As per case facts, Chandran, the deceased, was brutally assaulted on a Panchayat road, subsequently succumbing to his injuries. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, as members of an unlawful ... assembly, armed with deadly weapons, assaulted Chandran with the common intention to murder him. The trial court convicted the appellants under Sections 143, 148, and 302 read with Section 149 IPC, which the High Court upheld. The appellants appealed, arguing that the witness (PW-18) was unreliable due to relationship and prior litigation, the dying declaration was mythical as the deceased was unconscious, and the plea of alibi for one appellant was wrongly rejected. They also contended that Section 149 IPC was inapplicable due to lack of established common object and specific roles for each accused, and there was unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. The question arose whether the conviction and sentences were justified, given the challenges to witness credibility, the validity of the dying declaration, the alibi defense, and the proper application of Section 149 IPC. Finally, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the conviction and sentences. It held that witness relationship alone does not affect credibility, and the dying declaration before PWs 2, 3, and 4 was cogent and credible, noting the doctor's primary duty is treatment, not crime investigation. The alibi defense was rejected as not established. The Court clarified that Section 149 applies if an unlawful assembly has a common object, which can be inferred from the assembly's nature, weapons, and behavior, and specific roles are not always necessary. The delay in FIR was adequately explained by the efforts to save the deceased's life.