got destroyed. C. While hearing the hue and cry, Kuttappan (deceased) father of Sobhanan (P.W.2) and Babu (P.W.1) reached there. The appellants rushed towards Kuttappan (deceased) shouting "Kill them" and thereaf ter, Sudhakaran (A.1) inflicted a cut injury on the head of the deceased with a sword stick in his hand and other accused inflicted injuries on him with their respective weap ons, namely, choppers, knives and iron rods. When Babu (P.W.1) and Parvathy (P.W.4) made an attempt to intervene, they were also attacked by the appellants and injured. Kuttappan succumbed to the inju ries caused by the accused at the spot and the accused persons ran away from the spot. D. An F.I.R. in respect of the incident was lodged and thus, investigation commenced. The recovery of the weapons was made at the instance of the accused and after com pleting the formalities, 18 accused were put on trial. The prosecution to prove its case examined a large number of witnesses in cluding five eye-witnesses. Out of them, four had been injured witnesses. E. On conclusion of the trial, the court acquitted Shaji (A.18) and convicted Al to All, 14 and 15 under sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 323, 324, 449, 427 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter called 'the IPC') read with section 149, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also for payment of fine of Rs.25,000 each, in default to undergo rig orous imprisonment for five years under section 302, I.P.C. and they are further sen tenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years each and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000 each, in default to undergo rig orous imprisonment for three years each under section 307, I.P.C. and further sen tenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and also to pay a fine of Rs.3,000 each, in default to undergo rig orous imprisonment for two months each under section 324, I.P.C. and they are also liable to be sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000 each. In default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months each under section 323, I.P.C. and further sentenced to undergo rigorous im prisonment for six months each and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000 each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months each under section 427, I.P.C. and they are further sentenced to undergo rig orous imprisonment for seven years each and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000 each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each under section 449, I.P.C. and they are also sentenced to undergo rig orous imprisonment for six months each under section 143, I.P.C. and further sen tenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each under section 148, I.P.C. and the sentences are directed to run con currently. Other accused, namely, A.12, A.13, A.16 and A.17 were convicted under sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 323, 449, 427 read with section 149, I.P.C. They were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years each and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000 each, in default to undergo rig orous imprisonment for 3 years each un der section 307, I.P.C. and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000 each, in default to undergo rig orous imprisonment for two months each under section 323, I.P.C. and further sen tenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000 each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months each under section 427, I.P.C. and further sen tenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years each, and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000 each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each under section 449, I.P.C. and further sen tenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each under section 148, I.P.C. and also further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each under section 143, I.P.C. F. Being aggrieved, the appellants pre ferred the appeals which have been dis posed of by common judgment and order dated 7-4-2005 by which the High Court modified the order of the trial court to the extent that conviction of A.7, A.10 and A.11 under section 302, I.P.C. was set aside. How ever, their conviction and sentence for other offences have been confirmed. Hence, this appeal.

3. Shri C.N. Sree Kumar, learned coun sel appearing for the appellants, has sub mitted that courts below erred in making the case of some of the appellants distin guishable from others as one set of appellants stood convicted under sections 302/149, I.P.C. etc. and another set of appellants has been convicted under sections 307/149, I.P.C. etc., though, under the facts and cir cumstances of the case, no distinction is permissible. Even, if the case of some of the appellants has to be separated from oth ers, the set of appellants who have been convicted under section 302/149, I.P.C. would have been convicted under section 304, Part I, I.P.C. This was necessary in view of the evidence of the doctors, who con ducted the postmortem examination of Kuttappan (deceased) and examined other persons. The appellants had not proceeded with common object to kill any person in asmuch as to kill Kuttappan, thus, provi sions of section 149, I.P.C. are not attracted. From the facts available on record, infer ence can be drawn that some of the appel lants had an object to catch hold of Sobhanan (P.W.2), however, there was no intention to kill him. No independent wit ness has been examined and all the injured witnesses had been very close to the de ceased. In a case, where a very large num ber of assailants are there and the incident is over in a short span of time, it is not pos sible for the eye-witnesses to identify all the accused and give detailed description of participation of each of them. Thus, evi dence of the eye-witnesses cannot be re lied upon. The appeal deserves to be al lowed.

