JUDGMENT Madhusudan Rao,J.- These two appeals are directed against the same judgment of the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool, in Sessions Case No. 12 of 1977 on the file of the Kurnool Sessions Division. 2. 12 accused were tried for rioting with deadly weapons, two counts of murder and several other counts of grievous hurt and simple hurt in regard to the fatal injuries of one Ramachandra Reddy (who will hereinafter be referred to as D-1) and another Issac (who will hereinafter be referred to as D-2), the grievous injuries of Bommasani Chinna Veera Bhadrudu (examined as P.W.4) and Bommasani Pedda Obulesu (examined as P.W.5) and the simple injuries of Dudekula Narasimhulu, G.C. Rama Subba Reddy, Lakkireddy Pedda Narasimha Reddy, Gunnala Nagi Reddy, Bommasani Chinna Obulesu, N. Sundaram and Dudekula Yerranna (examined as P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9 respectively). The 10th accused died after the charge-sheet filed and the case against him abated. The trial judge acquitted the accused 11 and 12 completely of all the charges. He convicted the accused 1 to 9 of the charge of rioting under section 148, Indian Penal Code. He has also convicted under section 324, Indian Penal Code. A-7 and A-8 for causing injuries to P.W.1, A-3 for causing injuries to P.W.2, A-6 for causing injuries to P.W.3, A-2 and A-3 for causing injuries for P.W.8, A-1 and A-6 for causing simple injuries to P.W.4 and A-5 and A-7 for causing simple injuries to P.W.5. In each case of direct conviction under section 324, Indian Penal Code, of one or more of the nine accused the other accused were convicted under section. 324 read with section 149, Indian Penal Code, in regard to the simple injuries of each the injured witnesses, P.Ws. 1 to 5 and 8, He acquitted the accused 1 to 9 of both the charges of murder framed under section 302 read with section 149, Indian Penal Code, in regard to the fatal injuries of D-1 and D-2 also of the charges under section 326 read with section 149, Indian Penal Code is regard to the grievous injuries of P.Ws. 4 and 5. He has also acquitted the accused 1 to 9 of the charges under section 324 and section 324 read with section 149, Indian Penal Code, in regard to the simple injuries of P.Ws. 7 and 9. 4 and 5. He has also acquitted the accused 1 to 9 of the charges under section 324 and section 324 read with section 149, Indian Penal Code, in regard to the simple injuries of P.Ws. 7 and 9. Though he framed a charge against accused 1 to 9, 11 and 12 under section 324 read with section 149, Indian Penal Code, (10th charge) in regard to the simple injuries of Gunnala Nagi Reddy (P.W.6), he did not give any finding under this charge. It would, however, appear from the reasoning adopted by him for the acquittal of the accused in regard to the injuries of P.W.9, the learned judge meant to record a finding of not guilty in regard to this charge also, but omitted to record finding evidently by oversight. He sentenced the accused 1 to 9 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 21 months under each count of section 324 and section 324 read with section 149, Indian Penal Code, and rigorous imprisonment for 18 months under section 148, Indian Penal Code. He directed that the sentences of imprisonment awarded to the accused 1 to 9 under the three counts should run concurrently. 3. The State has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 393 of 1979 against the acquittal of the accused 1 to 9, 11 and 12 of the offences of murder and grievous hurt with deadly weapons. The accused 1 to 9 have preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1310 of 1978 against their convictions and sentences. 4. The case of the prosecution is: There were long-standing factions between the family of Gunnala Ramachandra Reddy (D-1) and that of Narasimhulu, an advocate. Both the families are natives of Nallagatla village of Allagadda taluk of Kurnool District. Issac (D-2), P.Ws. 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and others are the followers of D-1. The advocate Narasimhulu has a house in Allagadda. A-1, A-2 and A-5 are his brothers. A-3 and A-4 are the sons of a deceased brother of Narasimhulu. A-12, is Narasimhulu's paternal uncle's son. A-6 to A-11 who are related inter se are followers of the advocate Narasimhulu. The factions were in existence since about 20 years and there were several riotings and murders between the two factions resulting in cases and counter-cases before the Courts. By February, 1976, a case involving seven deaths was pending trial against the partymen of the Advocate Narasimhulu, P.Ws. The factions were in existence since about 20 years and there were several riotings and murders between the two factions resulting in cases and counter-cases before the Courts. By February, 1976, a case involving seven deaths was pending trial against the partymen of the Advocate Narasimhulu, P.Ws. 1, 5,7, 9 and others of D-1's party were witnesses for the prosecution in the case. Due to the bitterness of feelings between the parties and the tenseness of atmosphere bandobust constables were posted in the village to maintain law and order. 5. D-1, P.W.1 and P.W.8 had to attend the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Allagadda, on 23rd February, 1976, as they were bound over for appearance before that Court in connection with a criminal case registered against them. The three persons, therefore, left their houses in the morning of 23rd February, 1976 for the bus-stop to go to Allagadda along with some of their partymen i.e., P.Ws. 4,5, 7 and 9. Two others residents of Nallagatla, P.Ws. 3 and 6, also came to the bus-stop that morning to go to Allagadda as they had their own personal work. They missed two or three buses and however got seats in a bus which arrived at Allagadda sometime after 11 a.m. D-1, D-2 and P.Ws. 1, 3 to 9, who are all residents of Nallagatla alighted from the bus at the bus-stop in Allagada and were proceeding into the town along the Traveller's Bungalow Road. P.W.2 who was near the Broker's Office, met D-1 and joined D-1 and others and all of them proceeded along the road, D-1 and P.W.2 walking ahead of the party conversing with each other. It was then about 11-30 a.m. or so. When they reached the house of the Advocate Narasimhulu, A-1 armed with a hunting sickle and A-4 armed with a spear suddenly came out of the house and A-4 stabbed D-1 on the left side of the ribs with the spear in his hand. D-1 caught hold of the spear with both his hands. A-1 cut D-1 on his right wrist with the hunting sickle. The accused 2, 3 and 5 to 12 joined the -accused 1 and 4. A-2, A-6 and A-8 were armed with hunting sickles. A-5 was armed with a battle-axe. A-3, A-7 and A-9 to A-12 were each armed with a spear. P.Ws. A-1 cut D-1 on his right wrist with the hunting sickle. The accused 2, 3 and 5 to 12 joined the -accused 1 and 4. A-2, A-6 and A-8 were armed with hunting sickles. A-5 was armed with a battle-axe. A-3, A-7 and A-9 to A-12 were each armed with a spear. P.Ws. 4,5, 7 and 8 intervened and pushed D-1 towards the pial of Lakshmi Reddy's house, which is opposite to the house of the Advocate Narasimhulu. The pial was enclosed by a Bamboo thatti. Accused 1 to 5 went up to the pial and attacked D-1 with the weapons in their hands. When D-2 tried to intervene the accused 6 to 10 attacked him with the weapons in their hands. When P.W.1 intervened, A-8 raised the hunting sickle in his hand, but P.W.1 averted the blow by raising his hand, which however was injured at the wrist. P.W.2 was stabbed with spears by A-3 and another on his right thigh, P.W.3 was cut on the right side of his forehead with a battle-axe by A-5. When he turned back, he was also dealt a blow on his right hip by one of the assailants. P.W.4 was cut with hunting sickles by A-1 and A-6. on several parts of his body P.W.5 was cut with a battle-axe by A-5 and was