1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present: The Hon’ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay C.R.A. 501 of 1986 Shri Nripendra Nath Singh & Ors. -Vs- The State of West Bengal For the Appellant No.1 & 2 : Mr. Apalok Basu (Amicus Curiae) Mr. Nazir Ahmed For the Appellant No.3 : Ms. Ritu Das For the State : Ms. Faria Hossain Ms. Atulya Sinha Judgment on : 05.05.2026 Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.:- 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31.07.1986 passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Cooch Behar in Sessions Case No.9 of 1984 arising out of Sessions Trial No.1(2)/86, convicting the appellants under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of the appellants to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and also to undergo further imprisonment for 2 years under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and directed both the sentences to run concurrently. 2 2. The prosecution case precisely stated that on 7th of February, 1977, at Chikliguri Part-II, P.S. Tufanganj, an incident of assault was occasioned on a plot of land being allegedly disputed between the said two parties. The said land was in possession of one Nripen Das since deceased. The said disputed plot of land formerly belonged to the co-accused named Iswar Nath Singh and Nripendra Nath Singh who were presently the appellants of the given case. After being vested in the government, the said land was subsequently settled with the said deceased Nripen Das. It was further alleged on the date of occurrence the deceased Nripen Das along with other victims Amar Chandra Das (PW-1) who was also the complainant and Subal Das (PW-8) were jointly ploughing the said plot when suddenly the accused persons forming an unlawful assembly reached the place of occurrence armed with bows and arrows and a ‘ram dao’. It was alleged specifically the accused Jatin Singha and Iswar Nath Singh were armed with deadly bows and arrows, and another accused Nripendra Nath and Mrinal was armed with ‘ram dao’. All those accused jointly inflicted assault on the said victim/cultivators of the said disputed plot of land with blows by deadly weapon and also shot arrows towards the victims, due to which the victims suffered serious bleeding injuries on their limbs. Due to such injury the victims had to be admitted at the hospital for treatment. The arrow which struck the victim Amar Chand Das (PW-1) had to be surgically removed from the left arm of the victim. Further, the victim Subal Das (PW-8) was also been treated in the same Health Care Centre. Another victim Umakanta Das (PW-9) who had gone to intervene in the said altercation was also taken away 3 by the accused persons blindfolded to a place and tortured subsequently for several days. The said victim had narrated the entire torture by the appellants to the police as and when released from the confinement of the appellants. 3. On the basis of a written complaint lodged by the complainant, Tufanganj Police Station Case No.5/39 dated 07.02.1977 under Sections 147/148/149/326/365/307 of the Indian Penal Code was initiated for investigation. 4. Upon conclusion of the investigation, the Investigating Agency submitted a charge-sheet against the appellant under Sections 148/324/307 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses and examined certain documents. 6. The Learned Advocate representing the appellant no.1 submitted as follows:- i. PW-1 in his examination-in-chief stated that “I gave my thumb impression on the written complaint but I cannot say who wrote the said written complaint”. From the above piece of evidence it could be distinctly deciphered that the written complaint was never produced before the said witness at the time of trial and resultantly the written complaint on which the PW-1 had allegedly given his thumb impression and on the basis of which the first information report was drawn, was never proven. 4 ii. Role played by the appellant no.1 in the alleged offence:- PW-1 in his examination-in-chief stated that “Iswar Nath Singh struck me with an arrow and Jatin hit Sabal with an arrow. The arrow shot by Iswar hit me on my left arm which struck to my arm. I received bleeding injuries on that place. Subal was hit on his left leg with two arrows. Subal was received bleeding injuries on his left leg”. PW-8 in his examination-in-chief stated that “two arrows hit me on my leg. One arrow stuck Amar Chand on his left arm. I could extract which was hit my leg. I received bleeding injuries on my leg and Amar Chand Das (PW-1) received bleeding injuries on his arm”. PW-9 in his examination-in-chief stated that “Iswar, Jatin then started shooting arrows at Nripen Das and others. Mrinal and Nripen Singh were armed with ‘Dao’. Amar Chand Das was hit by an arrow on his left arm and Subal Das was hit by the arrows on his left leg Accused Nripen and Jatin were present in the dock, identified”. From the above extractions and without dwelling deep into the veracity of the witnesses also it could be clearly made out that the present appellant had no role to play in the alleged injury of the victims. The witnesses had made cryptic references to his name but manner of involvement is described differently and further no seizure of ‘dao’ or weapon which the appellant was allegedly armed with was ever seized. 