4. Per contra, Shri M.T. George, learned counsel appearing for the respondent State, has opposed the appeal, contending that in the facts and circumstances of the case, provisions of section 149, I.P.C. have rightly been applied. The prosecution succeeded in proving its case by examining five eye -witnesses, out of them four had been in jured witnesses. The medical evidence sup ports the case of the prosecution. Thus, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dis missed.

5. We have considered the rival submis sions made by learned counsel for the par ties and perused the record.

6. There is enough evidence on record to establish that appellants were present, armed with sword stick, choppers, knife and iron rods. Dr. Girish (P.W.18) con ducted the post-mortem on the body of Kuttappan (deceased) and prepared report (Exh.P-14). According to which, the fol lowing 34 injuries were found on his per son:-- (1) Incised wound 7 x1.5 cm. bone deep sagitally placed on right side of front of head, 3 c.m. outer to midline and 4 c.m. above eye brow. Frontal bone underneath sowed fissured fracture 8.5 c.m. long ex tending to margin of coronal suture. Sub arachnoid bleeding present on both sides of brain. Gyri of brain flattened and sulci narrowed. (2) Contused abrasion 0.5 x 0.5 c.m. on left side of face, 3 cm. in front of ear. (3) Contused abrasion 7.5 x 0.7 c.m. horizontal, on right side of front of chest, just outer to midline and 8.5 c.m. below collar bone. (4) Multiple small abrasions over an area 3.5 x 1 c.m. on back of right elbow. (5) Contused abrasion 6 x 0.5 c.m. ob lique on outer aspect of right forearm 4 c.m. below elbow. (6) Lacerated wound 0.7 x 0.5 c.m. on the front of right forearm 10 c.m. below elbow. (7) Contused abrasion 16 x 2 c.m. ob lique on back of right forearm 1 c.m. above wrist. (8) Multiple small contused abrasions over an area 4 x 2 c.m. on back of right wrist and hand. (9) Contused abrasion 3 x 1 c.m. oblique on the outer aspect of right elbow. (10) Contused abrasion 7 x 2 c.m. oblique on the outer aspect of right hip. (11) Multiple contused abrasions over an area 11 x 4 c.m. on the outer aspect of right thigh .7 c.m. above knee. (12) Contused abrasion 2 x l c.m. on front of right knee. (13) Multiple small contused abrasions over an area 10 x 8 c.m. on back of right leg .3 cm. below Knee. (14) Contused abrasion 2.5 x 1 c.m. on front of right leg. 16 c.m. above ankle. (15) Contused abrasion 2 x 1 c.m. on front of right ankle. (16) Multiple small contused abrasions over an area 30 x 7 c.m. on front of left leg, just below Knee. (17) Incised punctured wound 5 x 2 x 9 c.m. oblique on outer aspect of left leg 2 c.m. below Knee. Upper back end showed splitting of tissues and other end sharply cut. The wound was directed downwards. (18) Contused abrasion 5.5 x 1 c.m. ob lique on outer aspect of left Knee. (19) Multiple small contused abrasions over an area 20 x 16 c.m. on the front of left thigh and Knee. (20) Incised punctured wound 3.5 x 1 x 7.5 c.m. oblique on outer aspect of left hip. Upper back end was blunt and other end sharply cut. The wound was directed down wards. (21) Abrasion 2 x 1 c.m. on the outer as pect of left hip, 2 c.m. above injury No.20. (22) Incised punctured wound 3.5 x 1.5 x 1 c.m. oblique over left buttock. The up per inner end was blunt and other end sharp. The wound was directed forwards. (23) Incised wound 1.5 x 0.3 x 0.5 c.m. over left buttock, 2 c.m. below injury No.2. (24) Contused abrasion 11 x 2 c.m. ob lique on right side of back of trunk 10 c.m. below tip of shoulder blade. (25) Contused abrasion 2.5 x 1 c.m. oblique on right side of back of trunk, 2 c.m. outer to midline and 5 c.m. above lilac crest. (26) Multiple contused abrasions over an area 24 x 11 c.m. on left side of chest 8 c.m. below armpit. 8th and 9th ribs under neath showed fracture at their outer angles. (27) Incised punctured wound 2 x 0.5 c.m. on left side of back of trunk. Inner up per blunt end being 4 c.m. below tip of shoulder blade. (28) Contused abrasion 1 x 0.5 c.m. on back of left hand, just above root of middle finger. (29) Incised wound 4 x 1 x 0.5 c.m. ob lique on back of left wrist. (30) Incised wound 3 x 1 x 0.5 c.m. ob lique on back of left forearm 15 c.m. below elbow. (31) Multiple small abrasions over an area 13 x 4 c.m. on the front of left forearm just below elbow. (32) Multiple contused abrasions over an area 25 x 10 c.m. on back of left arm, just above elbow. (33) Abrasion 5 x 3 c.m. on top of left shoulder. (34) Abrasion 5 x 3 c.m. on the tip of penis. In the opinion of Dr. Girish (P.W.18), the injuries were caused with the weapons re covered from the appellants and Kuttappan died of head injury i.e. injury No.1 as it was sufficient to cause death.