stabbed with spear by A-7. P.W.6 was also stabbed, but he did not know who exactly stabbed him. P.W.7 was hacked by A-5 on his right shoulder and head and poked with a spear on his right chest by A-10. He was also inflicted several other injuries. P.W.8 was cut with a hunting sickle on the head by A-2 and was stabbed on his right hand with a spear by A-3. He was also inflicted some more injuries by the Other accused. P. W. 9 was inflicted a stab wound on his right upper arm when he went near the pial of Lakshmi Reddy's house and he ran away from the place. While leaving the scene of occurrence, A-7 stabbed P.W.1 on the right buttocks and P.W.1 however managed to receive only an abrasion. As soon as the accused left the scene of occurrence towards a lane, P.W.1 ran to the Police Station and informed the Inspector of Police (P.W.18) about the occurrence. It was then 12.10 p.m. The Inspector of Police made an entry (Ex. As soon as the accused left the scene of occurrence towards a lane, P.W.1 ran to the Police Station and informed the Inspector of Police (P.W.18) about the occurrence. It was then 12.10 p.m. The Inspector of Police made an entry (Ex. P-20) in the general diary and proceeded to the scene of occurrence along with P.W.1 a Head Constable and some Constables. On reaching the scene of occurrence, he found a crowd of 200 persons. He cleared the crowd, and posted guard over the dead body of D-1 which was lying with multiple injuries in the verandah of Lakshmi Reddy's house. D-2 was lying in a precarious condition by the side of D-1. He sent D-2 immediately to the Government Hospital, Allagadda through H.C. 260. Bommasani Veerabhadrudu (P.W.4), Pedda Obulesu (P.W.5) and Chinna Obulapathi (P.W.7) were lying with injuries on the same verandah. Neralla Sundaram (P.W.8) was lying with injuries outside the verandah by the side of the bamboo thatti. P.W.18 reduced the report of P.W.1 into writing under Ex. P-1 at about 12-40 p.m. and sent the same to the Police Station for issuing a First Information Report and registering a case. H.C. 260 registered first information report under Ex. P. 21 incorporating therein Ex. P-1 and sent a copy of the same to P.W.18, who was at the scene of the occurrence. He had also sent express copies of the first information report to all the officers concerned. After sending Ex. P-1 to the Police Station, P.W.18 held an inquest over the dead body of D-1. He wanted to examine P.Ws. 4,5, 7 and 8, but they were unable to speak. He sent them to the Government Hospital, Allagadda through P.C. 622 (P.W.14). He examined P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 6, 9 and 10 during the inquest and sent the injured. P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 6, 8 and 9 to the Government Hospital for treatment through P.C. 1086. He found ten Cuddapah slabs in the verandah of Lakshmi Reddy's house, the door planks of that house and the wall abutting the verandah stained with blood. He collected bloodstained scrappings from the slabs (M.O. 25) and also the door planks and walls (M. O. 26). He could not find any blood-stains on the road or the road margin. He found ten Cuddapah slabs in the verandah of Lakshmi Reddy's house, the door planks of that house and the wall abutting the verandah stained with blood. He collected bloodstained scrappings from the slabs (M.O. 25) and also the door planks and walls (M. O. 26). He could not find any blood-stains on the road or the road margin. While P.W.18 was holding the inquest over the dead body of D-1, he received information of the death of D-2 in the hospital. After completing the inquest over the dead body of D-1 and sending the dead body for post-mortem examination, P.W.18 went to the Government Hospital, Allagadda, where he held an inquest over the dead body of D-2 at 1 p.m. He sent the dead body of D-2 also for post-mortem examination after completing the inquest over the dead body of D-2. 6. The Medical Officer, Allagadda (P.W.15) examined D-2 and P.Ws. 1 to 9 from 12.30 p.m. to 3 p.m. and found the injuries on the bodies, of D-2, P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.6, P.W.7, P.W..8, P.W.9. [Their Lordships gave the description of injuries and proceeded as follows] 7. The Inspector of Police (P.W.18) searched the house of the Advocate Narasimhulu on 24th February, 1976, for the weapons used during the occurrence and could not however find any weapons. He seized two live cartridges, some empty cartridges and other explosive substances. He examined P. W. 1 and others on. that day. He examined some more witnesses on 25th February, 1976. He then went to Kurnool and examined the four injured persons (P.Ws. 4,5,7 and 8), who were admitted in the General Hospital at Kurnool, on that day. He arrested A-2, A-3, A-4, A-6, A-8, A-9 and A-11 on 1st March, 1976. A-5 was arrested on 5th March, 1976. A-1 was arrested on 17th April, 1976. After completion of the investigation, P.W.18 filed a charge-sheet against the 12 accused. 8. The plea of the accused was one of complete denial. Their plea, as disclosed from the suggestions to prosecution witnesses and the arguments addressed, is that the two deceased and the injured members of the prosecution party came to Allagadda by the evening of 22nd February, 1976, to attend the Court the next morning. 8. The plea of the accused was one of complete denial. Their plea, as disclosed from the suggestions to prosecution witnesses and the arguments addressed, is that the two deceased and the injured members of the prosecution party came to Allagadda by the evening of 22nd February, 1976, to attend the Court the next morning. They slept on the verandah of Lakshmi Reddy's house during the night and they were all beaten in the small hours of 23rd February, 1976, by some persons whom they could not identify. They deliberated for considerable time and after long delay used for the purpose of concoting a story, they approached the Police with a false version of the occurrence having taken place in broad day light at about 11.30 a.m. According to the accused, Ex. P-1 report is a belated manipulation and Ex. P-20 case diary entry is a fabrication intended to lend colour of truth to Ex. P-1. 9. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined 20 witnesses in all. P. Ws. 1 to 11 deposed as direct witnesses to the occurrence and of these, P.W.1 to 9 stated that they were injured during the occurrence in which D-1 and D-2 sustained the fatal injuries. P.W 12 is the Village Munsiff, Allagadda, who acted as an inquest dar at the two inquests held over the dead bodies of D-1 and D-2. He was present when the Inspector of Police seized the blood-stained clothes of all the injured persons and also collected the blood-stained scrappings from the slabs, door planks and wall of the verandah of Lakshmi Reddy's house. P.Ws. 13 and 14 are Constables who carried the dead bodies of D-1 and D-2 for postmortem examination and were present when the doctors conducted the post-mortem examinations. P.W.15 is the Medical Officer, Allagadda, who examined all the injured in this case and conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of D-1. P.W.17 is the Medical Officer who conducted autopsy over the dead body of D-2. P.W.19 is the Radiologist in the Government General Hospital, Kurnool, who produced X-Ray reports revealing fractures in the proximal phalanx of the left index finger and second metacarpal bone of Pedda Obulesu (P.W.5) and fracture of hamatex bone and dislocation of corporal bone and inter phelangeal joints of the left thumb of Chinna Veerabhadrudu (P.W.4). P.W.19 is the Radiologist in the Government General Hospital, Kurnool, who produced X-Ray reports revealing fractures in the proximal phalanx of the left index finger and second metacarpal bone of Pedda Obulesu (P.W.5) and fracture of hamatex bone and dislocation of corporal bone and inter phelangeal joints of the left thumb of Chinna Veerabhadrudu (P.W.4). P.W.20 is a clerk of the Judicial First Glass Magistrate's Court, Allagadda, who sent the properties concerned in this case to the Chemical Examiner. P.W.18 is the Inspector of Police who investigated into the case and filed the charge-sheet. 