( 1 ) THIS criminal appeal is brought from the judgment of the Addl sessions Judge, Bijapur, convicting 12 accused out of 33 for offences under ss. 147, 325, 337, 353, 435 and 436 of the Indian Penal Code, (in the cases of some of the accused with the aid of S. 149 IPC) and sentencing them each on a single count for six months RI; the sentences to run concurrently. The prosecution case related to a riot which took place in the town of mudhol. In Decr 1973, due to the border dispute between Maharashtra and Karnataka, there was much of turmoil and strikes and counter strikes were arranged in both these States. It was stated that Kannadigas which means Kannada speaking people of Maharashtra were put to atrocities. There was an exodus of such people from Maharashtra, to the adjoining area of Mudhol. On 12-12-1973, a strike was observed at Jamkhandi, a neighbouring town. Thereafter, on 13-12-1973, a strike was arranged for mudhol. It was reported that the Kaanadigas of Mudhol were going to display their resentment. They were likely to burn the G. A. Circus of bombay which belonged to Maharashtrians. The Circus was displaying its shows at Mudhol. Besides, some trouble was also suspected and the maharashtrians owning properties in Mudhol were the likely victims. Accordingly, the senior police officers had alerted the CPI Chennappa (Pw. 16) and PSI Yeshwant (Pw. 15) and both of them came to Mudhol sometime on the evening of 12-12-73. They directed the ASIs and the police constables to assemble next morning in the police station. A procession was to collect at Gandhi Chowk and it was to be taken around the town. The next morning, the cpi and the PSI besides a number of police constables reported at the police station. The procession consisting of nearly about 1,000 persons started at about 9 a. m. from Gandhi Chowk. The Tahsildar of Mudhol was reported to be on casual leave. The Asst Commr T. T. Patil (Pw. 37) accordingly arrived. When the procession started slogans were shouted that the Maharastrians should be driven out, and their property should be destroyed and the number of people in the procession increased to 3,000 as it went on. At about 10 a. m. the procession reached Gajanana Cement pipe Factory of S. V. Kothawale (Pw. 35), who was a Maharashtrian. 37) accordingly arrived. When the procession started slogans were shouted that the Maharastrians should be driven out, and their property should be destroyed and the number of people in the procession increased to 3,000 as it went on. At about 10 a. m. the procession reached Gajanana Cement pipe Factory of S. V. Kothawale (Pw. 35), who was a Maharashtrian. In the factory besides the machine shed and labourer's huts, there was a cow shed as well as a car shed. Kothawale himself resided in a house constructed in the premises of the factory. The persons constituting the procession including the appellants, started pelting stones and causing damage to the factory properties. The Asst Commr along with the Tahsildar who had just arrived and the BDO reached the spot. They tried to pacify the persons. The machine shed was set on fire. The police constables attempted to extinguish the fire but stones were pelted upon them. Thereafter, the assembly was declared unlawful and lathi charge was made. Nevertheless, the pelting of stones continued and the owner's car was burnt. The labourers' huts were also set to fire. Thereafter, the Asst Commr after due warning resorted to gun fire. Two of the persons fell down in the mob. Thereafter, the Asst commr was hit and both CPI and PSI were assaulted. A few constables' also received injuries. These officials ran from the spot and reached the pwd office. The mob attacked them even there. The CPI and PSI were severely beaten with rafters and sticks. The PSI fell unconscious and was later removed to the hospital. The police jeep was also burnt. One of the rifles was snatched and thrown in the fire. Serious injuries were caused to cpi and PSI and both remained in the hospital for about two months. ( 2 ) PEERSAB (Pw. 5), the Head Constable was present in the Gajanana cement Pipe Factory. He ran to a petrol station and telephoned to the police station. From there information was sent to the Dy. SP. , S. P. and the District Magistrate. Thereafter, all rushed to the scene and by about 12 a. m. the situation was brought under control. As many as 15 officials received injuries. Pw. 5 instituted a police complaint, Ex. P-10, and some of the accused were named in the complaint. The entire incident was narrated. Bandu, ASI (Pw. SP. , S. P. and the District Magistrate. Thereafter, all rushed to the scene and by about 12 a. m. the situation was brought under control. As many as 15 officials received injuries. Pw. 5 instituted a police complaint, Ex. P-10, and