7. Babu (P.W.1) was examined by Dr. C.P. Venugopal (P.W.20) and following in juries were found on his person:-- (1) Cut injury 10 c.m. x 3 x 1 c.m. on the left thigh - posterior aspect. (2) Lacerated injury 6 x 2 x 1.5 c.m. on the back of scalp left side bleeding.

8. Sobhanan (P.W.2) son of the deceased was examined by Dr. P. R. Anil Kumar (P.W.21) and following injuries were found on his person:-- (1) A cut injury in the right elbow. (2) Lacerated wound frontal to occipital areas of the scalp approximately 20 c.m. length. (3) Cut injury on the right thigh and right leg. (4) Lacerated injury in the left ear. (5) Lacerated injury on the left forearm, right palm and right forearm and right el bow. (6) Lacerated injury on the right thigh. (7) Punctured wound in the right thigh and right leg. (8) Abrasions left and right shoulder. (9) Swelling left cheek. (10) Fracture mandible left side. Comminuted fracture left lateral malleious. (11) Comminuted fracture fibular neck. (12) Fracture lateral condyle left." According to the opinion of Dr. P.R. Anil Kumar (P.W.21), Sobhanan (P.W.2) suffered very serious injuries of grave nature and had a very narrow escape from death.

9. In this factual scenario, Mr. C.N. Sree Kumar has mainly argued on the applica tion of the provisions of section 149, I.P.C., contending that all the appellant did not have common object to cause death of Kuttappan (deceased) and as the seventeen persons had been involved, it was not pos sible for the alleged eye-witnesses to give minute detail about their respective overt act. Moreso, Sobhanan (P.W.2) had become unconscious after being beaten and re gained conscious after two days, thus, it was not possible for him to see the inci dent regarding the death of his father Kuttuppan. The issue raised hereinabove along with other issues particularly that all the wit nesses were partisan and no independent witness was examined; there was no light on the spot, therefore, the witnesses could not see the incident properly, recovery ef fected was not proved properly; identifi cation of arms was far from satisfaction; there was lack of credibility of the version of the prosecution and minor contradictions in their statements have been properly considered by the courts below and those factual issues do not require any further ap preciation. SECTION 149, I.P.C.: Scope and Object

10. Section 149, I.P.C. has essentially two ingredients viz. (i) offence committed by any member of an unlawful assembly con sisting five or more members and (ii) such offence must be committed in prosecution of the common object (under section 141, I.P.C.) of the assembly or members of that assembly knew to be likely to be commit ted in prosecution of the common object.

11. For "common object", it is not nec essary that there should be a prior concert in the sense of a meeting of the members of the unlawful assembly, the common ob ject may form on spur of the moment; it is enough if it is adopted by all the members and is shared by all of them. In order that the case may fall under the first part the offence committed must be connected im mediately with the common object of the unlawful assembly of which the accused were members. [Vide: Bhanwar Singh and others v. State of M.P., (2008) 16 SCC 657]; (AIR 2009 SC 768).

