AMERIKA RAI & ORS.versusSTATE OF BIHAR

                         [2011] 3 S.C.R. 176

A                       AMERIKA RAI & ORS.
                                    v.
                          STATE OF BIHAR
              (Criminal Appeal No. 1516-1517 of 2004)
                         FEBRUARY 23, 2011
B
           [V.S. SIRPURKAR AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.]

         Penal Code, 1860 - s.302 r/w s.149 and s.307 - Murder
    and attempt to murder - Unlawful assembly- Common object
C   - Vican"ous liability- Allegation that a day after an altercation,
    at the time of marriage of PW-7's brother, and assault on A-
    5, the accused persons slapped and fisted PW-6, the brother-
    in-law of the bride of PW- l's brother and when PW-l's brother
    resisted such action, the accused persons indiscriminately
D   fired at PW-7 and his brother causing grievous injun"es to the
    former and death of the latter - Conviction by Courts below
    of the six accused persons - Further appeal of A-3 dismissed
    by Supreme Court - Appeals by the other five accused -
    Held: There was a definite background to the attack - The
E   accused persons had carried a grudge and seeing PW-6,
    they slapped and fisted him and when PW- l's brother resisted
    the same he was done to death - Presence of the 5 eye-
    witnesses was most natural - All of them unanimously stated
    that A-1 had ordered to bring the guns; that A-4 fired 3-4
F   rounds with his gun and caused injury to PW-7, and that A-5
    and A-6 fired with pistols in their hand -Therefore, at least
    insofar as these persons are concerned, their presence and
    their active participation made them guilty under s.149 /PC,
    though the author of the injury to the deceased was A-3 whose
    appeal has already been dismissed - However, that cannot
G   be said about A-2 - The evidence of the eye-witnesses that
    he was instigating the other accused persons to fire, appears
    to be an exaggeration - He would not have kept on standing
    holding a /athi had he shared the intention and the common

H                                 176
     AMERIKA RAI & ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR              177


object of committing murder of the deceased - Therefore,      A
benefit of doubt granted to A-2 and he is acquitted - Arms
Act- s.27.

     According to the prosecution, a day after an
altercation, at the time of marriage of PW7's brother, and 8
assault on A-5, the accused persons slapped and fisted
PW-6, the brother-in-law of the bride of PW7's brother and
when PW7's brother resisted such action, the six .
accused persons formed themselves into an unlawful
assembly and as a common object of that unlawful C
assembly indiscriminately fired at PW7 and his brother
causing grievous injuries to the former and death of the
latter.

     All the accused persons were convicted under
Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC, while A-3       D
was convicted for substantive offence punishable under
Section 302 and for offence punishable under Section 27
of the Arms Act. A-4 was also convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 307 IPC in addition to the
offences punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act          E
and Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. He was
booked for that offence on the allegation that he had fired
at and injured PW-7. The appeals of all the accused
persons were dismissed by High Court. The further
appeal of A•3 was dismissed by the Supreme Court.             F

    The instant appeals were filed by the other five
accused persons, A-1, A-2, A-4, A-5 and A-6.

    Dismissing the appeals of all the accused-appellants
except A-2, the Court                                         G
    HELD:1. PW7's brother died a homicidal death. As
many as 5 eye-witnesses whose presence was most
natural on the spot, have supported the prosecution
version regarding the deadly attack on PW7's brother, as      H
   178      SUPREME COURT REPORTS             (2011) 3 S.C.R.


A also the firing at PW-7. The evidence of the two doctors
  PW-8 and PW-10, who conducted the autopsy, is
  sufficient to hold that PW7's brother died a11 almost
  instantaneous death because of indiscriminate-' firing at
  him by A-3. PW7's brother had suffered as many as 8
B injuries, all attributable to the gun shot injuries, so also
  the injuries suffered by PW-7 were found to be dangerous
  to his life, though he ultimately survived. [Para 6] [184-F-
  H]