some of the accused were named in the complaint. The entire incident was narrated. Bandu, ASI (Pw. 38) was present at the police station. He recorded the FIR Ex. P-30 and registered the case against the accused. ( 3 ) THE injured were sent to the hospital and Dr. Patil (Pw. 17) and dr. Dhirendra (Pw. 23) looked after the injuries. The CPI and PSI were sent to Bijapur hospital. The two dead were also removed and postmortem reports were obtained. After the usual investigation, a case of rioting, causing grievous hurt and setting firt was instituted against 33 persons of whom two were juveniles. A separate case is stated to be pending against them. ( 4 ) THE defence was one of denial and several alternative positions were taken. At one stage it was said that none of these accused were present, and at another stage it was pleaded that they did not commit any offence. It was also contended that the crowd was of two to three thousand and as such, it was difficult to identify any person. The procession was going to Samerwadi factory which is quite far away from Mudhol. It was a peaceful procession and the police provoked it by stopping the people. Lathi charge and firing were resorted to. All this resulted in mob frenzy and the damage was caused as well as injuries were inflicted. It was pleaded that none of the accused could be convicted for the offence. ( 5 ) THE prosecution produced 41 witnesses of whom Head Constable (Pw. 5) Rathod pc (Pw. 6) Babu pc (Pw. 7) Chavan pc (Pw. 8) Ganchari pc (Pw. 10) Husenappa pc (Pw. 12) Sangangowda Siddanagouda Patil pc (Pw. 13) Galagali pc (Pwl4) Yeshwant psi (Pw. 15) Chennappa cpi (Pw. 16) Joshi pc (Pw. 18) Mahadev Yamanappa pc (Pw. 19) Husen Sale pc (Pw. 20) K. B. Hungund (Pw. 25) Tahsildar and T. T. Patil (Pw. 37) the asst Commr were the eye witnesses. Besides, the Asst Commr and the tahsildar, all the rest were injured. Mahadev (Pw. l) Kasappa (Pw. 2) maruti (Pw. 3) Basayya (Pw. 4) Kalappa (Pw. 16) Joshi pc (Pw. 18) Mahadev Yamanappa pc (Pw. 19) Husen Sale pc (Pw. 20) K. B. Hungund (Pw. 25) Tahsildar and T. T. Patil (Pw. 37) the asst Commr were the eye witnesses. Besides, the Asst Commr and the tahsildar, all the rest were injured. Mahadev (Pw. l) Kasappa (Pw. 2) maruti (Pw. 3) Basayya (Pw. 4) Kalappa (Pw. 9) and Kutubu (Pw. 11) were the panch witnesses, and they disclosed the damage caused to the property. Dr. Patil (Pw. 17) and Dr. Dhirendra (Pw. 23) came to state about the injuries. Kothawale (Pw. 35) the owner and proprietor of gajanana Cement Factory was also produced. The investigating officers were bandu PSI (Pw. 38) and Narayana Rao PSI (Pw. 39 ). The remaining witnesses were more or less formal in character. The accused did not adduce any defence. ( 6 ) THE learned Sessions Judge believed the prosecution case. However, he found that the evidence was deficient against the remaining accused and therefore, he convicted 12 of them, namely, Kutubuddin Hasansab mahat (A-1) Mahiboob Davalsab Muntaganur (A-2) Maruti Jyotiba bhotale (A-3) Irappa Ningappa Ramtirth (A-4) Rajesab Aminsab Jatatar (A-8) Haneef Davalsab Shikkalgar (A-9) Adam Gousmodin Jamadar (A- 11) trappa Basappa Gangannavar (A-15) Kantilal Genmal Ora (A-16) maruti Ramappa Talwar alias Walikar (A-20) Gurupadappa alias Guru- santappa Channabasappa Chiniwal (A-26) and Hanamant Krishnappa ka. gaigomb (A-31) under S. 147 IPC, Besides A-l A-2 A-3 and A-H were 'convicted under S. 436 IPC. The remaining eight A-4 A-8 A-9 A-15 A-16 a-20 A-2fi and A-31 were convicted under Ss. 436 read with S. 149 IPC. A-8 A-9 A-16 A-20 A-26 and A-31 were convicted under S. 435 IPC. A. I a-2 A-3 A-4 A-11 and A-15 were convicted under S. 435 read with 149 IPC. A. 4 and A. 15 were convicted under S. 353 IPC. A. 1 A. 2 A. 3 A. 8 A. 9 A. 11 a. 16 A. 20 A26 and A31 were convicted under 3. 353 read with 149 IPC. All the twelve convicted under S. 147 IPC were also convicted under Ss. 325 and 337 read with S. 149 IPC. As I have stated before, the sentence is for six months RI under each count and the period has to run concurrently. ( 7 ) THESE twelve accused have felt aggrieved of the decision and have preferred the present appeal. 