12. Even if the offence committed is not in direct prosecution of the common ob ject of the assembly, it may yet fall under second part of section 149, I.P.C. if it can be held that the offence was such as the mem bers knew was likely to be committed. The expression 'know' does not mean a mere possibility, such as might or might not hap pen. For instance, it is a matter of common knowledge that if a body of persons go armed to take forcible possession of the land, it would be right to say that someone is likely to be killed and all the members of the unlawful assembly must be aware of that likelihood and would be guilty under the second part of section 149, I.P.C.

13. There may be cases which would come within the second part, but not within the first. The distinction between the two parts of section 149, I.P.C. cannot be ignored or obliterated. [See : Mizaji and another v. State of U.P., AIR 1959 SC 572; and Gangadhar Behera and others v. State of Orissa, AIR 2002 SC 3633].

14. However, once it is established that the unlawful assembly had common object, it is not necessary that all persons forming the unlawful assembly must be shown to have committed some overt act. For the purpose of incurring the vicarious liability under the provision, the liability of other members of the unlawful assembly for the offence committed during the continuance of the occurrence, rests upon the fact whether the other members knew before hand that the offence actually committed was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object. [See : Daya Kishan v. State of Haryana, (2010) 5 SCC 81; (AIR 2010 SC 2147); Sikandar Singh v. State of Bihar, (2010) 7 SCC 477; (AIR 2010 SC 3580), and Debashis Daw v. State of W.B., (2010) 9 SCC 111]; (AIR 2010 SC 3633).

15. The crucial question for determina tion in such a case is whether the assembly consisted of five or more persons and whether the said persons entertained one or more of the common objects specified by section

141. While determining this question, it becomes relevant to consider whether the assembly consisted of some persons which were merely passive wit nesses and had joined the assembly as a matter of idle curiosity without intending to entertain the common object of the assembly. (Vide: Masalti v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1965 SC 202).

16. In K. M. Ravi and others v. State of Karnataka, (2009) 16 SCC 337, this Court observed that mere presence or association with other members alone does not per se be sufficient to hold every one of them criminally liable for the offences commit ted by the others unless there is sufficient evidence on record to show that each in tended to or knew the likelihood of com mission of such an offending act.

17. Similarly in State of U.P. v. Krishanpal and others (2008) 16 SCC 73 : (2008 AIR SCW 6322), this Court held that once a membership of an unlawful assem bly is established it is not incumbent on the prosecution to establish whether any specific overt act has been assigned to any accused. Mere membership of the unlaw ful assembly is sufficient and every mem ber of an unlawful assembly is vicariously liable for the acts done by others either in prosecution of common object or members of assembly knew were likely to be com mitted.

18. In Amerika Rai and others v. State of Bihar, (2011) 4 SCC 677; (AIR 2011 SC 1379), this Court opined that for a member of unlawful assembly having common object what is liable to be seen is as to whether there was any active participation and the presence of all the accused persons was with an active mind in furtherance of their common object. The law of vicarious liability under section 149, I.P.C. is crystal clear that even the mere presence in the unlawful assembly, but with an active mind, to achieve the common object makes such a person vicariously liable for the acts of the unlawful assembly.

19. Regarding the application of section 149, the following observations from Charan Singh v. State of U.P., (2004) 4 SCC 205; (AIR 2004 SC 2828) are very relevant:-- "13. ... The crucial question to deter mine is whether the assembly consisted of five or more persons and whether the said persons entertained one or more of the common objects, as specified in section 141. ... The word 'object' means the pur pose or design and, in order to make it 'common', it must be shared by all. In other words, the object should be common to the persons, who compose the assembly, that is to say, they should all be aware of it and concur in it. A common object may be formed by express agreement after mutual consultation, but that is by no means nec essary. It may be formed at any stage by all or a few members of the assembly and the other members may just join and adopt it. Once formed, it need not continue to be the same. It may be modified or altered or abandoned at any stage. The expression 'in prosecution of common object' as appear ing in section 149 has to be strictly con strued as equivalent to 'in order to attain the common object'. It must be immediately connected with the common object by vir tue of the nature of the object. There must be community of object and the object may exist only up to a particular stage, and not thereafter..."