       2. The presence of the accused persons on the spot
C was well established by the five eye-witnesses. All the five
  eye-witnesses who supported the prosecution in one
  voice deposed to the presence of all these accused
  persons and the acts performed by them. PW-7, PW-1,
  PW-4, PW-6, PW-2 and PW-3 are unanimous on the
D question that A-1 had ordered to bring the guns. As many
  as 4 witnesses being PW-7, PW-1, PW-4 and PW-6 spoke
  about A-2 standing holding a stick. All these 4 witnesses
  also suggested that he was instigating. Insofar as A-4 is
  concerned, all the witnesses are unanimous that he fired
E 3-4 rounds with his gun and caused injury to PW-7, so
  also all the witnesses are absolutely unanimous in
  respect of A-5 and A-6 to the effect that they were firing
  with the pistols in their hand. PW-2 and PW-3 also went
  to the extent of saying that these two accused persons
F fired 2-3 rounds of shots though no injury was caused
  by those gun shots. Therefore, there can be no doubt
  that all these accused persons, who were staying in the
  nearby house of the deceased, had attacked the
  deceased and his brother PW-7. There was a definite
G background to this attack which related to the altercation
  in between the bride's party and bridegroom's party at
  the time of marriage and A-5 having been beaten. It has
  come in the evidence of the witnesses like PW-7 and PW-
  6 that there was an unpleasant incident of altercation in
H between the bride's party and bridegroom's party at the
     AMERIKA RAI & ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR                179


time of Dwarpuja. It has also come in the evidence that         A
A-5, when he was returning back from bridegroom's
place on cycle, was beaten. Therefore, it appears that the
accused persons had carried a grudge and seeing P.W-
6, the brother-in-law of the deceased's bride, there was
an instantaneous reaction on their part. It has come in the     B
evidence that PW-6 was slapped and fisted when he had
finished his meals and was going for rest. The presence
of PW-6 acted as a flash point; perhaps it reminded the
accused persons and more particularly, A-5, of the insult
meted out to them and then the idea of taking revenge           c
emerged. What happened is that deceased seeing that his
wife's relation was being slapped and fisted by the
accused persons, had resisted the attempt on the part of
the accused persons and that ultimately proved to be a
raison d'etre of his death. Therefore, there is no doubt that
                                                                0
this was undoubtedly done with a common object of
teaching lesson to the deceased who had taken - as was
expected- side of PW-6, the brother-in-law of his bride.
[Para 7] [185-B-H; 186-A-D]

     3. The law of vicarious liability under Section 149 IPC    E
is crystal clear that even the 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. In that light, when
the evidence is examined, it is obvious that A-1 who was        F
the elder in the family and father of A-2, A-4 and A-3,
instead of acting in a responsible manner and preventing
any unpleasant incident, exhorted the accused persons
to bring the gun. The exhortation to bring the gun
definitely speaks about the guilty mind of A-1, so also the     G
use of guns by A-4, A-5 and A-6 is very clear that they also
had guilty mind. A-4 went to the extent of injuring PW-7.
Therefore, even their presence and part played by them
was obviously pointing towards the comm\)n object of
committing murder of PW7's brother, who, became the             H
    180    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2011] 3 S.C.R.

A victim of the circumstances. The accused persons had
  nothing to do with the deceased. Their main ire was
  directed at PW-6. But, perhaps because the deceased
  took side of PW-6, he became the victim of circumstances
  and had to pay with his own life. Therefore, at least
s insofar as these persons are concerned, their presence
  and their active participation would make them guilty
  under Section 149 IPC, though the author of the injury to
  the deceased was A-3 whose appeal has already been
  dismissed. [Para 7) [186-F-H; 187-A-C]
c      4. However, that cannot be said about A-2. He had
  been given the role of standing in the door of his house
  with a lathi. The evidence of the eye-witnesses that he
  was instigating the other accused persons to fire,
  appears to be an exaggeration. He would not have kept
D on standing there holding a lathi had he shared the
  intention and the common object of committing murder
  of the deceased. The role of A-2, as attributed to by the
  eye-witnesses, should not make him vicariously liable.
  Therefore, benefit of doubt is granted to A-2 and he is
E acquitted. [Para 8) [187-0-E]

       5. There is evidence that when PW-6 was going for
  rest after the meals, he was actually fisted and slapped
  by A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5 and A-6. When this was informed
F to the deceased he came and made enquiry from A-3 and
  then when there was exchange of abuses, the brick
  batting started between the parties. In short, there can be
  no dispute about the formation of unlawful assembly and
  its common object. All the accused persons are,
G therefore, held guilty and their appeals are dismissed
  excepting that of A-2 who is granted the benefit of doubt
  and is acquitted. (Paras 9, 10] (188-A-B-C]

        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
    No. 1516-1517 of 2004.
H
      AMERIKA RAI & ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR                  181


    From the Judgment and Order dated 20.05.2004 of the            A
High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Appeal No. 311
and 372 of 1999.