325 and 337 read with S. 149 IPC. As I have stated before, the sentence is for six months RI under each count and the period has to run concurrently. ( 7 ) THESE twelve accused have felt aggrieved of the decision and have preferred the present appeal. ( 8 ) IT could admit of no doubt that due to border disputes in December 1973, feelings were rather high. Kannadigas arrived from the neighbouring state of Maharastra. There was disturbance at Jamkhandi, samerwadi as well as Mudhol. The CPI, PSI and other high officers had already visited Jamkhandi and Samarwadi. When they were informed that a strike was to take place at Mudhol on 13-12-73 and a procession was organised on that day, these officials naturally went to Mudhol on the evening of 12-12-73. On the same day, Samerwadi Sugar Factory was burnt. Tarachand Shah (Pw. 28) the director of the factory was present at Mudhol. He was forced to give in writing that he would employ in his factory all the kannadigas who were refugees from Maharashtra. Despite this that the pw. 28 gave out in writing that assurance, the mob went to his factory and burnt it. Hanmant Dys. P. (Pw. 33) stated that he received information at about 1 p. m. that Samarwadi factory was set on fire. Ghatge (Pw. 34) stated that on 13-12-73, he went to the police station and sought for his own protection as he was a Maharastrian. The slogans that were shouted in the procession gave indication that the properties of the Maharastrians were not safe. The G. A. Circus which belonged to Maharastrian was likely to be burnt and similar fate was to be suffered by Gajanana Cement Pipe Factory. Therefore, sufficient heat was already generated. The offence of riot was very likely to be committed by the members of that procession. ( 9 ) ALL the fifteen eye witnesses no doubt stated for the events that took place. The statement of PSI (Pw. 15) is more graphic and he tells the sequence. At first the machinery shed was set to fire which they attempted to extinguish. Stones were all along pelted over the police. Lathi charge took place. Thereafter, the car and the labourers' hut were set to fire. The asst Commr, CPI, PSI and the constables received injuries by stones. A jeep was burnt. At first the machinery shed was set to fire which they attempted to extinguish. Stones were all along pelted over the police. Lathi charge took place. Thereafter, the car and the labourers' hut were set to fire. The asst Commr, CPI, PSI and the constables received injuries by stones. A jeep was burnt. The Asst Commr ordered for firing and CPI fired a few rounds. . He was struck and he fell down. The PSI also fired. His hand was again struck and he got the rifle of Rathod (PC) and fired a few rounds. Thereafter both CPI and PSI ran to PWD office. They were attacked by the mob and mercilessly beaten. They received serious injuries and remained in the hospital for a considerable period of time. The other constables also received injuries. In all 13 persons were injured. Pw. 28 had given a jeep to the police. That jeep was burnt in this rioting. Laxmana (Pw21) head Constable, upon receiving information from Pw. 5 informed. the S. P. on telephone. He told the gravity of the situation. Nikkam (Pw. 22) sheristedar in the Taluk office, informed the District Mabistrate. He arrived at about 1p. m. Subhas (Pw. 26) stated that his amplifier which was attached to the jeep was also burnt. Kothawale (Pw. 35) the proprietor of the factory described loss sustained by him. Rangangowda (Pw36) the Asst Engineer told about the damage caused to the PWD office. Pw. 33 the Dy. S. P. went to the spot and saw the remnants of the occurrence. All this evidence leaves no doubt that sufficient rampage was committed. Besides burning of the factory shed and labourers huts, a car and a jeep were also set to fire. One of the rifles was thrown in the burning jeep. The CPI and the PSI were seriously injured. The other constables also received injuries. ( 10 ) THE prompt question that arises will be; as to when the assembly became unlawful. The procession while it initially started may have been peaceful. When the pelting of stones started, the assembly became unlawful. The object was obviously to cause damage to the factory as well as to the properties. The object was further to cause injuries to the police officials. It was therefore an unlawful assembly and these accused if participated in the common object of that assembly, were not passive witnesses. When the pelting of stones started, the assembly became unlawful. The object was obviously to cause damage to the factory as well as to the properties. The object was further to cause injuries to the police officials. It was therefore an unlawful assembly and these accused if participated in the common object of that assembly, were not passive witnesses. It was proved that the accused were members of the unlawful assembly of which the common object was as defined by S. 141 IPC. 9. 