Narasimham, J.- The nine accused in Sessions Case No. 11 of 1964 in the Court of Session, Cuddappah, are the appellants. They are convicted and sentenced as follows: A-1 to A-9 convicted under section 148 Indian Penal Code and each of them sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and further convicted under section 302 read with sections 34 and 149 India Penal Code and each of them sentenced to imprisonment for life; A-3 convicted under section 323 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for 6 months; A-1, A-2 and A-4 to A-9 convicted under section 323 read with section 149 Indian Penal Code and each of them sentenced to R.I. for 6 months; A-2, A-4, A-7 and A-9 convicted under section 323 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and each of them sentenced to R.I. for 6 months; A-8 convicted under section 323 read with section 149 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for 6 months; A-3 convicted under section 325 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for 2 years; and A-2, A-5 and A-6 convicted under section 325 read with section 34 Indian Penal Code and each of them sentenced to R.I. for 2 years. The said accused were charged with having committed the said offences in prosecution of their common object at about morning meal time on 19th October, 1963, near the Ramaswami temple in the village of Seethampalle, Proddatur Taluk, when they killed one China Venkata Subbanna alias Chevitanna of Ramadaspuram and caused injuries to P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4. Accused 1, 2 and 6 to 9 are Upparas and are related to each other. Accused 3, 4 and 5 are Kapus who have close associations with the Upparas as A-3 and A-4 married Uppara women. The deceased was also an Uppara. There was quarrel between the deceased Chevitanna on the one side and A-3 and A-4, their brother Narayana and father Bandi Subbanna on the other about 4 days prior to the occurrence because Chevitanna planted a sapling of a Sunkesula tree in his hayyard. The said accused persons and other members of their family objected saying that the site where Chevitanna planted the sapling belonged to them and pulled out the sapling. Claiming that the site belonged to him, Chevitanna once again planted the sapling. The said accused persons and other members of their family objected saying that the site where Chevitanna planted the sapling belonged to them and pulled out the sapling. Claiming that the site belonged to him, Chevitanna once again planted the sapling. Thereupon the said accused became angry, and saying how Chevitanna dared replant the sapling which they had removed, brandished the weapons that they had. The 4th accused, who had a ‘Betchu Goddali’ (an axe), cut on the left ring fingure of Chevitanna. P.Ws. 1 to 4, who were then present, sided Chevitanna. The said accused left the place threatening what fate awaited Chevitanna. The said dispute is said to be the motive for the occurrence. Chevitanna complined to the Shrotriemdar, who lived at Yerraguntapalli (P.W. 6) who said that he would decide as to who was the owner of the site where the sapling was planted. On the day of occurrence early in the morning P.W. 6 had sent for Chevitanna. Chevitanna went to him at 6-30. a.m. P.Ws. 1 and 2 accompanied him. But that day P.W. 6 did not decide the dispute as his son was ill and he was taking him to Proddatur. So Chevitanna and P.Ws. 1 and 2 were returning from Yerraguntapalli. Chevitanna was walking a few paces ahead of P.Ws. 1 and 2. When Chevitanna reached the Sunkesula tree close to the house of P.W. 2 and the temple of Ramaswami, A-1 to A-9 came out of the house of A-6 closely armed with spears and surrounded him. They stabbed on both the legs of Chevitanna as a result of which he fell down. The accused then beat Chevitanna with the stick portions of their spears. P.Ws. 1 and 2 tried to intervene. The 3rd accused dealt a blow with the stick portion of his spear on the right shoulder of P.W. 2. A-1, A-3, A-5 and A-6 turned to assault P.W. 1 who ran away and hid himself in the paddy fields for a while. When he returned later to the scene of occurrence he saw Chevitanna lying unconscious near the Sunkesula tree. P.W. 3, who saw Chevitanna being beaten, tried to shield Chevitanna by falling on him, A-2 dragged her away and beat her with the left hand. A-4, A-7, and A-9 beat her with the stick portions of the spears. When he returned later to the scene of occurrence he saw Chevitanna lying unconscious near the Sunkesula tree. P.W. 3, who saw Chevitanna being beaten, tried to shield Chevitanna by falling on him, A-2 dragged her away and beat her with the left hand. A-4, A-7, and A-9 beat her with the stick portions of the spears. P.W. 4, the elder brother of P.W. 1, came there abusing the accused. Then A-2, A-3, A-5 and A-6 beat him with the stick portions of the spears. Then all the accused left in a body. The occurrence was also witnessed by P.W. 5. Chevitanna was unconscious. He was carried to P.W. 2’s house which was nearby. The injured also went there. The Village Munsif resided in Pallavolu about 2½ miles from the village; but nobody proceeded to inform him of the occurrence on account of fear of the accused. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Proddatur Taluk Police Station, said that he had information of the occurrence some time on the afternoon of 19th October, 1963 and collected a party of armed reserve and arrived at Seetampalli at 2-20 p.m. He saw Chevitanna with bleeding injuries, which appeared to be fresh, in the house of P.W. 2. He was unconscious. He saw P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 with injuries. The took a report of the occurence from P. W. 1, Exhibit P-1 and made an endorsement thereon at 4-15 p.m. directing P.W. 12 attached to the Taluk Police Station to register a case, which P.W. 12 did under sections 147, 148, 324, 326 and 302 Indian Penal Code and despatched express reports. He also examined the other injured persons and sent them on to the Government Hospital, Proddatur, in a Police van with a requisition to the Medical Officer to examine the injured. Then he proceeded to the scene of occurrence and seized the blood-stained stones (M.O. 5) under a mahazar, Exhibit P-27. The accused were absent. He drew a rough sketch of the scene of occurrence, Exhibit P-28. Next he proceeded to Proddatur and saw the dead body of Chevitanna in the mortuary. Chevitanna had died before reaching the Hospital. He held an inquest over the dead body from 7 a.m. to 9-45 a.m. (Exhibit P-29 is the inquest report) and issued a requisition for post-mortem. He drew a rough sketch of the scene of occurrence, Exhibit P-28. Next he proceeded to Proddatur and saw the dead body of Chevitanna in the mortuary. Chevitanna had died before reaching the Hospital. He held an inquest over the dead body from 7 a.m. to 9-45 a.m. (Exhibit P-29 is the inquest report) and issued a requisition for post-mortem. The post-mortem over the body of the deceased was conducted by P.W. 9, the Woman Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Proddatur. She commenced the post-mortem at 9-45 a.m. on 20th October, 1963. Rigor Mortis was present in all parts of the body. Death appeared to have occurred about 16 hours prior to the examination. She saw the following injuries; (1) Sub-conjunctural haemorrhages in both eyes; (2) Abarsion over the outer side of the left fore-arm; (3) Three abrasions on the outer aspect of the left elbow; (4) A contusion with abrasion about 2“x 3” on the left side of the chest in the mid-clavicular line; (5) An abrasion in the lower part of the right leg; (6) An abrasion in the lower part of the right chest; (7) Multiple abrasions in the posterior aspect of the right elbow; (8) An oblique incised injury on the front of the right leg about 2½"x 1" x ½". Anterior tibial vessels and nerve were cut resulting in severe bleeding. (9) Two irregular abrasions on the left knee; (10) An incised injury about 1” x ¼” x ¼” in the middle of the front part of the left leg; (11) An abrasion over the left shoulder joint about 3½” x 3½”. (12) An old incised injury over the left ring finger. The deceased had died of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries. Exhibit P-17 is the post-mortem certificate. The incised injuries could have been caused by a sharp edged weapon like a spear. The 8th injury had resulted in extensive haemorrhage, and was sufficient by itself to cause death in the ordinary course of nature if unattended. Abrasions Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 11 could be caused by blunt weapons like sticks. A contusion with an abrasion could have been caused by a rough stone. The same Medical Officer examined P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 on 19th October, 1963. She examined P.W. 4 at 6-15 p.m. and P.Ws. Abrasions Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 11 could be caused by blunt weapons like sticks. A contusion with an abrasion could have been caused by a rough stone. The same Medical Officer examined P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 on 19th October, 1963. She examined P.W. 4 at 6-15 p.m. and P.Ws. 2 and 3 at about 6-30 p.m. P.W. 2 was found with an abrasion over the posterior aspect of the right shoulder. It was a simple injury which could have been caused by a blunt object like a stick. Exhibit P-19 is the wound certificate that she issued. P.W. 3 was found with contusions on the left side of the scalp, on the right ring finger and over the left thigh and right hip joint, and abrasions over the dorsum of the left hand and over the back below the chest. There was swelling below the left eye. AH the injuries were simple and could have been caused by blunt weapons like sticks. Exhibit P-20 is the wound certificate that she issued. P.W. 4 was found with a grievous injury, viz., fracture of the bones of the lef fore-arm and with 8 simple injuries; and incised injury over the front of the right leg; and incised injury over the frontal bone; a lacerated injury over the posterior aspect of the scalp; a small incised injury over the posterior aspect of the scalp; a contusion over the dorsum of the right hand; and contusion over the left shoulder; swelling of the left knee and left leg; and two abrasions over the back. Exhibit P-18 is the wound certificate that she issued. Injuries 1, 3 and 5 could have been caused by sharp weapons like spears and the rest could have been caused by blunt weapons like sticks. The Investigating Officer arrested A-1 on 7th November, 1963 and A-3 and A-4 on 17th December, 1963. He laid the charge sheet on 19th November, 1963. A-2 and A-5 to A-9 surrendered before the Magistrate on 10th December, 1963. On examination of the stones collected at the scene of occurrence (M.O. 5) the Serologist reported that they were stained with human blood, Exhibits P-24 and P-25. The accused denied that they had caused injuries to the deceased and P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4. A-2 and A-5 to A-9 surrendered before the Magistrate on 10th December, 1963. On examination of the stones collected at the scene of occurrence (M.O. 5) the Serologist reported that they were stained with human blood, Exhibits P-24 and P-25. The accused denied that they had caused injuries to the deceased and P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4. A-3 and A-4 stated that when Chevitanna planted a Sunkesula sapling, they had asked Chevitanna not to plant it and that after pulling it out they went away. They did not fight in that connection. They denied that the deceased and P.Ws. 1 and 2 went to the house of P.W. 6 at Yerraguntapalli on the morning on 19th October, 1963 and also that their father and brother were there a the time. The accused also denied that they were absconding. We would first consider the attack on the deceased. The medical evidence shows conclusively that Chevitanna succumbed to the injuries caused to him. The evidence is that he was beaten at about 10 a.m. He became unconscious and died without regaining consciousness the same evening. A complete account of the attack on the deceased was given by P.Ws. 1 and 2 who were accompanying him at the material time and P.W. 5. P.W. 3 witnessed only a part of the beating. P.W. 4 came on the scene later abusing the accused and he was beaten. P.Ws. 2 and 3 were beaten when they intervened. The account of the attack as stated by P.W. 1 is that the accused came out of the house of A-6 and surrounded Chevittanna. They stabbed on both the legs of Chevitanna. As a result, Chavitanna fell down. The accused then belaboured Chevitanna with the stick portions of the spears. P.Ws. 1 and 2 tried to intervene. The 3rd accused beat P.W. 2 and some of the accused came to assault P.W. 1 and so he ran away for shelter. P.W. 3 intervened trying to shield Chevitanna by falling on him. She was dragged away and beaten. P.W. 4 came on the scene later abusing and protesting, and he was beaten and all the accused left the place and went away in a body. P.Ws. 1, 2 and 5 gave a consistent version and P.Ws. 3 and 4 related the occurrence from the time they came on the scene. She was dragged away and beaten. P.W. 4 came on the scene later abusing and protesting, and he was beaten and all the accused left the place and went away in a body. P.Ws. 1, 2 and 5 gave a consistent version and P.Ws. 3 and 4 related the occurrence from the time they came on the scene. The main comment against the evidence of the witnesses is that they were related to the deceased. It is true that they were closely related. But mere relationship is not sufficient to discredit the witnesses. It cannot be said that they are interested in implicating the accused falsely. What the Supreme Court observed in Dalip Singh and others v. State of Punjab1, may be aptly recalled in this context: “A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to which to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily, a close relative would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true, when feeling run high and there is personal causes for enmity, that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere facts of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth.” The occurrence is not the outcome of any factious feelings. There is no evidence of any ill-feelings prior to the dispute about the site where the Sunkesula sapling was planted four days prior to the occurrence. A-3 and A-4 and their father and brother threatened the deceased what fate awaited him. Four days later the deceased was attacked in the manner stated by the occurrence witnesses. It was also adversely commented that it is doubtful if the deceased was beaten near the Sunkesula tree because the Medical Officer deposed that the incised injuries Nos. 8 and 10 caused to the deceased bled profusely but the Investigating Officer did not see much blood there. It may be recalled that P.W. 13 stated that he seized a few blood-stained stones which were later certified to be stained with human blood. The learned Sessions Judge dealt with this adverse comment in para. 8 and 10 caused to the deceased bled profusely but the Investigating Officer did not see much blood there. It may be recalled that P.W. 13 stated that he seized a few blood-stained stones which were later certified to be stained with human blood. The learned Sessions Judge dealt with this adverse comment in para. 88 of his judgment. He observed that some time elapsed between the removal of the injured from the scene of occurrence and the arrival of the Police and during the period it was possible that the blood-stains were obliterated by trampling or by covering with fresh earth. The occurrence had taken place on a road and so the learned Sessions Judge’s view is not unreasonable. The learned Counsel argued that possibly the deceased, who was a Neeruganti of the village, had other enemies who were aggrieved by what he did as a Neeruganti in the matter of adjusting water in the Krishna canal for irrigation and he might have been the victim of an attack elsewhere. We do not think that we could exclude positive evidence as to how and where the occurrence took