Obul Reddi, J.- The Public Prosecutor, Andhra Pradesh has preferred this Criminal Appeal against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool, in Sessions Case No. 39 of 1964 acquitting the 16 respondents (A-1 to A-16 in the case) of the various charges framed against them for the murder of one Arisireddy of Nelampad Village. The respondents were charged with the offence of rioting armed with deadly weapons under section 148, Indian Penal Code, and further charged under section 302 Indian Penal Code, for casusing the death of Ponnathota Arisireddy in the course of the same transaction at about 9-30 a.m. on 5th January, 1964, in the village of Nelampad, Kurnool District. Under the next charge, they were made constructively liable under section 302 and 149, Indian Penal Code, A-13 was charged with having caused grievous hurt to P.W. 2 under section 326, Indian Penal Code, and the rest of the accused were made constructively liable under section 326 read with section 149, Indian Penal Code A-8, A-10, A-11, A-15 were all further charged under section 324, Indian Penal Code, for having caused simple hurt with deadly weapons to P.W.2 and the rest of the accused were made constructively liable under section 324 read with section 149, Indian Penal Code. Similarly, A-9 was charged with an offence under section 324, Indian Penal Code, for causing hurt to P.W. 1 and the rest of the accused were made constructively liable under section 324 read with section 149, Indian Penal Code. All the accused denied having committed any offence and stated that they were falsely implicated due to party factions. A-1’s defence was that he belongs to another village Uppalur in Jammalamadugu. Taluk of Cuddapah District and that he was not present in the village of Nelampad in Allagadda Taluk, Kurnool District when the occurrence took place and that he has been falsely implicated. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, on a consideration of the evidence of the injured eye-witnesses P.Ws. 1 and 2 and the evidence of P.W. 3, the mother of the deceased who came to the scene of occurrence while the accused was still at the scene and the evidence of P.Ws. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, on a consideration of the evidence of the injured eye-witnesses P.Ws. 1 and 2 and the evidence of P.W. 3, the mother of the deceased who came to the scene of occurrence while the accused was still at the scene and the evidence of P.Ws. 6 and 8, who were said to have seen A-1, A-2 and A-3 and 15 other persons armed with deadly weapons going from Nelampad village to Gotlur village side immediately after the occurrence, held that the testimony of the two eye-witnesses is very artificial and unbelievable and smacked of interestedness, and disbelieved the presence of P.W. 3, the mother of the deceased at the scene of occurrence and also the evidence of P.Ws. 6 and 8. He has also found that P.W. 1 was not the author of Exhibit P-1 the report given to the Village Munsif at about 11 a.m. the same day and that P.W. 1 was made to sign the report the authors of it being, P.W. 4, and P.W. 5 and some other persons. The learned Judge also opined that there was conflict between the opinion expressed by the Medical Officer, P.W. 10 as regards the head injuries and the evidence of the eye-witnesses and that therefore the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 was not acceptable. The learned Judge has also commented on the investigation of the three investigating officers, P.Ws. 15, 17 and 18 and disbelieved the version of P.W. 15 that on receipt of the news of occurrence from P.W. 7 at 11 a.m. he made an entry in the general diary and then proceeded to the scene of occurrence reaching the scene by 1-30 p.m. In short, the finding,of the learned Judge is that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 did not inspire any confidence and it was very hazardous to rely upon their evidence and convict the accused without corroboration from distinterested witnesses. Before stating the grounds on which the learned Additional Public Prosecutor rested the case of the prosecution in this appeal against acquittal of the accused, the story of the prosecution, as emerges from the evidence of the witnesses, may be outlined. Nelampad and Jangalapalli villages of Allagadda Taluk and Uppalur village of Jammalamadugu Taluk which are all situate within a radius of 3 or 4 miles are seething with factions for several years. Nelampad and Jangalapalli villages of Allagadda Taluk and Uppalur village of Jammalamadugu Taluk which are all situate within a radius of 3 or 4 miles are seething with factions for several years. The leaders of the two rival groups in each village have