20. In Bhanwar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 16 SCC 657; (AIR 2009 SC 768), this Court held:-- "Hence, the common object of the un lawful assembly in question depends firstly on whether such object can be classified as one of those described in section 141, I.P.C. Secondly, such common object need not be the product of prior concert but, as per established law, may form on the spur of the moment (see also Sukha v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1956 SC 513). Finally, the nature of this common object is a question of fact to be determined by considering nature of arms, nature of the assembly, behaviour of the members, etc. (see also Rachamreddi Chenna Reddy v. State of A.P., (1999) 3 SCC 97); (AIR 1999 SC 994)".

21. Thus, this court has been very cau tious in the catena of judgments that where general allegations are made against a large number of persons the court would cat egorically scrutinise the evidence and hesi tate to convict the large number of persons if the evidence available on record is vague. It is obligatory on the part of the court to examine that if the offence committed is not in direct prosecution of the common object, it yet may fall under second part of section 149, I.P.C., if the offence was such as the members knew was likely to be com mitted. Further inference has to be drawn as what was the number of persons; how many of them were merely passive wit nesses; what were their arms and weapons. Number and nature of injuries is also rel evant to be considered. "Common object" may also be developed at the time of incident.

22. The trial court after appreciating the entire facts reached the following conclu sion:-- "Further the manner in which the inju ries were inflicted on this witness as de posed by P.Ws.2, 3 and 5 will go to show that the intention of accused Nos. 1 to 17 who inflicted the injury on P.W.2 was with a common object to killing him. Further it was also brought out in the evidence of these witnesses that all the accused per sons namely 1 to 17 were holding danger ous weapons in their hands. Further it can not be said that any of the accused persons have not involved in committing the offence and it cannot also be said that they were not aware of the consequences of their act or result of the act that is likely to be re sulted on account of the overt act commit ted by any one of the members of that as sembly. Similarly, the evidence of P.W.3 will go to show that all these accused persons have criminally trespassed into her house and committed the crime. It is also brought out in evidence that 17th accused Sisupalan had beaten on her chest with hand and also Ext. 3 scene mahazar will go to show that on account of the act of accused Nos.1, 8, 12 and 5 the western door of the house has been broken open and caused damage to the same. Further some of the vessels also damaged in the incident which is spoken to by P.W.3 and that is also evident from the broken piece of wooden reaper with bold (M.O.10) and also the steel vessel (M.O.16) will go to show that damage has been caused to the building of P.W.3 and also damage to the vessel. It is also brought out in the evidence of P.W.3 that the food ar ticles were also damaged in the incident. So it cannot be said that the accused per sons who are the members of the assembly do not know about the consequence of their act. So it can be safely concluded that ac cused Nos.1 to 17 have formed themselves into an unlawful assembly for the purpose of rioting with deadly weapons and also with the common object of causing murder of P.W.2 Sobhanan, attacked him with deadly weapons in their hands and also for the purpose of committing the crime, they criminally trespassed into the house of P.W.3 and also caused simple injury to her and caused damage to her house and also the food articles in the house and thereby all the accused persons name accused Nos.1 to 17 have committed the offences punish able under sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 307, 449 and 427 read with section 149, I.P.C."