10. The accused did not examine any witnesses on their behalf. 11. On a consideration of the evidence, the learned trial Judge accepted the case of the prosecution to the effect that the occurrence took place at about 10.30 a.m., on 23rd February, 1976, and that P.Ws.1 to 9, D-1 and D-2 were injured in the course of the same occurrence. He acquitted the accused 11 and 12 as the evidence against them is not satisfactory. He find that the accused 1 to 10 and others participated in the occurrence. The case against A-10 having abated, he convicted the accused 1 to 9 of rioting armed with deadly weapons punishable under section 148, Indian Penal Code. He has also convicted the accused 1, 2 to 8 directly under section 324, Indian Penal Code, and the accused 1 to 9 constructively under section 324 read with section 149, Indian Penal Code, in regard to the simple injuries of P.Ws.1 to 5 and 8. He acquitted these nine accused of the two counts of murder holding that the common object of the unlawful assembly was merely to beat and that the eye-witnesses, P.Ws.1 to 11 could not have seen who actually amongst the rioters inflicted the fatal injuries of the two deceased and that the evidence in regard to the actual assailants of the two deceased is discrepant and unsatisfactory. He has also acquitted these nine accused of the charges of grievous hurt with deadly weapons in regard to the grievous injuries of P.Ws.4 and 5 and the charges of simple hurt in regard to the, simple injuries of P.Ws.6, 7 and 9 on the ground that the evidence did not specifically show as to which rioter caused which grievous injury of P.Ws.4 and 5 or which simple injury of P.Ws.6, 7 and 9. 12. 12. We will be presently examining the correctness of the findings of the trial Court while considering the merits of the appeals. We would however like to observe at this stage that, on the findings arrived at by the learned trial Judge the acquittal of the accused 1 to 9 of the offences of murder and grievous hurt with regard to the fatal injuries of the deceased and the grievous injuries of P.Ws.4 and 5, as also the offences of simple hurt with regard the simple injuries of P.Ws.6, 7 and 9 is erroneous and unsustainable under the law. When he found that the members of the unlawful assembly were armed with hunting sickles, spears and a battle-axe, which were freely used against the two deceased and P.Ws.1 to 9 and that, in the course of the rioting, the two deceased sustained fatal injuries while P.Ws.4 and 5 received grievous injuries, the inference of the learned trial Judge that the common object of the unlawful assembly was merely to beat the members of the opposite party is without doubt erroneous and Sri E. Ayyapu Reddy, the learned Counsel for the accused, fairly states that, if the finding of the learned trial Judge that the accused 1 to 9 and others were members of an unlawful assembly armed with hunting sickles, spears and battle-axe is accepted as correct, there can be no doubt of the common object being the causing of the death of the members of the opposite party. Even if the common object of the unlawful assembly cannot be placed as high as causing death, still the person, who participated in the rioting of such a heavilyarmed unlawful assembly (as the members of which were furnished with hunting sickles, spears and battle-axes) would be liable for murder if death should ensue as a result of the action of any one of them in view of the second limb of section 149, Indian Penal Code. Further, the learned trial Judge has been of the view that the participants in an attack by an unlawful assembly cannot be convicted of an offence read with section 149, Indian Penal Code. unless there is positive and conclusive proof as to which participants committed the particular offence to which section 149 is to be tagged on. Further, the learned trial Judge has been of the view that the participants in an attack by an unlawful assembly cannot be convicted of an offence read with section 149, Indian Penal Code. unless there is positive and conclusive proof as to which participants committed the particular offence to which section 149 is to be tagged on. Though section 149, envisages constructive liability, it creates a specific offence and its application does not depend, on the proof or otherwise of the member or members of the unlawful assembly who committed the particular offence. If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of the assembly, every person, who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the assembly, is guilty of that offence under section 149, Indian Penal Code. Under the second part of the section, if an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly and such offence is one which the members of the unlawful assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly, then every person, who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the unlawful assembly, is guilty of that offence. Members of an unlawful assembly will be liable not only for offences committed by the other members of the unlawful assembly if those offences are committed in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly, but also for offences which the members knew to be likely to be committed in the prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly. 13. In Bhajan Singh v. State of U. P.1 their Lordships of the Supreme Court pointed out as follows in paragraphs 10 and 13 of the judgment: Para. 10: “Even if, therefore, the accused were originally members of an unlawful assembly with the common object of only beating Bakhsheesh Singh having come armed with deadly weapons, some with spear and gandasa and some with lathis, in the desparate manner they have done and if the members of the assembly knew that by using these weapons upon Baksheesh Singh death would be caused, they are guilty of section 302 read with section 149, Indian Penal Code”. Para. Para. 13: “Section 149, Indian Penal Code, constitutes, per se a substantive offence although the punishment is under the section to which it is tagged being committed by the principal offender in the unlawful assembly, known or unknown. Even assuming that the unlawful assembly was formed originally only to beat, it is clearly established in the evidence that the said object is well-knit with what followed as the dangerous final of, call it, the beating. This is not a case where something foreign or unknown, to the object has taken place all of a sudden. It is the execution of the same common object which assumed the fearful character implicit in the illegal action undertaken by the five accused.” Where a number of factionists lie in wait heavily armed with deadly weapons like battle axes, hunting sickles and spears and attack the leader and many other members of the opposite faction on their arrival at the place of ambush in prosecution of their common object of either beating or killing and causing injuries to some and kill one or two members of the opposite faction, every member of the unlawful assembly who participated in the attack would be liable for the injuries and the death or deaths and it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove as to which rioter caused which injury of the deceased or which injury of injured persons. The inability of the prosecution witnesses to prove which rioter caused which injury may be a circumstance for consideration in the assessment and evaluation of the evidence of the witnesses; but that cannot constitute a ground of exemption from the liability arising under section 149, Indian Penal Code. In mass attacks, the Court may ignore the inability of a witness to state which assailant caused which injury and still believe the witness with regard to the attack and the participants in the attack. In attacks by a few persons causing limited number of injuries, the inability of a witness to specify which person caused which injury may not be ignored by the Court and the evidence of such witness may be rejected or doubted on that ground alone. 