5 iii. Offending weapons/exhibits were never produced before the victims during the trial:- Although the PW-1 and PW-8 claimed that they were hit by arrows but the arrows were never produced before the said witnesses for identification. Such non production and consequential non identification by the alleged injured eye witnesses were fatal to the prosecution as an adverse presumption may be drawn against it. iv. Parity with co-accused who were acquitted:- The star witness for the prosecution, PW-1 had deposed as follows:- “....... Nripendra Nath Singh, Jatin Singha, Ranjit, Dwigen, Mrinal, Khairuddin Mia, Joynal Mia, Kaibuddin and Taimur came upon the land armed with bows and arrows, Dao, Ballam, lathi, etc., Majid, Fazley, Jatin Singh, Khairuddin, Nripen Singh were present and Identified. Iswar Nath Singh and Jatin Singh were armed with bows and arrows, Nripendra Nath Singh and Mrinal were armed with Dao. Khairuddin was armed with ballam. The rest of the people were armed with lathi and thenga. Those people came running to the land where they were ploughing and surrounded us. Iswar struck me with an arrow and Jatin hit Sabal with an arrow…….”. There was not even an allegation that the appellants had assaulted any person present there. The carrying of weapon had also not been proved. He was similarly situated as Majid Mia and Faley Mia who had been acquitted on the basis of similar evidence and allegations. 6 The differential treatment of the instant appellant as contradicted to the other two acquitted accused was violative of his right guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. v. False Implication - Desperate attempt to bring the appellant within the purview of Sections 148/149 of the Indian Penal Code. From the length and breadth of the deposition of the prosecution witnesses it could be well concluded that there was an apparent dispute between the victims and the appellant hearing in respect of the particular plot of land where in the alleged offence took place. When the alleged offence took place and there was an alleged unlawful assembly of armed men. The victims though had identified and specified the petitioner who had caused the injury had falsely implicated the present appellant as well without specifying his role or overt act. By way of the allegations made in the first information report and thereafter developed in the deposition is nothing but a desperate attempt to bring the appellant herein within the purview of the section 148 of The Indian Penal Code. vi. Quantum of Sentence:- Without admitting the guilt it was humbly submitted that the learned Trial Judge ought to have extended the benefit of Section 360 of the Cr.P.C., and/or of the probation of offender’s act 1958. The punishment under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code extended to a maximum of three years while the punishment under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code was same as 7 the principle Section. There was no whisper in the judgement and the order impugned that the appellants had any criminal antecedent or was otherwise a threat to the society. The mechanical/non- consideration on the part of the Learned Trial Judge might be set- aside. vii. Conclusion:- The cumulative effect of all the evidence presented during the trial, including the testimonies of witnesses, documentary evidence, and the statements of the accused recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., clearly established that the appellant herein has committed offence under Sections 324/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code. Each essential ingredient of the aforementioned sections has been not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. The chain of circumstances and the nature of evidence conclusively fail to point the guilt of the appellants and were rather indicated towards his innocence considering all the above mentioned circumstances. Lastly, it was humbly prayed that incase this Hon’ble court was desirous of upholding the order of conviction, sympathy might be shown to the appellant considered his old age and the pendency of the criminal proceeding since 1977. 