formed their own alliances with their counterparts in the other villages with the result that each party or group has its own following in all the three villages. The first accused belongs to Uppalur village in Jammalamadugu Taluk and the rest A-2 to A-16 belong to Nelampad village. The deceased Arsireddy, P.Ws. 1 and 2, the two eye-witnesses, P.W. 3 the mother of the deceased belong to Nelampad. It is the prosecution case that, although A-1 belongs to Uppalur village, he is the leader of the faction of which A-2 to A-16 of Nelampad are members. P.W. 5 of Jangalapalli village and Narsireddy who married the maternal aunt of the deceased Arsireddy are the leaders of the faction of which the deceased was a member. There have been factions in Nelampad village ever since 1946. In the year 1949, one Solomon who belonged to A-2’s party in Nelampad was murdered and the deceased Arsireddy and others had to face the trial which ended in their acquittal. In 1956, on a complaint filed by A-8 for attempt to murder, the deceased and P.W. 2 and some others were tried under section 307, Indian Penal Code and were acquitted. In 1962 one Rajaratnam belonging to the party of the deceased was murdered and A-2 to A-8 and A-10 were charged with the sad murder. In that case, the deceased and P.Ws. 2 and 4 in the present case figured as prosecution witnesses. That case also ended in acquittal. In the same year the son of A-11, belonging to A-2’s party, was murdered and the deceased and P.W. 2 and others were tried and acquitted. In addition to the series of murders there were panchayat elections between 1956 and 1959 which added fuel to the fire to the already existing bitter enmity. A-2, who intended to contest for the Presidentship of Nelampad Panchayat, gave up the idea for want of sufficient strength and P.W. 4 his enemy was elected. The police had instituted security proceedings against both the partes and they were pending by the date of occurrence. A-2, who intended to contest for the Presidentship of Nelampad Panchayat, gave up the idea for want of sufficient strength and P.W. 4 his enemy was elected. The police had instituted security proceedings against both the partes and they were pending by the date of occurrence. In 1963, the servant of A-1 was murdered and A-1 gave a complaint against Narsireddy the husband of the deceased maternal aunt and his brothers and others of Peddamudiam. Although A-1 tried to implicate the deceased (Arsi reddy) in that case, he was not chargesheeted by the police after due investigation, as he had played no part in the murder of A-1’s servant. A preliminary enquiry on the charge-sheet filed by the police for murder of A-1’s servant was in progress in the Court of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Jammalamadugu when the murder of the deceased Arsireddy in this case took place on 5th January, 1964. P.W. 5 who belongs to Jangalapallj and the deceased were friends and A-1 was a common enemy. P.W. 5 and the deceased used to attend the Court of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Jammalamadugu to help his uncle Narsireddy and his brothers who were accused in that case for the murder of A-1’s servant. The preliminary enquiry in the said case was adjourned to 7th January, 1964 and therefore the deceased wanted to go to P.W. 5’s village and from there take P.W. 5 and then go to Jammalamadugu to give instructions to the advocates. On 5th January, 1964, the deceased Arsireddy left his house at 9-30 a.m. accompanied by P.Ws. 1 and 2. By the time he walked up to the house of A-10 which is on the ‘rashta’ towards Jangalapalls A-1 to A-7 came out of the house of A-6 and A-7. A-1 to A-3 were armed with axes, A-4, A-5, A-6 and A-7, with stout sticks. "Seeing the 7 accused emerge out from the house of A-6 and A-7 P.Ws.1, 2 and the deceased turned back to escape, but, before they could make any attempt to escape or run, P.Ws. 1 and 2 saw A-8 to A-16 coming out of the house of A-12. A-8, A-9, A-13 and A-15 were then armed with stout sticks and the rest A-10, A-11, A-12, A-14 and A-16 were armed with spears. As the deceased and P.Ws. 1 and 2 saw A-8 to A-16 coming out of the house of A-12. A-8, A-9, A-13 and A-15 were then armed with stout sticks and the rest A-10, A-11, A-12, A-14 and A-16 were armed with spears. As the deceased and P.Ws. 1 and 2 were surrounded from both the directions; from one direction by A-1 to A-7 and from other direction by A-8 to A-16 they remained where they were with no possibility of escape. Then A-1 gave the signal to the other accused saying "why are you still looking on without launching the attack?" and he led the attack himself cutting the deceased on his head with an axe. Then A-2 and A-3 