14. In Ramu Gope v. State of Bihar1 their Lordships of the Supreme Court have pointed out as follows in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the judgment: Para. 14. In Ramu Gope v. State of Bihar1 their Lordships of the Supreme Court have pointed out as follows in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the judgment: Para. 4: “Where a member of an unlawful assembly is named as an offender who committed an offence for which the members of the unlawful assembly are liable under section 149, Indian Penal Code, and the evidence at the trial is insufficient to establish that the named person committed the act attributed to him, he may still be convicted of the offence if it is proved that he was a member of the unlawful assembly and that the act was done by some member of the assembly in prosecution of the common object or which the members knew was likely to be committed in prosecution of that object. In our judgment, failure to prove the presence of the named offender among the members of the unlawful assembly will not affect the criminality of those who are proved to be members of the assembly if the other conditions of the applicability of section 149, Indian Penal Code, be established. If the Court refuses to accept the testimony of witnesses who speak to the presence of and part played by a named offender, the weight to be attached to the testimony of those witnesses in so far as they involve others may undoubtedly be affected, but it cannot be said that because the testimony of witnesses who depose to the assault by the named offender is not accepted, other members proved to be members of the unlawful assembly escape liability arising from the commission of the offence, the prosecution of the common object of the assembly. Para. 5: “………………………. The offence being such that it was known to be likely to be committed, every person who was a member of that unlawful assembly at the time of the commission of the offence would by virtue of section 149, Indian Penal Code, be guilty of the offence committed. * * * When a concerted attack is made on the victim by a large number of persons it is often difficult to determine the actual part played by each offender. * * * When a concerted attack is made on the victim by a large number of persons it is often difficult to determine the actual part played by each offender. But on that account for an offence committed by a member of the unlawful assembly in the prosecution of the common object or for an offence which was known to be likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object, persons proved to be members cannot escape the consequences arising from the doing of that act which amounts to an offence.” In Bhajan Singh's case1, also, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have clearly pointed out that the principal offender of the substantive offence to which section 149, Indian Penal Code, is to be tagged on may either be known or unknown. Where causing death, which amounts to murder, is either the common object of the unlawful assembly or is an offence which the members of the assembly knew to be likely be committed in the prosecution of their common object and the offence of murder is committed, every member of the unlawful assembly present at the time of the commission of murder would be liable for the murder and no member of the unlawful assembly present at the time of the commission of the murder can escape that liability, merely because the prosecution has not been able to prove as to which particular member or members of the unlawful assembly caused the fatal injuries; the liability of all the members of the unlawful assembly is the same as envisaged in section 149, Indian Penal Code. Having stated the position of law with reference to the findings arrived at by the trial Court, we now proceed to consider merits of findings. 15. The findings of the trial Court are: (1) The fatal injuries of D-1, D-2, the grievous injuries of P.Ws. 4 and 5 and the simple injuries of P.Ws. 1 to 9 were all received by them in the course of the same occurrence and the occurrence took place at about 10.30 a.m. on 23rd February, 1976, in the manner alleged by the prosecution. (2) Though there is some delay in giving the first report, Ex. P-1 the report contains a truthful account of the occurrence. 1 to 9 were all received by them in the course of the same occurrence and the occurrence took place at about 10.30 a.m. on 23rd February, 1976, in the manner alleged by the prosecution. (2) Though there is some delay in giving the first report, Ex. P-1 the report contains a truthful account of the occurrence. (3) The accused 1 to 10 and others were members of an unlawful assembly, the common object of which was to beat D-1 and others and the accused 1 to 10 participated in the occurrence armed with hunting sickles, spears and battle-axe and (4) The prosecution established that the accused 1 and 3 to 8 caused the simple injuries of P.Ws. 1 to 5 and 8 while the prosecution failed to satisfactorily prove as to which of the members of the unlawful assembly caused the fatal injuries of the two deceased, the grievous injuries of P.Ws. 4 and 5 and the simple injuries of P.Ws. 6, 7 and 9. 16. Sri E. Ayyapu Reddy, the learned Counsel for the respondents-accused in the appeal filed by the State and Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, the learned Counsel for the accused in the appeal filed by the accused, contended that the findings of the trial Court are wholly erroneous and none of the accused 1 and 9 participated in the occurrence. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, contends that the trial Court appreciated the evidence carefully and arrived at proper conclusions of fact, though it misapplied the law while considering the charges of murder and grievous hurt. 17. The principal contentions of the learned Advocates for the accused are: 1. The evidence of the direct witnesses, P.Ws.1 to 11 is unworthy of belief and acceptance and the occurrence did not take place at about noon time in the manner alleged by the prosecution, but took place in the small hours of 23rd February, 1978, and the assailants of the two deceased and other injured persons were unknown and unidentified. 2. Exhibit P-20, the general diary entry, is a piece of fabrication brought into existence for the first time at the time of the trial of the case to lend colour of truth to prosecution case and to buttress Exhibit P-1. 3. 2. Exhibit P-20, the general diary entry, is a piece of fabrication brought into existence for the first time at the time of the trial of the case to lend colour of truth to prosecution case and to buttress Exhibit P-1. 3. The occurrence having taken place in the small hours of 23rd February, 1976, the report of the same having been given to the Police at about 12-10 p.m., there is inordinate delay in giving the first information report, Exhibit P-1, to the Police and the delay is the result of factious deliberation and manipulations. 