23. The High Court dealt with this issue and held as under:-- "The accused persons armed with weap ons were waiting in the house of accused No.1 for return of P.W.2 to his house through the usual pathway after attending the temple festival. Even when he tried to escape by entering into the house of P.W.3, they followed, chased and inflicted serious injuries on him at the house of P.W.3. It is true that he luckily saved his life. But, when his father and P.W.1 came hearing the cry, they were also assaulted and father of P.W.2 was murdered. Yet, the Sessions Court con victed for murder of the deceased only of the persons participated in that act which was proved by evidence. Others, namely, Accused Nos.12, 13, 16 and 17 were con victed only for offences under sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 307, 449 and 427, I.P.C. read with section 149, I.P.C. It was deposed that A18 was unarmed and no witness has stated his role. Therefore he was acquitted. Con sidering the evidence in this case, the Sessions Court found that accused Nos.1 to 17 armed with weapons, formed an unlaw ful assembly with a common object of at tacking P.W.2 and also they trespassed into the house of P.W.3 and brutally attacked P.W.2. Even though he suffered serious injuries, he escaped from death by luck. Com mon object can develop during the course of incident at the spot...... The Sessions Court found that even though common ob ject of the assembly was originally to at tack P.W.2, when hearing the cry P.W.1 and the deceased arrived, they were attacked by some of the persons in the group which attacked P.W.2. All of them may not have shared the common object of murdering the deceased. The Sessions Court found that since Accused Nos.12, 13 and 16 were not attributed to have caused injury on the de ceased, they cannot be held guilty under section 302, I.P.C. read with section 149, I.P.C. as it cannot be positively inferred that they shared the common intention with the oth ers to murder the deceased. We are of the opinion that A.10 and A.11 only attacked P.W.1 and their involvement with regard to the deceased is equal to accused Nos.12 and

13. Similarly, A.7 also can be compared with A.12 and A.13 as it is not proved be yond doubt that they shared the common object to inflict injuries on the deceased."

24. It is evident from the above that the trial Court as well as the High Court have proceeded in correct perspective and ap plied the provisions of section 149, I.P.C. correctly. The facts have properly been analysed and appreciated. In the instant case, seventeen accused gathered at the residence of Sudhakaran (A.1) and waited for the appropriate time knowing it well that Sobhanan (P.W.2) would return from the temple. Immediately, after seeing him, Sudhakaran (A.1) shouted "chase him, chase him". In order to save his life, he ran away and entered into "Sophia Bhawan". However, before he could enter the house, he was inflicted injury by Sudhakaran (A.1) with the sword stick. Sobhanan (P.W.2) succeeded in entering the house and clos ing the door from inside. The accused/ap pellants broke open the door and caused injuries of very serious nature to Sobhanan (P.W.2) and left him under the impression that he had died. The accused were having one sword stick, two choppers, one knife and twelve iron rods. All these weapons were used by the appellants for commit ting the offences and causing injuries to their victims. Kuttappan (deceased) re ceived as many as 34 injuries. In view thereof, if all the circumstances are taken into consideration, it cannot be held that the appellants had not participated to pros ecute a 'common object'. Even if it was not so, it had developed at the time of in cident. In view thereof, submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants in respect of applicability of section 149, I.P.C. is not worth consideration.

25. We do not find any force in the sub mission made by the learned counsel for the appellants that as the number of accused had been seventeen and the incident was over within a very short time, it was not possible for witnesses to give as detailed description as has been given in this case, and there had been several contradictions therein, therefore, their evidence is not re liable. In such a case even if minor contra dictions appeared in the evidence of wit nesses, it is to be ignored for the reason that it is natural that exact version of the incident revealing any minute detail i.e. meticulous exactitude of individual acts cannot be expected from the eye-witnesses. (See: Abdul Sayeed v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 10 SCC 259; (2010 AIR SCW 5701). In this case all the accused were very well known to the witnesses. So their iden tification etc. has not been in issue. As their participation being governed by second part of section 149, I.P.C., overt act of an indi vidual lost significance.

26. However, the courts below have made distinction in two sets of the accused/ appellants and that attained finality as the State did not prefer any appeal against the same. All appellants in the second set have been convicted for the offence punishable under sections 307/149, I.P.C. etc. and awarded sentence of 10 years rigorous im prisonment. These appellants have submit ted the certificates of service of sentence rendered by them. According to the said certificate, these appellants have served 4 1/2 years to 8 years. All of them have been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 9-12-2009. In the facts and circumstances of the case, their conviction is upheld, however, the sentence is reduced as undergone. Their bail bonds are discharged. Appeal of the other appellants stands dismissed. Subject to the above modification, the appeal stands disposed of. M.W.A./7/SC-Ind. Order accordingly.