who were also aimed with axes cut the deceased on his head. The rest of the accused indiscriminately beat him with sticks and spears. When P.W.2 intervened, A-13 beat him, and when P.W. 1 intervened, A-9 beat him on his forehead which caused a bleeding injury. P.W. I then ran away from the scene of occurrence, while the attack on the deceased was still in progress, to the house of the deceased which is about 100 yards away and told P.W. 3, the mother of the deceased and then went to the house of the Village Munsif and waited there for him. The unhappy mother, P.W. 3 ran to the scene weeping and fell over and wailed over the prostrate and dying deceased. She saw P.W. 2 lying there with injuries and A-1 to A-16 standing there armed with weapons (already mentioned by us). A-1, A-2 asked A-15 to get a basket and to cut and take away the had of the deceased. Accordingly, A-15 brought a knife and baske from a house nearby and approached the deceased. P.W. 3 fell over the head and begged the accused not to cut and take away the head. All the accused then went away with their weapons towards Gotlur Rastha. The Village Munsif arrived at his house later at 11 a.m. and recorded Exhibit P-1 from P.W. 1, came to the scene of occurrence, saw the dead body of the deceased and sent up his printed reports together with Exhibit P-1 and a copy of it to the station house Officer, Chagalamarri and to the Court of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate at Allagadda. The Magistrate received the reports at 4-45 p.m. the same day. The Magistrate received the reports at 4-45 p.m. the same day. P.W. 15, the Head Constable of Chagalamarri Police Station even before he received Exhibit P-1 and the printed report from the Village Munsif arrived at the scene of occurrence by 1-30 p.m. as he was told by P.W. 7 that Arsireddy was stabbed and there was still disturbance at Nelampad. The Head Constable immediately made an entry Exhibit P-25 in the General Diary to the same effect and proceeded to the scene of occurrence accompanied by his constables. On reaching the scene of occurrence, he held an inquest over the dead body of the deceased and examined P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 9 at the inquest and sent the corpse of the deceased to P.W. 10 the Medical Officer in charge of the Local Fund Dispensary at Allagadda for post mortem examination, through P.W. 3, a constable. He also sent the two injured witnesses. P.Ws. 1 and 2 for examination and treatment to the same Medical Officer. Meanwhile, the Sub-Inspector of Police (P.W. 16) who was at Nandayal and heard rumour about this occurrence proceeded to the scene of occurrence along with his Inspector and (P.W. 17) and Deputy Superintendent of Police, reaching there by about 8 p.m. the same day on 5th January, 1964. The Inspector of Police, P.W. 17, then verified the investigation already made by the Head Constable P.W. 15. The investigation was later handed over to P.W. 18, the Inspector, C.I.D. Crime Branch, Hyderabad and after completing the investigation, he laid the charge-sheet on 28th January, 1964, in the Court of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Allagadda. The learned Magistrate committed the 16 accused A-1 to A-16 to take their trial in the Court of Session, Kurnool and the Additional Sessions Judge to whose file it was made over by the Sessions Judge, framed the charges and tried the accused and acquitted the accused of the charges framed against them. Hence the appeal by the State of Andhra Pradesh. Mr. Jayachandra Reddy, the Additional Public Prosecutor has contended that the Additional Sessions Judge erred in holding that P.W. 1 is a partisan-witness, that the reasons given by the lower Court in rejecting the direct testimony of the two eye-witnesses, P.Ws. 1 and 2 who were also injured at the time of occurrence are utenable, and that the evidence of P.Ws. Jayachandra Reddy, the Additional Public Prosecutor has contended that the Additional Sessions Judge erred in holding that P.W. 1 is a partisan-witness, that the reasons given by the lower Court in rejecting the direct testimony of the two eye-witnesses, P.Ws. 1 and 2 who were also injured at the time of occurrence are utenable, and that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 is corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 3, the mother of the deceased, who came to the scene of occurrence while the accused were, still there. It is also, argued by him that no time was lost in giving the report Exhibiti P-1 to the Village Munsif and that the Head Constable appeared, on the scene of occurrence within four hours after the offence and examined the eye-witnesses at the inquest and that the