7. The Learned Advocate for the State submitted as follows:- i. In the given case PW-1, PW-8 and PW-9 were victims and had received bleeding injuries. PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-10 were the co- villager witnesses who had stated in their deposition to have seen the appellants were proceeding towards the place of occurrence armed 8 with weapons like bow and arrow and also ram dao, especially PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 had specifically stated about the infliction of injury by bow and arrow to the victims, also in their statement stated about the specific weapon carried by the appellants while they arrived on the place of occurrence. ii. PW-5 was turned hostile. iii. PW-6 was the scribes who was an Advocate by profession and have drafted the written complaint under the instruction of PW-1, where he also put his signature. iv. PW-7 also happened to be a co-villager but he claimed himself to be a hearsay witness and did not utter any substantial facts on the said incident. v. PW-l Amar Chandra Das (complainant), who also happened to be one of the injured victims in the present case, had acknowledged the fact that the deceased Nripen Das was in the possession of the said disputed plot of land on the date of occurrence. Not only that but also, he had clearly implicated all the members of the said unlawful assembly. He further stated that on the same day he was struck with an arrow by another co-accused named Iswar Nath Singh on that arm which he had to surgically remove. vi. PW-2 Sudhir Chandra Das, who was a co-villager had stated during his deposition that he rushed to the place of occurrence after hearing hue and cry and on arriving there he saw the appellant Jatin Singha and Iswar Nath Singh were armed with arrows and bows and they 9 stared to shoot their arrows at the victim PW-1, PW-8 and the deceased Nripen Das. He further stated to have later seen the victim PW-1 was injured with an arrow shot on his arm, along with that he had also seen another victim PW-8 received injuries on his left leg at the P.O. by arrows shot to them by the appellants. vii. PW-3 Ramu Das, who was also a co-villager having a similar version to that of PW-2, he had also stated to have arrived the place after hearing hue and cry from the land in dispute and on reaching there he discovered that the PW-1 and PW-8 had received injuries with arrows. He further deposed to have seen the victim Umakanta Das (PW-9) been taken away by the appellants which also corroborated with the statement of the other prosecution witness like PW-2 and the statement of the victim (PW-9) himself. viii. PW-4 Nripendra Das who happened to be another witness to the said incident being a co-villager had deposed that as he went to the place of occurrence on the alarm raised there, he saw the present appellants were proceeding towards the said disputed field by shooting arrows towards the cultivators/victims. He stated to have seen the victims PW-l and PW-8 groaning out of pain having received injuries from the arrows shot to them. PW-9 was a cultivator from adjacent land to the disputed one. He had corroborated with the other prosecution witness on the point of forming of an unlawful assembly by the appellants armed with weapons like the other witness. 10 ix. PW-8 Subal Das the injured victim who was also working in the same field along with other cultivators, fully supported and corroborated the prosecution case and also had narrated the assault over him by the appellants. He specifically named the appellants Iswar Nath Singh and Jatindra Nath Singh to be possessing bows and arrows, on the other side appellant Nripenda Nath Singh was armed with dao, thus corroborated with the other victims statement. He deposed that the police found arrows from the place of occurrence and had also seized the same. He also identified appellants Jatindra Nath Singh and Nripendra Nath Singh. x. PW-9 Umakanta Das was another victim who also suffered injuries but through a prolonged period of time during which he had been confined by the appellant by forcefully taking him to that place blindfolded. He had narrated about the torture both to the police after being freed from such confinement of the accused and also deposed the same in the court. He had also stood with the other victims and had corroborated with the prosecution case. He had also stated about the assault upon the other victims till he was not forcefully dragged out from the place of occurrence. He stated that the Karimuddin took him away forcefully from the field. xi. PW-10 Rakhal Das also had supported the case of the other prosecution witnesses. He saw that the appellants were approached towards the field around 15/16 persons with weapons. Later he had 11 met with victims on the hospital and also saw the injuries on the arm of PW-1. xii. PW-11 Surjya Kanta who was the Amin attached to the office of J.L.R.O whose report plays a pivotal role in determined the ownership and possession of the disputed plot of land, which was marked as exbt.