place, by surmises The learned Counsel commented that the occurrence was not reported to the Village Munsif and that Exhibit P-1 was taken from P.W. 1 by the Sub-Inspector of Police at about 2 p.m. when the occurrence had taken place at about 10 a.m. We do not think that there is anything suspicious in the matter of giving a report at about 2 p.m. The Village Munsif lived elsewhere 2½miles away and the witnesses said that they were afraid of the accused to venture out. The manner of attack could have made the witnesses panciky and that accounted for the omission to report to the Village Munsif earlier. Exhibit P-1 states the particulars of the dispute about the site where the Sunkesula sapling was planted by the deceased four days before and the material facts of the occurrence. It is commented that P.W. 5 was not mentioned therein as an eye-witness, and so it is doubtful if he was a witness. Exhibit P-1 states the particulars of the dispute about the site where the Sunkesula sapling was planted by the deceased four days before and the material facts of the occurrence. It is commented that P.W. 5 was not mentioned therein as an eye-witness, and so it is doubtful if he was a witness. We do not think that in the circumstances of this case we could discredit the presence of P.W. 5 as his presence was not mentioned in Exhibit P-l. It may be recalled that it was P.W. 5 who informed P.W. 4 that Chevitanna was being beaten, and on that information P.W. 4 rushed to the scene and he was set upon and beaten. Further it is not as if the prosecution was casting about for an additional eye-witness to speak to the facts of the occurrence. The defence further commented that independent residents of the locality have not been examined as witnesses. The evidence of P.W. 1 is that thers were about 80 houses in Seetampalli, and none of the inmates of these houses came to the scene of offence. The Investigating Officer said that in the course of investigation he examined the neighbours of the scene of offence. Read together the evidence would show that the material witnesses were not kept out. P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 have spoken to the dispute about the site where Chevitanna had planted a ‘Sunkesula’ sapling four days prior to the occurrence. P.W. 6, the Shrotriemdar of Yerraguntapalli has deposed that he told Chevitanna hat he would send for the Karnam and decide to whom the site where the ‘Sunkesula’ sapling was planted belonged. That was on the previous day. The following day the occurrence took place. A-3 and A-4 said that Chevitanna had planted the ‘Sunkesula’ sapling, and that they had objected and had gone away after pulling it out, but there was no fight in that connection. There can be no doubt that there was a dispute four days prior to the occurrence and that A-3 and A-4 had taken it very seriously. On that occasion, A-4 had caused hurt to Chevitanna with a ‘Bechu Goddali’ (axe). The learned Counsel commented that the motive suggested by this incident was too insufficient for attacking the deceased. We do not think so. The sufficiency of a motive has to be adjudged in relation to persons affected by the incident. On that occasion, A-4 had caused hurt to Chevitanna with a ‘Bechu Goddali’ (axe). The learned Counsel commented that the motive suggested by this incident was too insufficient for attacking the deceased. We do not think so. The sufficiency of a motive has to be adjudged in relation to persons affected by the incident. The evidence is cogent and clear that A-3 and A-4 and their brother and father threatened Chevitanna when he replanted the sapling which they pulled out saying; what fate awaited him. A-4 had caused him hurt with a ‘Bechu Goddali’. That is verified by the testimony of the Medical Officer, P.W. 9 with reference to injury No. 12 on the left ring finger. All these accused had a bond partly of association and partly of relationship and therefore had a motive to attack Chevitanna. They appeared to have made up their mind to attack the deceased partly because of the dispute about the site where the sapling was planted and partly because Chevitanna had replanted the sapling which they pulled out, which manifestly had been taken as an insult. The presence of P.Ws. 2,3 and 4 the injured persons, cannot possibly be doubted. We have also no reason to doubt the presence of P.Ws. 1 and 5. We have already noticed that P.W. 1 was the first informant and had stated in his first report the material facts of the occurrence. He named all the accused as the persons who attacked Chevitanna and the witnesses. The witnesses were examined as soon as investigation was taken up. Their version has been consistent at all material times. We find nothing substantial to affect their testimony. The learned Sessions Judge considered the evidence as reliable and trustworthy and we have no reason to disagree with his view as to the credibility of their testimony. We therefore accept the testimony of these witnesses and find that it is proved beyond doubt that A-1 to A-9 attacked Chevitanna and caused him injuries as a result of which he died. The learned Counsel commented that the witnesses have not stated which of the accused hit on which part of the body and characterised their evidence as one of general implication. He therefore argued that general statements of implication should not convince the Court. We do not