injuries found by the Medical Officer who conducted post-mortem examination on the deceased’s body would further go to corroborate the evidence of the two eye-witnesses. In short, he has attacked the findings of the learned Additional Sessions Judge on the ground that they were not based on a proper appreciation of the facts placed before him. Mr. P. Ramachandra Reddy, the learned Counsel appearing for A-2 to A-16 and Mr. Chennakesava Reddy appearing for A-1, contended that, although the powers of the High Court to deal with an appeal against the acquittal of the accused are very wide, but in dealing with such an appeal, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused should not be lost sight of and that the findings of the trial Court reinforce such presumption and unless there are sufficient reasons, and the appellate Court should be generally slow in disturbing the findings of fact recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. It is further argued by them that P.W. 1 is the brother of an avowed partisan and P.W. 2 the other eye-witness is an avowed partisan and their evidence has to be viewed with great caution and care and in the absence of any independent or disinterested evidence, it will be wholly unsafe to base a conviction on their interested testimony. It is also contended that the report, Exhibit P-1 was not given by P.W. 1, but it was the outcome of discussion and confabulations between P.Ws. 4 and 5 who were the real authors of Exhibit P-1. It is also contended that the report, Exhibit P-1 was not given by P.W. 1, but it was the outcome of discussion and confabulations between P.Ws. 4 and 5 who were the real authors of Exhibit P-1. Adverse comment is also made on the investigation of the Head Constable alleging that he is a friend of P.W. 4 and that Exhibit P-1 was brought into existence only after his arrival at the scene of occurrence. Another contention is that the injuries found on the head of the deceased could not have been inflicted by weapons like axes with which A-1, A-2 and A-3 were Said to be armed. It is further argued by Mr. Chennakesava Reddy that the first accused belongs to a different village Uppalur in Cuddapah District and that he was not present at the scene of occurrence and that as he happened to be the leader of the faction, he has been falsely implicated. In short, it is the case of the defence Counsel that the two eye-witnesses P.Ws. 1 and a falsely implicated all the accused on account of bitter enmity and ascribed major roles to A-1, A-2 and A-3 in the attack on the deceased, as these three accused happened to be the leaders. Therefore, it is necessary to scan the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, more specially the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 and see whether the findings given by the trial Court are given on a proper appreciation of the evidence and whether there are justifiable grounds for this Court to come to a conclusion different from that of the trial Judge. There cannot be any dispute for the proposition that the High Court while exercising its appellate powers and re-assessing or reviewing the evidence in the case of an appeal against acquittal should never lose sight of the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and certainly that presumption is not weakened by reason of the appeal. The right of the accused to the bene it of reasonable doubt is always there and the appellate Court should be slow or hesitant to disturb the findings of fact arrived by the trial Judge, unless such findings of fact are not warranted or plainly unsound or in conflict with the evidence on record. The right of the accused to the bene it of reasonable doubt is always there and the appellate Court should be slow or hesitant to disturb the findings of fact arrived by the trial Judge, unless such findings of fact are not warranted or plainly unsound or in conflict with the evidence on record. To quote the House of Lords in Watt or Thomas v. Thomas1, "the appellate Court, is however, free to reverse his conclusions if the grounds given by him therefor are unsatisfactory by reason of material in consistencies or in accuracies or if it appears unmistakably from the evidence that, in reaching them he has not taken proper advantage of having seen and heard the witnesses or has failed to appreciate the weight and bearing of circumstances admitted or proved." The Supreme Court, in M.G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra2, after referring to its earlier decisions laid down what should be the correct approach which the High Court must adopt in disposing of appeals against acquittals: "Thus, though the powers of the High Court in dealing with an