-3 which transpired that although the owner of the said plot was Durganath Das who was the father of the deceased Nripen Das but the possession of the land was with the deceased Nripen Das since 1969 which was many years prior to the date of incident. That report had been corroborated with the statement of the other prosecution witness who had equivocally acknowledged the possession of deceased Nripen Das over the disputed plot. Therefore, in unambiguous terms there could be no question regarding prevented any trespass to the land of the appellants by the victim and even if there was any slight probability of ownership of the appellants then that should have been redressed through a proper forum and not by violence. xiii. PW-13 Dr. N.K. Saha was the Doctor who had treated all three the victims at Primary Health Care Center, Tufanganj. That witness had completely supported the case in favor of the prosecution. He stated to have recovered an arrow from the left arm of the PW-1 which he had produced to the investigating officer and was duly seized by him. The injury on PW-l was a bleeding injury with an arrow. While treated PW-8 he found two incised wounds on the left leg of that victim. In 12 his opinion he stated that those injuries might be caused by sharp pointed cutting weapon or arrow. On examine PW-9 he found injury which was 4-5 days old. Thus, completely supported the story narrated by PW-9 making it less vulnerable from counter. xiv. PW-14 Κ.Ν. Paul (S.I. of police) who was the Investigating officer, in the given case admitted in harmony to the statement of PW-13 that an arrow was seized by him under a proper seizure list produced by him. The arrow produced was marked as Mat. Exbt.-II. The witness also stated to have seized seven arrows from the place of occurrence which was again seized by him, were marked as Mat. Exbt.-I. Therefore, the Learned Trial Court, Cooch Behar on perusing the above evidences produced by the prosecution during trial had rightfully acted upon the same and convicted the said appellants under the offences for forming unlawful assembly for a common object under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. Further the reason of voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons like arrows to the victims staunchly establish the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. And therefore, the impugned judgment dated 31.07.1983 might not be altered. 8. A circumspection of evidence of the prosecution witnesses revealed as follows:- i) PW-1 deposed he was a complainant and one of the injured victims in that case. He had acknowledged the fact that the deceased Nripen 13 Das was in the possession of the said disputed plot of land on the date of occurrence. Not only that but also, he had clearly implicated all the members of the said unlawful assembly. He further stated that on the same day he was struck with an arrow by another co-accused named Iswar Nath Singh on that arm which he had to surgically remove. ii) PW-2 was a co-villager. He deposed that he rushed to the place of occurrence after hearing hue and cry and on arriving there he saw the appellant Jatin Singha and Iswar Nath Singh were armed with arrows and bows and they stared to shoot their arrows at the victim PW-1, PW-8 and the deceased Nripen Das. He further stated to have later seen the victim, PW-1 was injured with an arrow shot on his arm, along with that he had also seen another victim PW-8 received injuries on his left leg at the P.O. by arrows shot to them by the appellant no.1. Police went to the P.O. for investigation towards the afternoon and seized 7 arrows and one blade of arrows from the disputed land, under a seizure list, which was marked as Mat. Exbt.-I collectively. iii) PW-3 Ramu Das, who was also a co-villager having a similar version to that of PW-2, he had also stated to have arrived the place after hearing hue and cry from the land in dispute and on reaching there he discovered that the PW-1 and PW-8 had received injuries with arrows. He further deposed to have seen the victim PW-9 been taken away by the appellants. 14 iv) PW-4 Nripendra Das who happened to be another witness to the said incident being a co-villager had deposed that as he went to the place of occurrence on the alarm raised there, he saw the present appellants were proceeding towards the said disputed field by shooting arrows towards the cultivators/victims. He stated to have seen the victims PW-l and PW-8 groaning out of pain having received injuries from the arrows shot to them. PW-9 was a cultivator from adjacent land to the disputed one. He had corroborated with the other prosecution witness on the point of forming of an unlawful assembly by the appellants armed with weapons like the other witness. v) PW-5 was declared hostile by the prosecution. vi) PW-6 was the scribes who was an Advocate by profession and have drafted the written complaint under the instruction of PW-1, where he also put his signature. vii) PW-7 