     Rajesh Prasad Singh, Abhilesh Kumar Pandey, Sudhanshu
Saran, Abhay Kumar, Ashutosh Pandey abd Chandan Kumar              8
(for Gopal Singh) for the appearing parties.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. 1. This judgment will dispose of
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1516 and 1517 of 2004. Five accu.sed          C
persons have filed these appeals, they being Amerika Rai
(original accused No. 1), Darbesh Rai (original accused No.
2), Mithilesh Rai (original accused No. 4), Sanjay Rai (original
accused No. 5) and Sipahi Rai (original accused No. 6). The
appeal of Chulhan Rai (original accused No. 3) is already          o
dismissed. Six accused persons came to be tried for having
formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and as a
common object of that unlawful assembly, having committed
murder of one Shankar Rai. Some of the accused persons were
also charged with the offences under the Arms Act. All the         E
accused persons were convicted for the offence punishable
under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal
Code (IPC), while Chulhan Rai (A-3) was convicted for
substantive offence punishable under Section 302 and for
offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Again,
                                                                   F
Mithilesh Rai (A-4) was also convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 307 IPC in addition to the offences
punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 302
read with Section 149 IPC. He was booked for that offence on
the allegation that he had fired at and injured one Dineshwar
Rai (PW-7). The appeals of all the accused persons were            G
dismissed by Patna High Court and that is how the accused
persons are before us in the present appeals.

     2. The prosecution story is in the short conspectus. This
is a cruel murder of a young bridegroom Shankar Rai who was        H
    182       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011) 3 S.C.R.


A   married only a day before. He was put to death virtually without
    any reason. As per the prosecution story, his marriage was held
    at village lshupur, Police Station Lalganj, District Vaishali. All
    the accused persons appear to be either relations or
    neighbours of deceased Shankar Rai. They all had joined the
B   bridegroom party and were present at the time of marriage. It
    is alleged that at the time of function of "Dwarpuja", there was
    some altercation in between the members of bride party on one
    side and bridegroom's on the other. It is alleged that the brother
    of the informant Dineshwar Rai was assaulted by the members
c   of the bride party and in retaliation, the informant also attacked
    some members of the bride side. Further, when one of the
    accused persons Sanjay Rai (A-5) was going back to
    Janmasa (the place where the bridegroom's party stays during
    the marriage), he was assaulted by some boys of the village.
    However, the marriage was solemnized. The party of the
0
    bridegroom returned to their village alongwith bride, and
    alongwith them, the brother-in-law of the bride accompanied as
    per the custom. On the next day, at about 11 'o clock in the
    morning, when the said brother-in-law, namely, Ram Babu (PW-
    6) was going for rest after taking meals, the accused persons,
E   namely, Amerika Rai (A-1 ), Darbesh Rai (A-2), Chulhan Rai (A-
    3), Mithilesh Rai (A-4), Sanjay Rai (A-5) and Sipahi Rai (A-6)
    assaulted him with fists and slaps. When this was objected to,
    a quarrel ensued. At that very time, Amerika Rai (A-1) exhorted
    and as a result, Chulhan Rai (A-3) brought a licensed gun and
F   fired 617 rounds at Shankar Rai. He fell down injured. In the
    meantime, Mithilesh Rai (A-4) fired 3/4 rounds from his gun
    causing injury to Dineshwar Rai (PW-7) who was none else but
    the brother of Shankar Rai (deceased). He suffered injuries to
    his hand, abdomen and thigh. At this time, Sanjay Rai (A-5) and
G   Sipahi Rai (A-6) also opened fire from their pistols. Darbesh
    Rai (A-2) was present with a lathi. Injured Shankar Rai was
    removed to the State disp.ensary, Parsa, where he died during
    his treatment. Dineshwar Rai (PW-7) was also treated. The
    incident, having taken place in the broad day light, was
H
      AMERIKA RAI & ORS. V. STATE OF BIHAR                    183
              [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.] .
witnessed by number of persons including the villagers. A .
Dineshwar Rai (PW-7) reported the matter on 26.6.1995 at 4.15
pm to the Officer-inccharge of Dariyapur Police Station. This
was done in the State dispensary. FIR was drawn up by
Dariyapur Police Station vide case No. 76/95 and the offences
were registered under Sections 302, 307, 324 read with B
Section 34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The
chargesheet was filed and the matter was committed to
sessions. All the accused abjured their guilt.
                                                         '
     3. In support of the prosecution, as many as 12 witnesses
were examined including the eye-witnesses, the police                 C :_•·~~'
witnesses and the doctors.