appeal against acquittal are as wide as those which it has in dealing with an appeal against conviction, in dealing with the former class of appeals, its approach is governed by the overriding consideration following from the prosumption of innocence. Some times, the width of the power is emphasised, while on other occasions, the necessity to adopt a cautious approach in dealing with appeals against acquittals is emphasised and the emphasis is expressed in different words or phrases used from time to time. But the true legal position is that however circumspect and cautious the approach of the High Court may be in dealing with appeal against acquittals, it is undoubtedly entitled to reach its own conclusions upon the evidence adduced by the prosecution in respect of the guilt or innocence of the accused." Bearing in mind the approach indicated by the Supreme Court, let us scrutinise the evidence. On a consideration of the entire evidence their Lordships held: "It is impossible to find in villages torn with factions to get wholly independent witnesses who have no sympathies with either of the parties. All that is required is that their evidence has to be weighed with caution and care and to see whether or not the story disclosed by them is true. All that is required is that their evidence has to be weighed with caution and care and to see whether or not the story disclosed by them is true. The Supreme Court in Masalti v. State of Uttar Pradesh1, has stated, how the evidence of partisan witnesses should be appreciated in a criminal trial: "There is no doubt that when a criminal Court has to appreciate evidence given by witnesses who are partisan or interested, it has to be very careful in weighing such evidence. Whether or not there are discrepancies in the evidence; whether or not evidence strikes the Court as genuine; whether or not the story disclosed by the evidence is probable, are all matters which must be taken into account. But it would be unreasonable to contend that evidence given by witnesses should be discarded only on the ground that it is evidence of partisan or interested witnesses. Often enough, where factions prevail in villages and murders are committed as a result of enmity between such factions, criminal Courts have to deal with evidence of a partisan type. The mechanical rejection of such evidence on the sole ground that it is partisan would invariably lead to failure of justice. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to how such evidence should be appreciated. Judicial approach has to be cautious in dealing with such evidence; but the plea that such evidence should be rejected because it is partisan cannot be accepted as correct." In another case Ugar Ahir v. State of Bihar2, Subba Rao, J. (as he then was) speaking for the Court, observed: " The maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in every thing) is neither a sound rule of law nor a rule of practice. Hardly one comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggerations, embroideries or embellishments. It is, therefore, the duty of the Court to scrutinise the evidence carefully, and, in terms of the felicitous metaphor, separate the grain from the chaff. Hardly one comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggerations, embroideries or embellishments. It is, therefore, the duty of the Court to scrutinise the evidence carefully, and, in terms of the felicitous metaphor, separate the grain from the chaff. But it cannot obviously disbelieve the substratum of the prosecution case or the material parts of the evidence and reconstruct a story of its own out of the rest." Therefore, there is no doubt from what their Lordships have laid down that it is difficult, if not impossible, to find a witness who could be wholly termed disinterested or independent in a village torn for decades with bitter factions and the criminal Courts have a difficult job in dealing with such evidence. There could be no mechanical rejection of such evidence on the sole ground that it is from a partisan witness or that the witnesses are related to the partisans as that would invariably lead to failure of justice. As pointed out by Subba Rao, J., (as he then Was) one hardly comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggeration and it is the duty of the Court to scrutinise the evidence carefully and separate the grain from the chaff. Our learned brother Basi Reddy, J., speaking for a Division Bench consisting of Bhimasankaram, J., and himself in Re Venkata Reddy3 has dealt with the question of appreciation of evidence in criminal cases where there is absence of disinterested evidence: "To insist on independent evidence in faction cases, is to ask for the