deposed that he knows the victims. He did not visit the P.O. but he heard that one the date of occurrence. PW-9 had been forcibly taken away by the appellants and others. He made searches for PW-9 but could not find him and he gave that information to his son. During his cross-examination PW-7 stated that he did not remember the names of the persons from whom he heard about the said incident. He did not remember whom he met in search of PW-9 at that time. 15 viii) PW-8 deposed he was the injured victim and also works in the same field along with other cultivators, fully supported and corroborated the prosecution case and also had narrated the assault over him by the appellants. He specifically named the appellants Iswar Nath Singh and Jatindra Nath Singh to be possessing bows and arrows, on the other side appellant Nripenda Nath Singh was armed with dao, thus corroborated with the other victims statement. He deposed that the police found arrows from the place of occurrence and had also seized the same. He also identified appellants Jatindra Nath Singh and Nripendra Nath Singh. ix) PW-9 deposed he was another victim who also suffered injuries but through a prolonged period of time during which he had been confined by the appellant by forcefully taking him to that place blindfolded. He had narrated about the torture both to the police after being freed from such confinement of the accused and also deposed the same in the court. He had also stood with the other victims and had corroborated with the prosecution case. He had also stated about the assault upon the other victims till he was not forcefully dragged out from the place of occurrence. He stated that the Karimuddin took him away forcefully from the field. x) PW-10 Rakhal Das also had supported the case of the other prosecution witnesses. He saw that the appellants were approached towards the field around 15/16 persons with weapons. Later he had 16 met with victims on the hospital and also saw the injuries on the arm of PW-1. xi) PW-11 Surjya Kanta who was the Amin attached to the office of J.L.R.O whose report plays a pivotal role in determined the ownership and possession of the disputed plot of land, which was marked as exbt.-3 which transpired that although the owner of the said plot was Durganath Das who was the father of the deceased Nripen Das but the possession of the land was with the deceased Nripen Das since 1969 which was many years prior to the date of incident. That report had been corroborated with the statement of the other prosecution witness who had equivocally acknowledged the possession of deceased Nripen Das over the disputed plot. Therefore, in unambiguous terms there could be no question regarding prevented any trespass to the land of the appellants by the victim and even if there was any slight probability of ownership of the appellants then that should have been redressed through a proper forum and not by violence. xii) PW-12 deposed on 02.07.1977 he was an Officer-in-Charge of Tufanganj P.S. On that date at 15:10 hours he received on written complaint from PW-1. He made endorsement on the body of the written complaint, which was marked as Exbt.-2/1. He filled up formal F.I.R. on the basis of the written complaint, which was marked as Exbt.-5. He endorsed the case to S.I. K.N. Paul for investigation. 17 xiii) PW-13 deposed on 07.02.1977 he was attached to Primary Health Centre, Tufanganj as a medical officer. He examined on that date PW- 1 and found the following injuries for treatment:- a) Person came with an arrow penetration on the flex surface of the upper 1/3rd of the left arm. On removal of the arrow by operation the original injury was examined. It was oblique in direction, penetrating wound, had clean cut edges which were parallel but slightly curved to each other. The wound was bleeding and approximately the size of it was 1½” in length and 2/3 “ in breadth and 2¼” in depth. The injury was fresh, about 4 hours old simple and was caused by arrow which was already penetrated at the time of examination in his left arm. He also examined PW-8 on that date and the following injures were found for treatment:- a) One incised wound vertical in direction situated on the front part of the lateral surface of the upper third of left leg. The approximate size of the wound was 1¼” in length and ½” in breadth. b) One incised wound vertical in direction situated 2½” behind and at the same level of wound no.1 on the back part of the lateral surface of the upper third of the left leg. The approximate size of the wound was 1¼” X ½” in length and breadth respectively. About the depth of the injuries they were continuous on examination with a probe and bleeding was present during examination. The injuries were fresh about 5 hours old, simple incised and might be perforating wound. 