142 provides, whoever being aware of acts which render any assembly an unlawful assembly, intentionally joins that assembly or contines in it, is said to be a member of an unlawful assembly. Therefore the accused appellants became members of an unlawful assembly. The learned counsel argued that unless the overt acts were proved against individual accused, they could not be members of the unlawful assembly. As observed by their Lordships in moslti v. State of UP, 1965 1 SCJ. 605. It cannot be laid down as a general proposition of law that unless an overt act is proved against a person who is alleged to be a member of an unlawful assembly, it cannot be said that he is a member of such an assembly. The only thing required is that he should have understood that the assembly was unlawful and likely to commit acts which fell within the definition of S. 141 and if he intentionally joins that unlawful assembly as a member, he becomes a member of an unlawful assembly u|s 142. Thereafter, in view of S. 149, if an offence is committed by any member of that unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly or such as the members of the assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who at the time of committing of that offence was a member of that assembly is guilty of that offence. That emphatically brings about the principle that the punishment prescribed under S. 149 is in a sense vicarious, and does not always proceed on the basis that the offence has been actually committed by every member of the unlawful assembly. That emphatically brings about the principle that the punishment prescribed under S. 149 is in a sense vicarious, and does not always proceed on the basis that the offence has been actually committed by every member of the unlawful assembly. In this case, therefore, it will have to be seen if these accused were members of the unlawful assembly, and if they knew that any offence was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, in that case, each one of the accused shall be liable for the offence committed by any member of that unlawful assembly. When the slogans were being raised and stones were thrown, the appellants-accused should have known that damage to the property and injury to persons were likely to be caused. As such, each one shall be liable for the offence committed. ( 11 ) THE emphasis of the learned counsel was that the persons involved were too many and the victims were also in a large number. As such, the learned Sessions Judge adopted a mechanical device of pointing out witnesses who named individual accused. If four or more such witnesses named any individual accused, he was held guilty of that offence. The learned counsel again referred to Masalti (1) (Supra ). But their Lordships of the Supreme Court in that case did not deprecate the mechanical test as the following paragraph will indicate : that, no doubt is true; but where a criminal court has to deal with evidence pertaining to the commission of an offence involving a large number of offenders and a large number of victims, it is usual to adopt the test that the conviction could be sustained only if it is supported by two or three or more witnesses who give a consistent account of the incident. In a sense, the test may be described as mechanical, but it is difficult to see how it can be treated as irrational or unreasonable. Therefore, we do not think that any grievance can be made by the appellants against the adoption of this test. If at all the prosecution may be entitled to say that the seven accused persons were acquitted because their cases did not satisfy the mechanical test of four witnesses, and if the said test had not. been applied, they might as well have been convicted. If at all the prosecution may be entitled to say that the seven accused persons were acquitted because their cases did not satisfy the mechanical test of four witnesses, and if the said test had not. been applied, they might as well have been convicted. It is, no doubt, the quality of the evidence that matters and not the number of witnesses who give such evidence. But some times it is useful to adopt a test like the one which the High Court has adopted in dealing with the present case. Thus, the adoption of the test initiated by the learned Sessions Judge was not illegal. At the same time, one has to see the quality of evidence. In that connection some arguments were advanced by the learned counsel. ( 12 ) THE thirteen witnesses who were injured, were decidedly present at the factory. They have named the accused who committed specific acts they have pointed out the names of those who were leaders in the procession. Some of the witnesses did tell who had burnt the machinery shed, labourers' huts, car and the jeep. Both the CPI and PSI tell as to who assaulted them. As regards the injuries received by the witnesses, Dr. Patil and Dr. Dhirendra came to prove the medical reports. Pw. 17 examined the injuries of the Asst Comrhr (Pw. 37 ). Pw. 23 spoke for the injuries received by Pws. 