impossible. It is a matter of common knowledge that in cases arising out of acute factions as a rule, persons unconnected with either faction, do not care or dare to come forward as witnesses lest they should incur the wrath of the other party. At the same time, in such cases (especially in cases coming from the Districts of Rayalaseema) there is an incurable tendency in witnesses to rope in the innocent along with the guilty, not so much out of personal animosity but in the hope of furthering the interests of the faction. At the same time, in such cases (especially in cases coming from the Districts of Rayalaseema) there is an incurable tendency in witnesses to rope in the innocent along with the guilty, not so much out of personal animosity but in the hope of furthering the interests of the faction. To guard against the danger of condemning innocent persons on perjured testimony, it is imperative that evidence should be scrutinised with more than ordinary care and in particular, sweeping statements and wholesale implications should be received with the utmost caution.“ To the same effect a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Satyanarayana Raju, J. (as he then was) and one of us (Anantanarayana Ayyar, J.) In Re Narayana1 observed: ”Where the occurrence is the outcome of a very acute faction existing in the village one faction siding the deceased and the other, the accused, it is necessary to be quite sure not only that the witnesses who speak to the occurrence can be trusted to state the truth but also that they were in a position to see exactly who each one of the assailants was, because the danger in all such cases is that if that is not certainly known, early steps will be taken to implicate persons of the opposite party who are either likely to have committed the offence or whose implication would be regarded as a benefit to the other side. Where the eye-witnesses to the occurrence are interested persons, their evidence can be adequately corroborated by circumstances. The credibility of a witness depends upon his knowledge of the facts he testifies to, his disinterestedness his integrity, and how he has stood the test of cross-examination.“ We have carefully considered the evidence having regard to the aforesaid decisions and we are of opinion that P.W. 1 is not a partisan witness, although his brother was a partisan. To ask for a wholly independent or disinterested witness in villages where the factions are in existence for decades is to ask for the impossible. The only way is to sift, weigh or assess the evidence with utmost care and caution and see whether the witnesses have attempted to rope in the innocent, while leaving the guilty or whether there is any personal animosity between the witnesses and the persons implicated in the crime. The only way is to sift, weigh or assess the evidence with utmost care and caution and see whether the witnesses have attempted to rope in the innocent, while leaving the guilty or whether there is any personal animosity between the witnesses and the persons implicated in the crime. We are not able to find any personal animosity so far as P.W. 1 is concerned, and, as already pointed out by us, there is nothing to suggest that any time he concerned himself in the village faction in any manner whatsoever. So far as P.W. 2 is concerned, he is undoubtedly a partisan witness but we are unable to agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the defence that he has chosen the leaders A-1, A-2 and A-3 for ascribing them the prominent role in the attack on the deceased. It should be remembered that P.W. 2 figured as an accused in the case relating to A-11’s son’s murder and the natural’ course of human conduct would be to give a prominent role to his enemy like A-11 and not to A-1, A-2 and A-3. Therefore we are placing reliance on his evidence and the fact that he is a partisan witness is no ground for rejecting his testimony. From the aforesaid findings it is established that there was an unlawful assembly. What remains to be considered is the common object of the unlawful assembly and the charges framed against the accused. The expression”common object means purpose, intention or design of all the persons involved in the commission of the offence. There must be a community of purpose and the common object can be ascertained from the presence or participation of each of the accused and also the knowledge possessed by each member of the unlawful assembly of what is to be committed in prosecution or furtherance of the common object. It is also important to bear in mind that the unlawful assembly which should consist of 5 or more members did not contain mere spectators or way-farers who had joined