I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on record. The most significant and striking feature as spelt out from the record is that as per the postmortem report of the deceased Kuldeep, two significant sharp injuries were noticed on his body. These injuries are specifically assigned to Abhijeet. One superficial abrasion was noticed on the neck of the deceased which apparently cannot be caused by a lathi. The injured Pradeep was having a solitary stab wound on his body (which was assigned to the accused Abhijeet). Thus apparently, the prosecution allegation regarding numerous accused persons other than Abhijeet having assaulted the deceased and the injured indiscriminately by lathis and sticks is not corroborated but rather stands totally contradicted by the medical evidence. True it is, that active participation of each member of the unlawful assembly is not a sine-qua-non so as to make him liable under Section 149 IPC and thus, so far as petitioners Rakesh Choyal and Sunil Choyal are concerned, their implication in this case as additional accused cannot be questioned because their presence and participation in the incident is alleged right from the inception i.e. in the FIR itself. However, so far as the petitioner Krishan is concerned, though he was admittedly known to the first informant and the injured