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 16 and 18. It is thus established that all the 13 injured witnesses were present. It is then to be considered if these witnesses had the opportunity to see and if any one of them had animus personal or otherwise against the accused. As to the opportunity to see, it is evident it was broad day light. The witnesses could very well notice those accused who appeared before them and committed any particular act. There is no animus personal or otherwise against any one of them. The learned counsel contended tha> t the number was large, and that all the Pws have not named all the accused. That exercise was impossible. If some of the Pws named only some of the accused, that was rather natural. There was a slight variation in the statements of witnesses as to the order in which the events took place. The learned counsel contended tha> t the number was large, and that all the Pws have not named all the accused. That exercise was impossible. If some of the Pws named only some of the accused, that was rather natural. There was a slight variation in the statements of witnesses as to the order in which the events took place. But that was also quite natural, as the eyewitnesses were not expected to keep a track as to which event happened first and which next. All the same, there is a consensus in the general description. It was stated for Pws 18 19 and 20 that they belonged to lokapur P. S. and as such they must not be knowing any of the accused. For that in cross-examination questions were put to these witnesses, and all of them answered that they used to come to Mudhol and hence they very well knew the accused. Thus, there is no reason to disbelieve Pws 18, 19 and 20. the other eye witnesses no doubt belonged to Mudhol. They must have come across these accused, several times before. Therefore, the naming of the accused by these witnesses could not be doubted. In the circumstances, no identificatiion parade was then required. ( 13 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor pointed out in the statement of pwl6 the CPI that the police were unaware of the members of the two associations of Kannadigas at Mudhol. Therefore, it could not be stated that office bearers of any such association were roped in as accused. In fact, queer suggestions were made by the defence to the witnesses. Pw16 was asked that lathi charge was not made although it is abundantly proved that lathi charge was done. Pw 15 PSI was asked that the mob did not surround the pipe factory and did not hurl stones. The very suggestion was fantastic. Pwl5 was further asked that the procession was going to samerwadi which was at a great distance. How could they go walking upto that place. It does not stand to reason that the police opened fire on a peaceful procession and invited all this trouble. Therefore, the very defence appears to be devoid of any merit. It was then stated that some of the persons were also made accused for the burning of Samerwadi factory. It may be that they left for Samerwadi soon after the occurrence. Therefore, the very defence appears to be devoid of any merit. It was then stated that some of the persons were also made accused for the burning of Samerwadi factory. It may be that they left for Samerwadi soon after the occurrence. They may have taken part in burning of the factory there. It was then contended upon the statement of Pw. 39 the Investigating Officer, that certain names of the accused were omitted by the witnesses. In fact, these omissions never amounted to contradictions. Had the witnesses named any perons and left out a few, it could be stated that they committed a contradiction. If they did not do so, it could not be stated that they omitted tc state for any of the accused. ( 14 ) THE learned Counsel then referred to the FIR Ex. P30, and vehemently urged that Pw. 5 should have reached the police station much earlier. In fact, Pw. 5 ran from the spot and as his statement indicates, he avoided the mob. He stayed at several places in the way due to fear. He sent information on telephone so that proper aid was received. He dared not go in the open, lest he would have been similarly beaten. That accounted for the delay if any for the FIR. It was then stated that only eight of the accused were named in the FIR. In fact, Pw. 5 named only those who came before him. He no doubt stated in the FIR that several others were present. It was not required of him to have disclosed in the FIR the individual part played by the accused. If the FIR was a concocted document, every detail should have been found in it. Pw. 5 could as well give out the names of all the 33 accused . The learned counsel relied on thulia. Kali v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1972 Crlar 280 SC. Their Lordships were dealing with the delay in lodging the FIR and in that connection observed, that quite often the delay results in embellishment which is a creature of after thought. The report may get benefit of the