4. The families of D-1 and the Advocate Narasimhulu were at loggerheads since the last about 20 years. The members of both the families are natives of Nallagatla village in Allagadda taluk of Kurnool district. The enmity between the two families resulted in the formation of the two factions with D-1 as the leader of one faction and the Advocate Narasimhulu as the leader of the opposite faction. D-2, P.Ws.1, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9 and others arc members of the faction led by D-1. The accused 1, 2 and 5 are the brothers of Narasimhulu. A-3 and A-4 are Narasimhulu's nephews. A-12 is his cousin. A-6 to A-11, who are related inter se and others are followers of Narasimhulu. There were several riotings and murderous clashes between the two factions resulting in cases and counter-cases before the Courts. By February, 1976, one case involving seven deaths was pending trial against A-1 and his brothers along with sons of the partymen of the Advocate Narasimhulu and its trial was to commence on 1st March, 1976. Some of the partymen of D-1 including P.Ws.1, 5, 7 and 9 are witnesses for the prosecution in that case. 18. On 23rd February, 1976, D-1, P.W.1 and P.W.8 had to attend the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Allagadda in connection with a case registered against them. From Nallagatla to Allagadda, there is bus service. On the way from the Allagadda bus-stop to the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Allagadda, the Advocate Narasimhulu has his house. Opposite to his house, there is a house in which Lakshmi Reddy is a tenant. There is a verandah, for that house facing the road. Dr. From Nallagatla to Allagadda, there is bus service. On the way from the Allagadda bus-stop to the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Allagadda, the Advocate Narasimhulu has his house. Opposite to his house, there is a house in which Lakshmi Reddy is a tenant. There is a verandah, for that house facing the road. Dr. K. Thirupathi Reddy (P.W.15) the Medical Officer of the Government Dispensary, Allagadda, examined D-2 and P.Ws.1 to 9 from 12 p.m. to 3 p.m. on 23rd February, 1976 and found ten injuries on the person of D-2 two injuries on each of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3, seven injuries on P.W.4, eight injuries on P.W.5, one injury on each of P.Ws.6 and 9, nine injuries on P.W.7 and five injuries on P.W.8. The same doctor conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of D-1 at about 5 p.m. on the same day and found 17 external injuries on D-1's body. D-1's dead body was found, before it was sent for post-mortem examination, on the verandah of Lakshmi Reddy's house. Before they were sent to the hospital, D-2 and P.Ws.4, 5 and 7 were found lying unconscious with injuries on the same verandah. P.W.8 was found, lying unconscious with injuries on the road margin near the verandah of Lakshmi Reddy's house. The doctor opined that some of the injuries of D-1, D-2 and P.Ws.1 to 9 might have been caused by battle-axes, some by hunting sickles and some by spears. The slabs, of the verandah of Lakshmi Reddy's house, door planks and wall by the side of the verandah were stained with blood. Under the circumstances, there can be little doubt nor is disputed before us that D-1, D-2 and P.Ws.1 to 9 sustained their injuries in the course of the same occurrence. There can also be no doubt that the occurrence took place on and near the verandah of Lakshmi Reddy's house. Drawing our attention to the fact of no blood stains having been found on the road or the road margin near the verandah, the learned Advocates for the accused contend that the scene of the occurrence must be only the verandah of Lakshmi Reddy's house and not anywhere beyond that verandah. We are unable to accept this submission. Drawing our attention to the fact of no blood stains having been found on the road or the road margin near the verandah, the learned Advocates for the accused contend that the scene of the occurrence must be only the verandah of Lakshmi Reddy's house and not anywhere beyond that verandah. We are unable to accept this submission. The Inspector of Police (P.W.18) has clearly stated that he could not find any blood-stains on the road or road margin due to trampling by the mob. According to his evidence by the time he went to the scene of occurrence at about 12-30 p.m. there was a crowd of about 200 persons at the scene of the occurrence. 19. According to the prosecution, to attend the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Allagadda, D-1, D-2, P.Ws.1,4,5, 7, 8 and 9 left Nallagatla in the morning of 23rd February, 1976, by bus. P.Ws.3 and 6, who are also residents of Nallagatla, travelled in the same bus for Allagadda. As they all missed the earlier buses, they came by the bus which arrived at Allagadda by about 11 a.m. When D-1, D-2, P.W.1 and P.W.3 to 9 alighted from the bus at Allagadda to proceed into the town P.W.2 joined them. When they reached the house of the Advocate Narasimhulu, A-1 and A-4 suddenly emerged out of the house armed with a hunting sickle and spear respectively. A-4 stabbed D-1 with the spear in his hand on the left side of the ribs. D-1 caught hold of the spear with both his hands. A-1 cut D-1 with hunting sickle on the right wrist. The other accused joined A-1 and A-4 by this time. A-2, A-6 and A-8 were each armed with a hunting sickle. A-5 was armed with a battle-axe. A-3, A-7 and A-9 to A-12 were each armed with a spear. P.Ws.4, 5, 7 and 8 intervened and pushed D-1 towards the pial of Lakshmi Reddy's house, A-1 to A-5 went up the pial and attacked D-1 with the weapons in their hands. When D-2 intervened, A-6 to A-10 attacked him with the weapons in their hands. When P.W.1 intervened, A-8 raised the hunting sickle in his hand, but P.W.1 averted the blow on the head and was however injured on his wrist. P.W.2 was stabbed with spears by A-3 and another on his right thigh. When D-2 intervened, A-6 to A-10 attacked him with the weapons in their hands. When P.W.1 intervened, A-8 raised the hunting sickle in his hand, but P.W.1 averted the blow on the head and was however injured on his wrist. P.W.2 was stabbed with spears by A-3 and another on his right thigh. P.W.3 was cut on his fore-head with a battle-axe by A-5. When he was running away, he was dealt a blow on his right hip by one of the assailants. P.W.4 was cut with hunting sickles by A-1 and A-6 on several parts of his body. A-5 cut P.W.5 with the battle-axe in his hand. A-7 stabbed P.W.5 with the spear in his hand. P.W.7 was hacked by A-5 with the battleaxe on his right shoulder and was stabbed with a spear on the chest by A-10. He was inflicted several injuries by the assailants. P.W.8 was injured by A-2 with a hunting sickel and A-3 with a spear and was inflicted some more injuries by the other accused. P.Ws.6 and 9 were also injured in the course of the occurrence; but they did not know who exactly injured them. While leaving the scene of occurrence, A-7 again stabbed P.W.1 on his right buttocks and the assault resulted in an abrasion. 20. The prosecution case in regard to the actual occurrence is spoken to by P.Ws.1 to 11 of whom P.Ws.1 to 9 are injured. (Their Lordships discussed the evidence and proceeded to discuss further.) ***** 21. The contention of the learned Advocates for the accused that the occurrence took place in the small hours of 23rd February, 1976, while D-1, D-2 and P.Ws.1 to 9 were all sleeping on the verandah of Lakshmi Reddy's house and that the assailants could not have been identified does not commend itself to us as correct. There is not even a little of evidence in support of this contention. The whole basis for this contention is that, in so far as the case against D-1, P.W.1 and P.W.8 was posted for hearing at about 11 a.m. on 23rd February, 1976, D-1 and others must have come to Allagadda the previous evening itself should have stayed in Allagadda in the night of 22nd February, 1976. The whole basis for this contention is that, in so far as the case against D-1, P.W.1 and P.W.8 was posted for hearing at about 11 a.m. on 23rd February, 1976, D-1 and others must have come to Allagadda the previous evening itself should have stayed in Allagadda in the night of 22nd February, 1976. The argument is based purely on imagination and the only support for this contention is sought from the fact that no blood-stains were found anywhere else than on