     4. Some of the witnesses like Dineshwar Rai (PW-7) who
was an injured witness, Ram Babu (PW-6), Dhaneshwar Rai
(PW-1), Sheo Nath Rai (PW-2), Ramesh Rai (PW-3) and Ram               D
Bhawan Rai (PW-4) supported the prosecution version.
However, some other witnesses like Wakil Rai, Virendra Rai
and Dina Pandit did not support the prosecution. Relying on
their evidence, the trial Court firstly came to the conclusion that
the accused persons formed themselves into an unlawful                E
assembly and indiscriminately fired at Shankar Rai (deceased)
and Dineshwar Rai (PW-7) and caused murder of Shankar Rai
and attempted to murder Dineshwar Rai (PW-7). However, it
is only Mithilesh Rai (A-4) who is booked for the offence
punishable under Section 307 IPC on the ground that he wal5           F
the only person who fired at Dineshwar Rai (PW-7) and injured
him seriously. The trial Court has also discussed the whole
medical evidence as well as the evidence of the eye-witnesses
and convicted all the accused persons. The appeals of the
accused persons before the High Court failed and that is how          G
the matter is before us.

    5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
accused persons firstly urged that the role of Amerika Rai (A-
1) and Darbesh Rai (A-2), as attributed to them by the
                                                                      H
    184      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 3 S.C.R.


A  prosecution witness, itself suggests that these two accused
   persons did not use any fire arms. The learned counsel further
   urged that Amerika Rai (A-1) was merely standing and at the
   most, it could be said that he exhorted for bringing the guns;
   however, even that could not be said in respect of Darbesh Rai
s  (A-2) who was merely standing in the door with a lathi. The
  'learned counsel were at pains to point out, by reference to
   evidence, that Darbesh Rai (A-2) did not in any manner either
   assault the deceased or take part in the whole affair. The
    learned counsel, therefore, urged that at least insofar as
c  Amerika Rai (A-1) and Darbesh Rai (A-2) are concerned, they
   could not be said to be the members of the unlawful assembly.
    The learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sanjay Rai (A-5)
    and Sipahi Rai (A-6) pointed out that though it was suggested
    that these two accused persons fired with their pistols, those
D pistols are nowhere to be found in the whole investigation, as
    nothing was recovered from these two accused persons. The
    learned counsel, therefore, urged that it will be difficult to say
   that these two persons either shared the common intention or
    had the common object. It was pointed out that Sanjay Rai (A-
    5) and Sipahi Rai (A-6) were not even related to Amerika Rai
E (A-1) and his family or deceased Shankar Rai and his family.

       6. There can be no dispute that Shankar Rai died a
  homicidal death. As many as 5 eye-witnesses whose presence
  was most natural on the spot, have supported the prosecution
F version regarding the deadly attack on Shankar Rai, as also
  the firing at his brother Dineshwar Rai (PW-7). The evidence
  of the two doctors being Dr. Shradha Nand (PW-8) and Dr.
  Amarnath Jha (PW-10), who conducted the autopsy is sufficient
  to hold that Shankar Rai died an almost instantaneous death
G because of indiscriminate firing at him by Chulhan Rai (A-3). It
  has already been stated earlier that appeal of Chulhan Rai (A-
  3) is already dismissed. Deceased Shankar Rai had suffered
  as many as 8 injuries, all attributable to the gun shot injuries,
  so also the injuries suffered by Dineshwar Rai (PW-7) were
H found to be dangerous to his life, though hej)ltimately survived.
     AMERIKA RAI & ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR                    185
             [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
The question, however, is whether all the accused persons           A
could be booked with the aid of Section 149 IPC on the ground
that they were the members of the unlawful assembly having
the common object.