18 The injuries might be caused by sharp pointed and cutting weapon. The injuries might be caused by the iron blade or an arrow. Next, he examined PW-9 on that day and found the following injuries for treatment:- a) One septic wound on the upper 1/3rd of the anterior surface of the left leg, almost vertical in direction. Pus was present in the wound. On removal of the pus, the wound was examined, the size of the wound was approximately 2” vertically and 1½” transversely and ½” in depth. b) Edima-tenderness was present over the whole upper 1/3rd portion of the left leg, due to infection it was not possible to say the nature of the wound. The wound was simple and about 4 to 5 days’ old. PW-1 and PW-8 were admitted for treatment at Tufanganj P.H.C on 07.02.1977. They were discharged on 14.02.77 on risk bond. The arrow extracted from the person of PW-1 by operation was handed over to the police under a seizure list, which was marked as Exbt.-6. The injury which he examined on the person of the injured might had been caused by that type of arrows. xiv) During his cross-examination PW-13 stated that the injured were forwarded to the P.H.C. from the P.S. He did not take the history of the injury from the injured. All the injures examined by him on the persons of the injured found to be simple. He had given the age of the injury on the person of PW-9 from the swelling, tenderness and pas formation. 19 xv) PW-14 Κ.Ν. Paul (S.I. of police) who was the Investigating officer, in the given case admitted in harmony to the statement of PW-13 that an arrow was seized by him under a proper seizure list produced by him. The arrow produced was marked as Mat. Exbt.-II. The witness also stated to have seized seven arrows from the place of occurrence which was again seized by him, were marked as Mat. Exbt.-I. 9. PW-1 being one of the injured victims and the de facto complainant narrated the genesis of the incident with clarity. His evidence disclosed the deceased Nripen Das to have been in possession of the disputed plot of land on the date of occurrence. He specifically implicated the members of the lawful assembly as stated that he sustained an arrow injury at the hands of the co- accused Iswar Singh which had to be surgically removed. His testimony bore intrinsic evidentiary value being the injured eye witness having suffered injuries in the same transaction. The law consistently accorded heightened degree of reliability to the testimony of an injured witness since his presence at the place of occurrence had been established beyond dispute. 10. PW-2 and an independent co-villager substantially corroborated the version of PW-1. A clamour propelled him to rush to the place of occurrence whereby he detected the appellants Jatin and Iswar armed with bows and arrows, indiscriminately shooting arrows towards PW-1, PW-8 and deceased Nripen Das. He further noticed the injury sustained by PW-1 and PW-8. His testimony also assumed significance for the reason that he endorsed the police seizing seven arrows and one blade of arrows from the disputed land under seizure list marked Material Exhibit-1 collectively. Nothing substantial 20 emerged in his cross-examination to dilute the material particulars o his deposition. PW-3 Ramu Das and PW-4 Nripendra Das both being co-villagers corroborated the prosecution case. They consistently deposed after hearing alarm they reached the disputed field and witnessed the appellants to proceed towards the cultivators armed with deadly weapons and to direct shooting arrows towards them. PW-4 also found PW-1 and PW-8 groaning in pain after sustaining injuries from arrow shots. Their evidence clearly established that the appellants had assembled together armed with weapons and acted in concert. The presence of a common object behind the assembly is thus reflected not merely from prior conduct but from the manner in which the assault was executed collectively. PW-8, another injured witness, reiterated the prosecution version, specifically naming the appellants Iswar Nath Singh and Jatin Singha being armed with bows and arrows while another appellant Nripendra to possess a ‘dao’. He further fortified that the police recovered arrows from the place of occurrence. His evidence was harmonious with the testimonies of PW-2 and PW-4 subjectively and materially. The consistency in the testimonies of the injured witnesses inspired confidence and does not reflect exemplary embellishment or tutoring. 11. PW-9 another victim narrated as to how he had been forcibly captivated and confined by the accused persons after the assault. He described the torture inflicted upon him as Kaimuddin dragged him out from the place of occurrence. His evidence strengthened corroborative evaluation to the prosecution case being one of the sufferers instilling continuity in narrative 21 and aggressive unlawful conduct of the assembly throughout the course of incident. 