the verandah of Lakshmi Reddy's house. As pointed out already, the Inspector of Police (P.W.18) stated that by the time he went to the scene of occurrence at about 12.30 p.m. he found a huge crowd of 200 people and that the area near and around the verandah of Lakshmi Reddy's house did not contain any blood-stains due to trampling by the mob. Moreover, as pointed out by the learned trial Judge, if D-1 and others really came to Allagadda the previous night, they would have slept anywhere else but not on the verandah of Lakshmi Reddy's house which is opposite to the house of the Advocate Narasimhulu, their avowed enemy and leader of the opposite faction. Further, if D-1 was done to death in the small hours and D-2 and nine others sustained injuries in the course of the same occurrence during the small hours, it is impossible that no information of the occurrence reached the Police till 12.10 p.m. when P.W.1 met the Inspector of Police (P.W.18) at the Police Station. The evidence clearly shows and it is also not disputed that the Police Station is just one furlong from the scene of occurrence. Allagadda is a busy town. The scene of occurrence is by the side of the main road. If one person (D-1) should be lying dead in a pool of blood and four others (D-2, P.Ws.4, 5 and 7) lying unconscious in pools of blood on a verandah by the side of the main road and another (P.W.8) lying unconscious with injuries down the verandah, it is impossible that the busy traffic on the road would be so indifferent and unconcerned that no information of any kind reached the Police Station which is just one furlong from the place until 12.10 p.m. when P.W.1 went there and reported about the occurrence. The contention that the occurrence having taken place in darkness during the small hours of 23rd February, 1976 is wholly unmeritorious and in the face of the direct evidence of P.Ws.1 to 11 in regard to the time of the occurrence, we have no hesitation to conclude that the occurrence took place in broad day light a short while before midday and that the assailants could be identified. 22. Though every witness has stated that the occurrence took place at about midday i.e., at about 11.30 a.m., the trial Judge held that the occurrence must have taken place at about 10.30 a.m. only by reference to the time of 10.30 a.m. mentioned by P.W.8 in his statement before the Magistrate under Exhibit D-2. It should be remembered that Exhibit D-2 was recorded by the Magistrate at 2.05 p.m. on 23rd February, 1976, in the Government Hospital, Allagadda, at a time when the condition of P.W.8 was precarious. After giving out the names of the various assailants and stating how the occurrence took place D-2 stated in Exhibit D-2. “All this happened in the morning at about 10.30 before the house of Narasimhulu.” P.W.8 is a villager. When he mentioned the time as 10.30 a.m. it does not mean that it was exactly 10.30 as if he referred the wrist watch or a clock when the occurrence took place. It is the rough estimate of time by a villager and it would not be reasonable to expect accuracy or exactitudeness in the estimates of time given by unsophisticated and illiterate villagers particularly when they state the time while in a state of agony to injuries inflicted by lethal weapons. The evidence is clear that, though D-1, and others left their village early for the bus-stop they missed two or three buses and could travel only in a bus which arrived at Allagadda shortly before noon. The evidence is clear that, though D-1, and others left their village early for the bus-stop they missed two or three buses and could travel only in a bus which arrived at Allagadda shortly before noon. We, therefore, agree with the first finding of the learned trial Judge to the effect that the fatal injuries of D-1 and D-2, the grievous injuries of P.Ws.4 and 5 and the simple injuries of P.W.1 to 9 were all received by them in the course of the same occurrence and that the occurrence took place on 23rd February, 1976, in the manner alleged by the prosecution, with this modification that the occurrence took place not at 10.30 a.m., but a short while before noon i.e. at about 11.30 a.m. or so. We do not find any merit in the first contention raised on behalf of the accused that the occurrence took place in the small hours of 23rd February, 1976 or that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 11 is unworthy of belief. 23. The second contention of Exhibit P-20 the general diary entry, being a fabrication is equally unsubstantial. This contention is based merely on the fact that Exhibit P-20 was produced for the first time before the trial Court and its copy was furnished to the accused only in the trial Court and not before. It is argued that, if Exhibit P-20 was in existence earlier than the date when the trial of the case commenced before the Sessions Court, the prosecution would have naturally relied on that entry and a copy thereof would have been furnished to the accused under sub-section (7) of section 173, Criminal Procedure Code, along with the copies of the documents referred to in sub-section (5) of section 173. What section 175 (5), Criminal Procedure Code, contemplates is that the Police Officer should forward to the Magistrate along with the documents or relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecution proposes to rely and the statements of persons recorded under section 161, Criminal Procedure Code. What section 175 (5), Criminal Procedure Code, contemplates is that the Police Officer should forward to the Magistrate along with the documents or relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecution proposes to rely and the statements of persons recorded under section 161, Criminal Procedure Code. If the Police Officer preparing the charge-sheet did not realise the importance of a particular document and omitted to mention that document as one of the documents on which the prosecution relies such omission does not prevent the prosecution from seeking the Court's permission to rely on the document at a later stage provided a copy of the document is furnished to the accused in sufficient time for preparation to challenge the document at the time of its actual admission in the case. The production of Exhibit P-20 by the prosecution only at the stage of trial may be a circumstance which calls upon the Court for greater scrutiny of the genuineness of the document, but that cannot by itself be made the basis of an outright conclusion of the document being a wholesale fabrication. On account of the delay in making the entry, Exhibit P-20, we have carefully examined the entry and we find that there is nothing suspicious about the entry. It is made in an official book regularly maintained under the rules and we are satisfied that in the preliminary stages, the Officer in charge of the prosecution did not think it necessary to file the general diary entry, while at the stage of the sessions trial, the Public Prosecutor thought it necessary to file it in the Court. P.W.18 is a responsible Circle Inspector of Police. He states that he made the entry under Exhibit P-20 in the general diary. The book containing Exhibit P-20 consists of several entries of the Allagadda Police Station from 22nd February, 1976 to 16th April, 1976. Exhibit P-20 is contained on page 3. It is an entry made at 12-10 p.m. between one entry made at 10 am. and another entry made at 12.15 p.m. The entry at 12.15 p.m. is followed by entries made at 12.40 p.m., 2 p.m., 3 p.m., and so on. The entry under Exhibit P-20 is very brief and the contents therein do not show any deliberate attempt to rope in the members of the accused party. and another entry made at 12.15 p.m. The entry at 12.15 p.m. is followed by entries made at 12.40 p.m., 2 p.m., 3 p.m., and so on. The entry under Exhibit P-20 is very brief and the contents therein do not show any deliberate attempt to rope in