the assembly as a matter of idle curiosity without being concerned with the intention or design or the common object of the unlawful assembly. It is also important to bear in mind that the unlawful assembly which should consist of 5 or more members did not contain mere spectators or way-farers who had joined the assembly as a matter of idle curiosity without being concerned with the intention or design or the common object of the unlawful assembly. Section 149, Indian Penal Code lays down that, if an offence is committed by any member of the unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly or such of the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object every person who at the time of committing of that offence is a member of that same assembly, is guilty of that offence. Therefore, this section is applicable to all those who share the common object and participate in the commission of the offence. So far as the present occurrence is concerned, it is argued by the learned Public Prosecutor (Mr. Jayachandra Reddy) that the common object could be determined only from the nature of the weapons used by the accused, the injuries inflated by them and the manner in which the attack was launched. A-8 to A-16 came out from A-10’s house and A-1 to A-7 came out of A-7’s house. Although it is stated that A-10, A-11, A-12, A-14 and A-16 were armed with spears, neither P.W. 1 nor P.W. 2 has stated that spear as such was used by any one of them on the deceased. They only stated that after A-1, A-2 and A-3 attacked the deceased the rest of them started beating him indiscriminately with sticks and spears. In addition to this fact, A-9, beat P.W. 1 only with a stick and similarly P.W. 2 was beaten by A-8, A-10, A-11, A-13 and A-15 with sticks. Although A-11 was armed with spear according to P.W. 2, he used only the stick portion of the spear and hit him on his left ribs. It is also relevant to notice that these accused were not in the house of A-7 along with A-1 to A-7. Although A-4, A-5, A-6 and A-7 were said to be armed with ‘Pattudu Kattelu,‘no specific overt acts are attributed to them and except injuries 1, 2, 3 and 16, the rest of them could have been caused, as opined by the Medical Officer, with blunt objects like sticks. Although A-4, A-5, A-6 and A-7 were said to be armed with ‘Pattudu Kattelu,‘no specific overt acts are attributed to them and except injuries 1, 2, 3 and 16, the rest of them could have been caused, as opined by the Medical Officer, with blunt objects like sticks. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, we are unable to say that the common , object of the unlawful assembly was to commit the murder of the deceased Arsireddy. In our opinion, the common object was to attack and cause to the deceased grievous hurt. The other members of the unlawful assembly did not share the intention of A-1, A-2 and A-3 and each of the three fatal injuries on the head was inflicted by each of the accused A-1, A-2 and A-3 and each of the three fatal injuries on the head was inflicted by each of the accused A-1, A-2 and A-3. The rest of the accused launched the attack only after he fell down. It is from these facts and circumtances we are inclined to take the view that the common object of the unlawful assembly was not to cause the death of the deceased, but was only to cause grievous hurt and A-1, A-2 and A-3 are alone directly liable for causing the murder of the deceased Arsireddy. The next question that arises for consideration is whether it is safe to hold that all the 16 accused were members of the unlawful assembly. So far as A-4, A-6 and A-7 are concerned, no overt acts are ascribed to them and they had not even participated in the attack on P.Ws. 1 and 2. There is always bound to be some exaggeration in the evidence of the eye-witnesses. Except injuries 1,2,3 and 16, on the deceased the rest of the injuries could be caused by blunt weapons like sticks. The opinion of the Medical Officer regarding the injuries is this: “The external injuries 1 to 3 could be caused by a sharp-edged weapon like an axe or butcher’s knife. No. 16 could be caused by a sharp-edged weapon like a spear. Nos. 8, 12 and 15 lacerated injuries could have been caused with a blunt weapon like stick. The rest of the injuries contusions or abrasions could be caused by a ‘blunt weapen like stick’”. According to P.Ws. No. 16 could be caused by a sharp-edged weapon like a spear. Nos. 8, 12 and 15 lacerated injuries could have been caused with a blunt weapon like stick. The rest of the injuries contusions or abrasions could be caused by a ‘blunt weapen like stick’”. According to P.Ws. 1 and 2, A-8, A-9, A-10, A-11 A-13 and A-15 have used sticks in attacking them and