JUDGMENT

M. R. Pathak, J. - This appeal is against the judgment and order of conviction dated 18.12.2015, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Barpeta in Sessions Case No. 203/2000, whereby the appellants have been convicted under Sections 148/149/302 of the IPC for committing murder of Badiya Nath Saha and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 (one) year for committing the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and also to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 (one) year for committing the offence under Section 148 read with Section 149 IPC, where the sentences to run concurrently.

2. Heard Mr. Nilyananda Dutta, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Niranjan Narayan Bhuyan Choudhury, appearing for the accused appellants. Mr. Dutta, learned senior counsel presented a well crafted argument for the accused appellants, stating that the learned Trial Court by the impugned judgment arbitrarily and illegally convicted the accused appellants, where the defence had brought to the notice of the Trial Court sufficient contradiction pertaining to the evidence adduced by the prosecution. Placing the evidence before the Court Mr. Dutta submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused appellants beyond all reasonable doubt and also failed to prove that at the time of the incident, the accused appellants formed an unlawful assembly, armed with weapons and prosecuted the common object of that assembly. Mr. Dutta further submitted that the prosecution failed to prove that it is the accused appellants, who used criminal force and committed violence towards committing the offence of rioting and caused grievous hurt on Badiya Nath Saha, resulting in his death. Adducing the evidence of the sole defence witness, the member of the Juvenile Justice Board, Barpeta, who recorded the evidence of the first four prosecution witnesses during the trial of the connected GR Case No. 1524/1998, namely Nitai Saha, both Gopal Basaks and Pintu Basak, i.e., the first four prosecution witnesses examined by the prosecution during the trial of the Case and placing their statements made before the said JJB - Exhibits A to D, which were proved by the said defence witness and by re-cross-examining P.W.1 of the case, Nitai Saha, Sr. counsel Mr. Dutta submitted that though the defence demolished the entire evidence of the prosecution brought against the appellants, but without considering those materials in proper perspective, the Trial Court by the impugned judgment dated 18.12.2015 convicted the accused appellants, which needs to be set aside and quashed and the accused appellants should be set at liberty.

3. In support of his arguments for the accused appellants, Mr. N. N. Dutta, learned Senior counsel placed the following judgments:

Omnibus allegation - (1991) Suppl. 2 SCC 437 [Sherey Vs. State of U.P.], (2010) 6 SCC 519 [Eknath Ganpat Aher Vs. State of Maharashtra], (2011) 2 SCC 676 [Durbal Vs. State of U.P.]; making omnibus allegation/no specific role no liability - (2014) 6 SCC 672 [Nagesar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh]; not exhibiting site plan - (2005) 13 SCC 624 [Pratap Singh Vs. State of M.P.] ; not drawing sketch map - (2003) 2 SCC 401 [Lallu Manjhi Vs. State of Jharkhand] ; unlawful assembly under Section 149 IPC - (2013) 16 SCC 752 [Ranjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab,], AIR 1956 SC 181 [Baladin Vs. State of U.P.] ; common object under Section 149 IPC - (1981) 2 SCC 755 [Bhudeo Mandal Vs. State of Bihar], (2018) 6 SCC 433 [Kameshwar Singh Vs. State of Bihar] ; Second FIR not maintainable - (2001) 6 SCC 181 [T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala] ; for not seizing weapon of offence - 2005 (4) GLT 86 [Kipa Sero Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh], 2014 (1) GLT (TR) 535 [Haradhan Das @ Haradhan Bhandari Vs. State of Tripura] ; GD Entry and common name - 2017 (2) GLT 1021 [Bikash Chowdhury & Ors. Vs. State of Assam & Anr.], 2017 (5) GLT 641 [Su