the members of the accused party. The entire entry Exhibit P-20, reads as follows (English Translation): “While I am in the station one Dudekula Narasimhulu of Nallagatla came to the Police Station with injuries on his person, and informed me that C. Ramachandra Reddy of Nallagatla, was attacked by Papodu, Nadipi Madduleti, Chinna Madduleti, Ramakrishnudu, Lakshminarayana, Sadrak, and some others with hunting sickles, battle axes and spears on the T.B. Road in front of the house of Advocate Narasimhulu at Allagadda and killed Ramachandra Reddy in the verandah of the opposite house and caused injuries to many persons. I am proceeding to the scene with my staff 2 Hcs. and 6 P.cs. with injured. I will take action. Charge to H.C. 260.. (not clear) P.G. 622 returned from case duty to H.Qrs.” It is only the names of the accused 1 to 6 that are specifically mentioned in the above entry, Exhibit P-20, though P.W.1 mentioned the names of the accused 1 to 10 specifically in Exhibit P-1. If anyone is interested in but-tressing Exhibit P-1, it would be only to see that Exhibit P-1 becomes acceptable against the persons named therein. If Exhibit P-20 was deliberately brought into existence after Exhibit P-1 was recorded, though the contents of Exhibit P-20 would not comprise of the detail mentioned in Exhibit P-1, the minimum that would be found in Exhibit P-20 is the names of all the ten persons named in Exhibit P-1. The absence of all the ten persons named in Exhibit P-20 and the actual contents of Exhibit P-20 as also the evidence of the Inspector of Police (P.W.18) coupled with the fact of Exhibit P-20, being found in a book which is regularly maintained in the course of official business make it abundantly clear that Exhibit P-20 is a genuine document and we have no hesitation to find that it came into existence under the circumstances spoken to by P.W.18. 24. The third contention is based mainly on the first contention. 24. The third contention is based mainly on the first contention. In the light of our finding in regard to the first contention, we have no hesitation to hold that there is no avoidable delay in giving the first report, Exhibit P-1. The occurrence took place at about noon time. P.W.1 ran straight from the scene of the occurrence to the Police Station. He orally reported the matter to the Inspector of Police (P.W.18), who was present at the Police Station. The Inspector of Police made a brief entry in the general diary and proceeded immediately to the scene of ‘Occurrence. There he recorded Exhibit P-1 from P.W.1 and sent it to the Police Station through Head-Constable for registering an F.I.R. Exhibit P-1 has been recorded at about 12.40 p.m. Under the circumstances, there can be little doubt that Exhibit P-1 report came into existence at the earliest possible time. Even the inquest was held thereafter. Eye-witnesses were examined at both the inquests and the first inquest was commenced at 1.45 p.m. Being of the view that the occurrence took place at about 10.30 a.m. the learned trial Judge observed that there is some delay in giving the report and that the same however “is not fatal to the case since no vital improvements have been made either in the information given to the Inspector of Police when he came to the Police Station”. As already pointed out by us, the finding of the learned trial Judge that the occurrence took place at about 10.30 A.m. is not correct. Even according to the finding of the trial Court also, Exhibit P-1 contains a truthful account of the occurrence. We are therefore not prepared to accept the contention that Exhibit P-1 is the result of factious deliberations and manipulations. It contains an unvanished and true account of the occurrence given by an eye-witness injured in the course of the occurrence soon after the occurrence without any colloboration with other factionists, though the eyewitness is a factionist. Dealing with the three principal contentions of learned Advocates for the accused, we have examined the first and second findings of the learned trial judge. We now proceed to consider the other two findings. 25. The third finding of the learned trial Judge is that the accused 1 to 10 and others participated in the occurrence. We are in complete agreement with this finding. We now proceed to consider the other two findings. 25. The third finding of the learned trial Judge is that the accused 1 to 10 and others participated in the occurrence. We are in complete agreement with this finding. In the first report, Exhibit P-1, P.W.1 denounced the accused 1 to 10 as assailant. The disinterested witnesses, P.Ws.3 and 6 have clearly spoken the participation of the accused 1 to 10 besides the other partisan witnesses, P.Ws.1, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9 The evidence of P.W.1 shows that 10 or 11 persons participated in the occurrence armed with spears and hunting sickles and that the accused 1, 2 and 3 were amongst them. P.W.2's evidence also shows that the accused 1,3,4, 5 and others participated in the occurrence. We are not prepared to discredit or doubt the formidable body of prosecution evidence given by 10 direct witnesses to the occurrence (P.Ws.1 to 10) merely on the bare denial of the accused. No doubt, evidence has to be weighed and not counted. Facts are to be believed or disbelieved with reference to the reliability of the evidence given before the Court and not with reference to the large number or small number of persons that spoke about the facts. As discussed supra, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 10 is reliable and carries conviction of truth and the same has been rightly accepted by the trial Court in regard to the participation of the accused 1 to 10 in the occurrence. 26. The names of A-11 and A-12 have not been mentioned in the first report Exhibit P-1. It is only P.Ws.6,7, 8 and 9 who spoke to the participation of A-11 while P.W.8 alone spoke to the participation of A-12. The evidence against the participation of A-11 and A-12 is very unsatisfactory and the learned Public Prosecutor also does not press the case against these two accused. He fairly concedes that there is no satisfactory evidence in regard to the participation of the accused Nos. 11 and 12. 27. The argument that, in so far as no one of the injured witnesses stated as to who exactly beat the other injured witnesses, the evidence of the injured witnesses should not be believed does not appeal to us as correct. 11 and 12. 27. The argument that, in so far as no one of the injured witnesses stated as to who exactly beat the other injured witnesses, the evidence of the injured witnesses should not be believed does not appeal to us as correct. While the witness generally spoke about the beginning of the attack, they also spoke about the attack against the two deceased and each injured person mentioned about his own assailants. It is a desparate attack made in broad day light by a large number of persons with dangerous weapons. Though the attack was commenced against the leader (D-1) it continued in a desparate way and the assailants were beating down the party-men of D-1 and those who were closed to them indiscriminately. As the weapons used were all cutting weapons, there was bleeding from the injuries inflicted. The entire scene was full of blood either by some of the victims falling down and pools of blood being formed under and a round them and other victims, who had not fallen down, having their wearing clothes stained with blood. It would be impossible for any witness of such a bloody and ghostly scene to notice every action of every assailant, though it may not be difficult to notice and identify the assailants. 