also in the attack on the deceased That accounts for the injuries other than injuries 1, 2, 3 and 16. No overt act as already pointed out, are attributed to A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7, A-12, A-14 and. A-16. Therefore, in a case of rioting of this nature, where sixteen persons are made to face the trial ,it would be extremely unsafe to rely upon a sweeping statement of witnesses that these accused viz., A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7, A-12, A-14 and A-16 also participated in the attack on the deceased. It is unlikely in the confusion that prevailed immediately after A-1, A-2 and A-3 attacked the deceased that they (P.W. 1 and P.W. 2) could have noticed the particupation of the aforesaid seven accused. There could be no doubt about the participation of A-8. A-9, A-10, A-11, A-13 and A-15 due to the fact that A-9 inflicted an injury on P.W. 1 and the rest attacked P.W. 2 when they intervened. To that extent, the presence and participation of A-8, A-9, A-10, A-11, A-13 and A-15 along with A-1, A-2 and A-3 is established. In this process, We have separated truth from falsehood, after careful scrutiny and assessment of the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2. If we are giving the benefit of doubt as to the presence and participation of A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7, A-12 A-14 and A-16, it is not due to the reason that we have doubted the testimony P.Ws. 1 and 2 but only for the reason that a cautious and careful approach is necessary and we should be quite sure about their presence and participation. Therefore, we find A-1, A-2 and A-3 who were armed with axes guilty under section 48, Indian Penal Code, and convict them under section 148 Indian Penal Code, and sentence each of them to R. I. for two years. Therefore, we find A-1, A-2 and A-3 who were armed with axes guilty under section 48, Indian Penal Code, and convict them under section 148 Indian Penal Code, and sentence each of them to R. I. for two years. There is no satisfactory evidence to show the kind or type of sticks used by A-8, A-9, A-10, A-11 A-13 and A-15 although it is stated by P.Ws. 1 and 2 that they were armed with stoat sticks There is of course one injury No. 16 which is an incised injury, but it is difficult to say which of the accused was armed with a spear. We therefore think it safe and proper to convict them under section 147, Indian Penal Code. A-8, A-9 A-10 A-11, A-13 and A-15 are accordingly convicted under the first charge and sentenced to one year R. I. each. Under the second charge, we find A-1, A-2 and A-3alone guilty and convict them under section 302, Indian Penal Code, and sentence each of them to undergo imprisonment for life. Under the third charge, we find A-1 A-2, A-3, A-8, A-10, A-11, A-13, A-15 guilty and convict them under section 326 and 149, Indian Penal Code, and sentence each of them to three years’ R.I. Under the fourth charge, we convict A-13 under section 325, Indian Penal Code and sentence him to R. I. for two years. Under the fifth charge, A-1 to A-3 A-8, A-9, A-10, A-11 and A-15 are made constructively liable and convicted under sections 325 and 149, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to two years’ R.I. each Under the sixth charge, we find A-8, A-10, A-11, A-15 guilty and convict them under section 323, Indian Penal Code, but in view of the fact that the accused are convicted under the first charge for rioting, no separate sentences are considered necessary. Under the seventh charge, we convict A-1, A-2, A-3, A-9 A-13 under section 323 read with section 149, Indian Penal Code, but award no separate sentences for the same reason. Under the eighth charge, A-9 is found guilty and is accordingly convicted under section 323, Indian Penal Code, but it is not necessary to award any separate sentence. Under the seventh charge, we convict A-1, A-2, A-3, A-9 A-13 under section 323 read with section 149, Indian Penal Code, but award no separate sentences for the same reason. Under the eighth charge, A-9 is found guilty and is accordingly convicted under section 323, Indian Penal Code, but it is not necessary to award any separate sentence. Under the ninth charge, A-1 A-2 A-3 A-8 A-10, A-11, A-13 A-15 are held constructively liable and convicted under sections’ 323 and 149 Indian Penal Code, but no separate sentences are awarded for the reason that they have already been sentenced under the first charge The sentences awarded will run concurrently. A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7, A-12, A-14 and A-16 are acquitted of all the charges. Appeal against acquittal is allowed to the extent shown above. G.S.M. ----- Appeal allowed in part.