B. K. BEHERA, J.

( 1 ) ARISING out of same judgment and order, these two appeals have been heard together and will be governed by this common judgment.

( 2 ) THE appellants stood charged under section 148 of the Indian Penal Code (The Codet, for short) for being members of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of their common object, viz. , to assault Ramesh Chandra Samantray (to be referred to hereinafter as the deceased), being armed with deadly weapons, such as, pharsas, bhujali, knife, bicycle chains and lathis, which, used as weapons of offences, were likely to cause death and committed rioting on June 14, 1980, at Belpahar in the district of Sambalpur. All of them also stood charged for having committed murder by intentionally or knowingly causing the death of the deceased in furtherance of their common object under section 302 read with section 149 of the Code on the same day.

( 3 ) THE appellants, it was alleged, belonging to a labour union of which the appellant Gyan Patnaik was the leader, which was hostile to the labour union headed by Chiranjilal Agarwala (P. W. 21), had been waiting near Golai Chhak in three batches, being armed with dangerous instruments, in the early hours of June 14, 1980, for the deceased to come on his way to the Belpahar Refractory (to be described hereinafter as factoryt) where he had been working. When the deceased, in company with Bharat Chandra Baraj (P. W. 16), reached that spot, the appellant Gyan Patnaik called out the other appellants and he dealt a blow with the pharsa he was holding on the head of the deceased who fell down crying aloud. The assault on the person of the deceased by the other appellants followed with the instruments they had. This occurrence bad been witnessed by Maksud Ali (P. W. 3), Raghunath Das (P. W. 6), Dandapani Swain (P. W. 9), Bharat Chandra Baraj (P. W. 16), Kartik Mohanty (P. W. 17) and Naba Kishore Sahu (P. W. 20 ). The last named person was the first informant. Of these witnesses to the occurrence, P. Ws. 3, 6, 9, 16 and 20 were workers in the factory and they had either been proceeding towards the factory to join their duties or returning from the factory on finishing their shifts. P. W. 17 had witnessed the occurrence, as testified by him, while he had gone to Guest house at about 5. 30 a. m. to realise his dues for the fish supplied by him to the Guest House Canteen earlier on credit. After the assault with dangerous instruments on the person of the deceased, the latter was carried to the hospital at Belpahar in the vehicle belonging to the factory of which Narsingh Pradhan (P. W. 1) was the driver, where, on examination, the deceased was declared to be dead. On the basis of the first information report lodged by P. W. 20, investigation followed in the course of which autopsy over the dead body of the deceased was conducted after inquest was held, witnesses were examined, some seizures were affected and on the completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was placed.

( 4 ) THE plea of the appellants was one of denial and false implication. According to them, they were nowhere near the scene and have falsely been involved by the witnesses, who belonged to a hostile faction and who were on inimical terms with them, having been set up by Chiranjilal Agarwala (P. W. 21 ).

( 5 ) WHILE the prosecution had examined twenty-five witnesses to bring home the charges to the appellants, two witnesses had been examined for the defence.

( 6 ) AS earlier indicated, P. Ws. 3,6, 9, 16, 17 and 20 had been examined as the witnesses to the occurrence and they had involved the appellants with the commission of the offences with which they stood charged. P. W. 1 was the driver of the vehicle in which the deceased in an injured state had been carried to the hospital where he was first seen by the Pharmacist (P. W. 2) and then by Dr. Nayak (P. W. 5) who declared the death of the deceased. P. W. 4 was the doctor who had conducted the autopsy and had noticed a number of anti