12. The prosecution version further received assurance from the deposition of PW-10 who found the appellants approaching the field in an assembly of approximately 15/16 persons armed with weapons and later noticed the injuries sustained by PW-1 in the hospital. His evidence supported the prosecution assertion regarding formation of an unlawful assembly. 13. The question regarding possession over the disputed land was clarified through the testimony of PW-11, the Amin attached to the Office of J.L.R.O. His report marked as Exhibit-3 unequivocally disclosed though ownership of the land was recorded in the name of Durganath Das, possession thereof had remained with the deceased Nripen Das since 1969. The evidence of PW- 11 clearly established that the victims were in settled possession of the land. Even assuming that the appellants entertained any grievance regarding title or possession, the same could never have legitimized a violent assault objectified through an armed assembly. 14. The medical evidence adduced through PW-13 had been in complete consonance with the ocular account. The doctor detected a penetrating arrow injury on the left arm of PW-1 which required surgical removal. The dimensions, nature and freshness of the wound were carefully described by the Medical Officer. PW-8 was also found to have incised injuries on the left leg which according to the doctor could have been caused by an arrow or sharp-cutting weapon. PW-9 too was found with injuries accompanied by swelling an infection. The Medical Officer categorically opined that the 22 injuries were simple in nature and compatible with the weapons alleged to have been used in the incident. The extraction and seizure of arrow from the body of PW-1 further accords strong corroborative support to the prosecution case. The evidence of PW-14, the Investigating Officer, completed the chain. He proved the seizure of arrows from the place of occurrence as well as the seizure of arrows from the place of occurrence as well as the seizure of the arrows extracted from the person of PW-1. The material exhibits thus directly connect the assault with the weapons used by the unlawful assembly. 15. From the evidence discussed above, the ingredients of Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code had been clearly established. The appellants formed part of an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons such as bows, arrows and ‘dao’. The proceeded together towards the disputed field where the victims were cultivating the land. Their conduct demonstrated a sheer and a mutual object to assault the victims and assert dominance over the said filed through violence. 16. The offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code is equally borne out from the evidence. The injured witnesses sustained hurt by dangerous weapons namely arrows and sharp-cutting instruments as detected by the Medical Officer and correspondingly opined in the medical report which corroborated ocular testimony of the injured witnesses suffering such injuries. The participation of the appellants in inflicting such injuries had been consistently depicted in the testamentaries of the eye witnesses uncontrovertively. 23 17. Once the unlawful assembly and the common object are established, the elements constituting Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code are squarely operative. The acts committed by the individual members in prosecution of the common object become attributable to every member of the assembly. The evidence on record indubitably revealed that the assault was not an isolated act of a single accused but the result of a co-ordinated action undertaken by the appellants acting in communion as members of the unlawful assembly. 18. The Learned Trial Court, upon proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, arrived at the findings which are both reasonable and supported by materials on record. No perversity, illegality or misinterpretation of evidence could be demonstrated on behalf of the appellants warranting interference by the Appellate Court. 19. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the appeal. However, the incident occurred in the year 1986 and 40 years have passed. Intermittently, the appellant no.1 Nripen Das expired and accordingly the instant appeal gets abated against him. The sentence is modified to the extent of incarceration undergone with regard to the other appellants. 20. Accordingly, the instant criminal appeal being CRA 501 of 1986 is dismissed. 21. There is no order as to costs. 22. I record my appreciation for the able assistance rendered by Mr. Apalok Basu as Amicus Curiae in disposing of this appeal. 24 23. Trial Court records along with a copy of this judgment be sent down at once to the Learned Trial Court for necessary action. 24. Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis on compliance of all formalities. (Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.)