advantage o'f spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. The main thing therefore would be if any embellishment or concoction has been made. The report may get benefit of the advantage o'f spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. The main thing therefore would be if any embellishment or concoction has been made. In my opinion, no such embellishment or concoction could be pointed out. The FIR is rather a spontaneous document. It was dictated by Pw. 5 who was himself greatly unnerved and may have been under a shock. ( 15 ) IN the last, it is to be seen if these 12 accused were adequately pointed out by the witnesses. It is manifest A1 is named by Pws. 5, 7, 10, 13 14 and 19. Pw. 5 stated that he was the leader. Pw. 7 stated that he set fire to the jeep. Pws. 10 13 14 and 19, stated that Al set fire to the huts. A2 is named by Pws. 5 6 7 12 13 14 15 19 and 20. Pws. 5 6 12 and 15 stated that he was one of the leaders. Pw. 7 stated that A2 set fire to the jeep. Pws. 12 14 19 and 20 also stated that A2 set fire to the huts. Pw. 13 stated that he set fire to the machinery. A3 is named by Pws. 5 6 7 8 10 12 13 15 and 16. Pw. 5 stated that he was one of the leaders. Pw. 6 stated that he set fire to the shed and the car. Pw. 7 stated that he also set fire to the jeep. Pw. 8 also stated that he had gone to set fire to the car. Pws. 10 12 13 15 and 16 stated that he set fire to the huts. A4 is named by Pws. 5 8 12 13 14 15 16 and 19. Pws5 and 13 stated that he was one of the leaders. Pws. 8 12 14 15 16 and 19 stated that A4 instigated the fire and further said that the police should not interfere on the ground that Maharastra police had not interfered when kannadigas were dealt with by the mob. A8 is named by Pws. 6 7 15 and 16. Pws. 6 and 15 have stated that he was one of the leaders. Pw. 7 stated that he set fire to the jeep. Pw. A8 is named by Pws. 6 7 15 and 16. Pws. 6 and 15 have stated that he was one of the leaders. Pw. 7 stated that he set fire to the jeep. Pw. 15 stated that he set fire to the machinery. Pw. 16 stated that he set fire to the jeep. A9 is named by Pw. 6 7 10 14 15 and 16. Pw. 6 stated that he set fire to the shed and the car. Pw. 7 and 16 stated that he set fire to the jeep. Pw. 10 stated that, he set fire to the huts. Pw. 14 stated that he actually threw the rifle in the fire. Pw. 15 stated that he set fire to the machinery. All. is named by Pws. 14 15 16 and 20. Pw. 14 stated that All set fire to huts. Pw. 15 stated that he was one of the leaders and actually attacked him. Pw. 16 stated that he beat him also. Pw. 20 stated that he set fire to the huts. A15 is named by Pw. 6 12 14 15 16 and 19. Pw6 12 and 14 stated that A15 hit the PSI on the hand while he was firing by the revolver. Similarly stated Pw. 15 PSI himself. Pw. 16 stated that A15 also set fire to the car. Pw. 19 stated that he was one of the leaders. A16 is named by Pws. 6 12 15 and 16. Pw. 6 stated that he was one of the leaders. Pw. 12 15 and 16 stated that he set fire to the jeep. A20 is named by Pw. 7 14 15 and 16. Pw. 7 stated that he set fire to the jeep. Pw. 14 stated that he set fire to the car. Pw. 15 stated that he was one of the leaders and actually attacked him. Pw. 16 stated that he set fire to the car and also beat him with iron bars and rafters. A26 is pointed out by Pws. 6 12 13 14 15 and ( 16 ) PW. 6 12 13 14 15 and 16 have stated that he was one of the leaders. Pws. 12 and 13 further stated that he set fire to the car. Pw. 15 further stated that A26 asked him to keep quiet and allow the burning to continue. A31 is named by Pws. 6 12 13 14 15 and 16 have stated that he was one of the leaders. Pws. 12 and 13 further stated that he set fire to the car. Pw. 15 further stated that A26 asked him to keep quiet and allow the burning to continue. A31 is named by Pws. 5 6 12 13 15 and 16. Pws. 5 6 12 and 13 stated that he was one of the leaders. Pws. 12 13 15 and 16 further stated that he set fire to the car. ( 17 ) CONSIDERING the case in all its relevant aspects, I am of the opinion, that no compelling reason is made out to take a different view than what has been taken by the learned Sessions Judge. These 12 appellants were members of an unlawful assembly. They indulged in pelting stones and caused injuries. Some of them also beat the police officials who were on duty. Some of them caused grievous hurts to CPI and PSI. They set fire to the labourers huts and the machinery shed. Some of them also burnt the car and the jeep. A rifle was snatched and thrown into the fire. Therefore, they were all guilty of the offences as pointed out by the learned sessions Judge. The appeal has thus no force and the same is dismissed. The appellants are required to surrender at once to serve out their sentence. --- *** --- .