28. The last finding of the learned trial Judge is based on a sifting the evidence with regard to the overt acts of the various participants against the injured witnesses. While he has accepted the evidence of each of the injured witnesses in regard to the accused named by them as their own assailants and held that A-1 and A-3 to A-8 specifically caused injuries to P.Ws.1 to 5 and 8, he doubted the evidence of the prosecution witnesses when they stated that the accused 1 to 5 caused the fatal injuries of D-1 and the accused 6 to 10 caused the fatal injuries of D-2. He has also ignored the fact that P.Ws.1 to 10 consistently stated that A-4 commenced the attack by stabbing D-1 with a spear on the left side of the ribs and A-1 cut D-1 with a hunting sickle on the right wrist. He has also ignored the fact that P.Ws.1 to 10 consistently stated that A-4 commenced the attack by stabbing D-1 with a spear on the left side of the ribs and A-1 cut D-1 with a hunting sickle on the right wrist. Out of the witnesses, P.Ws.1 to 11, P.Ws.1, 4, 7, 8 and 9 stated that, after D-1 and others ran into the verandah of Lakshmi Reddy's house, which was enclosed by a bamboo thatti, A-1 to A-5 attacked with the weapons in their hands; that, when D-2 intervened, A-6 to A-10 attacked D-2 with the weapons in their hands and that, while A-1 to A-5 caused the fatal injuries of D-1, A-6 to A-10 caused the fatal injuries of D-2. The learned trial Judge held that, in so far as the verandah is enclosed of a bamboo thatti and the verandah is not of a very large size, it would not have been possible or D-1 and D-2, A-1 to A-10 and the five witnesses to be present on the verandah and if the witnesses were outside the verandah, they would not have clearly seen the attack against D-1 and D-2 even though the thatti is a perforated one with square holes. The evidence of the Inspector of Police (P.W.18) shows that the length of the verandah is 14 and its width is 9’ 8’. Its total area is about 134 sq.ft. According to the prosecution, while P.Ws.1 and 9 witnessed from outside the verandah, it is only P.Ws.4, 7 and 8 that witnessed the attack against D-1 and D-2 while they were on the verandah. It would not have been impossible for the two deceased, P.Ws.4, 7, 8 and the accused 1 to 10 to be all present on the verandah at the same time. P.W.18 stated that the height of the verandah is 10’ 8’ P.W.1 and 9, who were on the road, could have easily seen through the space of the opened door and the square holes of the bamboo thatti as to who were the assailants of D-1 and who were the assailants of D-2, though it might not have been possible for them to notice which assailant caused which particular injury. Moreover, this question need not detain us for long. It would be immaterial as to who, amongst the assailants, are the principal offenders directly responsible for the substantive offence of murder. Moreover, this question need not detain us for long. It would be immaterial as to who, amongst the assailants, are the principal offenders directly responsible for the substantive offence of murder. As pointed out already, everyone of the participants would be guilty of murder if anyone of the members of the unlawful assembly or some of the members of the unlawful assembly known or unknown committed the murder in prosecution of their common object of committing murder of if the murder committed by one or some of them is an offence which the members of the unlawful assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of their common object. 29. In the light of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the accused against their convictions and sentences for the offences punishable under sections 148, 324 and 324 read with section 149, Indian Penal Code. The medical evidence clearly disclosed that D-1 and D-2 died of injuries which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. These injuries were inflicted by the assailant intentionally with dangerous Weapons on vital parts of the bodies of D-1 and D-2. All the participants in the rioting are, therefore, guilty of two counts of murder punishable under section 302 read with section 149, Indian Penal Code. The medical evidence also shows that P.Ws.4 and 5 sustained grievous injuries and those injuries were caused with deadly weapons. In the appeal filed by the State, we set aside the acquittal of the accused 1 to 9 under the charges 2, 3, 14, 15, 18 and 19 and convict the accused 1 to 9 as follows: Second Charge.-Section 302 read with section 149, Indian Penal Code, in regard to the death of Ramachandra Reddy (D-1). Third Charge.-Section 302 read with section 149, Indian Penal Code, in regard to the death of Issac (D-2). Fourteenth Charge.- Though the trial Court charged A-1 and A-6 directly under section 326, Indian Penal Code, for causing grievous hurt to P.W.4, we find these two accused guilty under section 326 read with section 149, Indian Penal Code, under this count and convict them accordingly. Fourteenth Charge.- Though the trial Court charged A-1 and A-6 directly under section 326, Indian Penal Code, for causing grievous hurt to P.W.4, we find these two accused guilty under section 326 read with section 149, Indian Penal Code, under this count and convict them accordingly. Fifteenth Charge.- The accused 2 to 5 and 7 to 9 are found guilty of this charge and are convicted under section 326 read with section 149, Indian Penal Code, in regard to the grievous injuries of P.W.4. Eighteenth Charge.- The accused 5 and 7 have been charged directly under section 326, Indian Penal Code, for causing grievous hurt to P.W.5 and we however find them guilty under section 326 read with section 149 and convict them accordingly. Nineteentk Charge.- The accused 1 to 4,6,8 and 9 are found guilty under this charge and are convicted under section 326 read with section 149, Indian Penal Code with regard to the grievous injuries of P.W.5. 30. The learned Counsel for the accused are heard in regard to the sentence that may have to be imposed on the accused 1 to 9 for the offences for which we have convicted them in the appeal filed by the State. 31. The learned Counsel for the accused submit that the offences were committed more than three years ago and that the extreme penatly of law at this stage may not be conducive to the interest of justice. On a consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case we deem it sufficient if the accused 1 to 9 are awarded the lesser imprisonment for life under each of the two counts of murder and a sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment under each of the two counts of grievous hurt punishable under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and they are all sentenced accordingly. A11 the sentences shall run concurrently. 32. In the result, the Criminal Appeal No. 393 of 1978 filed by the State is allowed as against the accused Nos. 1 to 9 and dismissed as against the accused 11 and 12. The acquittal of the accused 11 and 12 is confirmed. The accused 1 to 9 are convicted, under two counts of section 302, Indian Penal Code, read with section 149, Indian Penal Code, and two counts of section 326, Indian Penal Code read with section 149, Indian Penal Code. The acquittal of the accused 11 and 12 is confirmed. The accused 1 to 9 are convicted, under two counts of section 302, Indian Penal Code, read with section 149, Indian Penal Code, and two counts of section 326, Indian Penal Code read with section 149, Indian Penal Code. Each of these accused is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life under each count of murder and rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under section 326, Indian Penal Code. The Criminal Appeal No. 1310 of 1978 filed by the accused is dismissed and the conviction and sentences awarded to the accused by the trial Court are confirmed. The sentences awarded to the accused by the Trial Court also shall run concurrently with the sentences awarded by this Court. G.S.M. ----- Criminal Appeal No. 393 of 1978 allowed as against A-1 to A-9 and dismissed as against A-11 and A-12. Criminal Appeal No. 1310 of 1978 dismissed.