      7. There can be no dispute that the presence of the           8
accused persons on the spot was well established by the five
eye-witnesses named above. All the five eye-witnes3es who
supported the prosecution have in one voice deposed to the
presence of all these accused persons and the acts performed
by them. Dineshwar Rai (PW-7), Dhaneshwar Rai (PW-1 }, Ram          C
Bhawan Rai (PW-4), Ram Babu (PW-6), Sheo Nath Rai (PW-
2) and Ramesh Rai (PW-3) are unanimous on the question that
Amerika Rai (A-1) had ordered to bring the guns. As many as
4 witnesses being Dineshwar Rai (PW-7), Dhaneshwar Rai
(PW-1), Ram Bhawan Rai (PW-4) and Ram Babu (PW-6)
spoke about Darbesh Rai (A-2) standing holding a stick. All         D
these 4 witnesses also suggested that he was instigating.
Insofar as Mithilesh Rai (A-4) is concerned, all the witnesses
are unanimous that he fired 3-4 rounds with his gun and caused
injury to Dineshwar Rai (PW-7), so also all the witnesses are
absolutely unanimous in respect of Sanjay Rai (A-5) and Sipahi      E
Rai (A-6) to the effect that they were firing with the pistols in
their hand. Sheo Nath Rai (PW-2) and Ramesh Rai (PW-3)
also went to the extent of saying that these two accused persons
fired 2-3 rounds of shots though no injury was caused by those
gun shots. Therefore, there can be no doubt that all these          F
accused persons, who were staying in the nearby house of the
deceased, had attacked the deceased and his brother
Dineshwar Rai (PW-7). There was a definite background to this
attack which related to the altercation in between the bride's
party and bridegroom's party at the time of marriage and            G
accused Sanjay Rai having been beaten. It has come in the
evidence of the witnesses like Dineshwar Rai (PW-7) and Ram
Babu (PW-7) that there was an unpleasant incident of
altercation in between the bride's party and bridegroom's party
at the time of Dwarpuja. It has also come in the evidence that      H
    186       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 3 S.C.R.


 A Sanjay Rai (A-5), when he was returning back from
    bridegroom's place on cycle, was beaten. Therefore, it appears
    that the accused persons had carried a grudge and seeing Ram
    Babu (PW-6), the brother-in-law of Shankar Rai's bride, there
    was an instantaneous reaction on their part. It has come in the
 B evidence that Ram Babu (PW-6) was slapped and fisted when
    he had finished his meals and was going for rest. The presence
    of Ram Babu (PW-6) acted as a flash point; perhaps it
    reminded the accused persons and more particularly, Sanjay
    Rai (A-5), of the insult meted out to them and then the idea of
c   taking revenge emerged. What happened is that deceased
    Shankar Rai seeing that his wife's relation was being slapped
    and fisted by the accused persons, had resisted the attempt
    on the part of the accused persons and that ultimately proved
    to be a raison d'etre of his death. Therefore, there is no doubt
    in our mind that this was undoubtedly done with a common
  0
    object of teaching lesson to deceased Shankar Rai who had
    taken - as was expected- side of Ram Babu (PW-6), the
    brother-in-law of his bride. 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
.,E furtherance of their common object. The law of vicarious liability
    under Section 149 IPC is crystal clear that even the 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. In that light, when the evidence
  F is examined, it is obvious that Amerika Rai (A-1) who was the
    elder in the family and father of Darbesh Rai (A-2), Mithilesh
    Rai (A-4) and Chulhan Rai (A-3), instead of acting in a
    responsible manner and preventing any unpleasant incident,
    exhorted the accused persons to bring the gun. The guns are
 G normally not brought for making a show. The exhortation to bring
    the gun definitely speaks about the guilty mind of Amerika Rai
    (A-1), so also the use of guns by Mithilesh Rai (A-4), Sanjay
    Rai (A-5) and Sipahi Rai (A-6) is very clear that they also had
    guilty mind. Mithilesh Reii (A-4) went to the extent of injuring
 H Dineshwar Rai (PW-7). Therefore, even their presence and part:
      AMERIKA HAI & ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR                  187
               [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
played by them was obviously pointing towards the common A
object of committing murder of Shankar Rai. Unfortunately,
Shankar Rai became the victim of the circumstances. The
accused persons had nothing to do with Shankar Rai. Their
main ire was directed at Ram Babu {PW-6). But, perhaps ·
because Shankar Rai took side of Ram Babu {PW-6), he B
became the victim of circumstances and had to pay with his
own life. Therefore, at least insofar as these persons are
concerned, their presence and their active participation would
make them guilty under Section 149 IPC, though the author of
the injury to Shankar Rai was Chulhan Rai {A-3) whose appeal        c
has already been dismissed.

     8. However, that canot be said about Darbesh Rai {A-2).
He had been given the role of standing in the door of his house
with a lathi. We feel that the evidence of the eye-witnesses that
he was instigating the other accused persons to fire, appears       D
to be an exaggeration. He would not have kept on standing
there holding a lathi had he shared the intention and the
common object of committing murder of Shankar RaL In our
opinion, the role of Darbesh Rai {A-2), as attributed to by the
eye-witnesses, should not make him vicariously liable. We,          E
therefore, grant benefit of doubt to Darbesh Rai {A-2) and acquit
him.

        9. It was tried. to be suggested, relying on the defence
  witnesses, namely, Ajit Kumar Singh {DW-1) and Ram Dhani F
  Chaudhary (DVV-2), that Chulhan Rai (A-3) did not have any
  gun, as his gun was deposited in Singh Gun House. This
  argument is already rejected by trial and appellate Courts and
· we also endorse the finding. Insofar as Ram Dhani Chauphary
  {DW-2) is concerned, he stated that there was a distance of G
  250 .feet in betwe.en the house of Chulhan Rai (A-3) and ·
  deceased Shankar Raiand there was a pond in between their
  houses. He also found brick bats in front of the house of the
  deceased and Chulhan Rai (A-3). Thereby it was suggested
  that there was exchange of brick bats between the parties. That H
    188      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011] 3 S.C.R.


A may be so. However, there is evidence that when Ram Babu
  (PW-6) was going for rest after the meals, he was actually fisted
  and slapped by Amerika Rai (A-1), Darbesh Rai (A-2), Chulhan
  Rai (A-3), Mithilesh Rai (A-4), Sanjay Rai (A-5) and Sipahi Rai
  (A-6). When this was informed to Shankar Rai, Shankar Rai
B came and made enquiry from Chulhan Rai (A-3) and then when
  there was exchange of abuses, the brick batting started
  between the parties. The evidence of Ram Dhani Chaudhary
  (DW-2), S.D.P.O., does not in any manner shake the
  prosecution case. It was not as if the defence came up with a
c plea of right of private defence of person and property and
  indeed they could not have done so as they were the aggressor
  party using guns. We have considered the defence evidence
  also at the instance of both the learned counsel appearing on
  behalf of the defence and we do not find that this evidence
  would in any manner help the prosecution.
0
        10. In short, there can be no dispute about the formation
  of unlawful assembly and its common object. We, therefore,
  dismiss all the appeals excepting that of Darbesh Rai (A-2) who
  has been granted the benefit of doubt. He shall be acquitted.
E All the accused persons are, therefore, held guilty and their
  appeals are dismissed excepting that of Darbesh Rai (A-2)
  whose appeal is accepted and who is directed to be released
  forthwith unless required in any other matter. His bail bonds are
  discharged. It is reported that accused No.1, Amerika Rai is
F on bail. He shall be taken into custody immediately for serving
  out rest of the sentence. His bail bonds are cancelled.

    B.B.B.                                  Appeals disposed of.