agree with this contention. The learned Counsel commented that the witnesses have not stated which of the accused hit on which part of the body and characterised their evidence as one of general implication. He therefore argued that general statements of implication should not convince the Court. We do not agree with this contention. The witnesses have spoken to all the 9 accused surrounding and beating Chevitanna. In such circumstances, it would be fallacious to contend that the witnesses have not stated where each of the accused hit Chevitanna. So we do not consider that the evidence is in any manner affected by the witnesses not stating which accused caused which injury. From the evidence that all the nine accused emerged with spears from the house of one of them, that they surrounded Chevitanna and attacked him and thereafter went away in a body, we could necessarily infer that they were an unlawful assembly with the common object of attacking Chevitanna. The common object with which the accused were charged was that of attacking and killing Chevitanna and his followers. The learned Counsel for the appellants had urged that the object charged could not be inferred from the evidence. Broadly speaking, a common object is a matter of inference from the facts and circumstances of each case. Each case presents its own peculiar features. To mention a few, the arms carried by the offenders, the injuries inflicted, the nature of the attack, the motive behind the attack, the extent of hostility, the utterances of the offenders prior to and during the attack, declaration of their intentions if any and such other factors figure in the ascertainment of a common object. It is manifestly a deduction from a wide range of facts and circumstances which may occur in combination or otherwise. The defence Counsel would urge that the motive urged by the prosecution was insufficient to entertain the object of killing the victim. He would further submit that although all the accused were armed with spears, all but two of them had used only the stick portions of the spears. Of the two incised injuries, the haemorrhage harmful to life resulted only from injury No. 8. Injury No. 4 which was a contusion with an abrasion on the left side of the chest caused by a heavy blow had caused shock. Of the two incised injuries, the haemorrhage harmful to life resulted only from injury No. 8. Injury No. 4 which was a contusion with an abrasion on the left side of the chest caused by a heavy blow had caused shock. The defence Counsel commented that reversing the spears and beating with the stick portions would eliminate an intention to kill. On an overall appraisal of the facts and circumstances, we feel that it is not free from doubt whether we could infer a common object to kill the deceased. But there can be no escape from the fact that we could certainly infer a common object to cause grievous hurt, viz., hurt endangering life within the meaning of section 320 (clause eight), Indian Penal Code as the accused were armed with spears which were dangerous weapons. In this view they have to be convicted of offence under section 148 and section 326 read with section 149, Indian Penal Code. In this context we may also consider whether the evidence justifies an inference that the common object was to attack and kill Chevitanna’s followers. From the evidence it is evident to us that of P.Ws. 1 and 2 who accompanied Chevitanna P.W. 2 received only a simple injury on his right shoulder. Only A-3 assaulted him. P.W. 2 stumbled into a sitting posture and he was thereafter left unmolested. P.W. 1 ran back and took shelter and he was unhurt. P.Ws. 3 and 4, who were injured, had come on the scene under circumstances which do not warrant an inference that the accused expected them there. The expression “in prosecution of the common object” occurring in section 149 has not the same meaning as during the prosecution of the common object. It shall mean that the offences committed were immediately connected with the common object of the unlawful assembly of which the accused were members. In other words, the acts must be such as upon the evidence appear to have been done with a view to accomplish the common object attributed to the members of the unlawful assembly. This eliminates the acts done beyond and de hors the attainment of the common object. If some acts are committed by someof the assembly which upon the evidence appear to be de hors the prosecution of the common object, then those acts cannot possibly be included in the common object. This eliminates the acts done beyond and de hors the attainment of the common object. If some acts are committed by someof the assembly which upon the evidence appear to be de hors the prosecution of the common object, then those acts cannot possibly be included in the common object. For these reasons, we do not think that upon the evidence we could further find that the common object was to attack and kill the followers of Chevitanna and that the attacks on P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 could be said to have taken place in pursuance of the common object of attacking and causing grievous hurt to Chevitanna. The learned Sessions Judge has slurred over these material considerations. He had not even given a finding as to what was the common object upon the evidence, though there is some discussion thereof in para. 101 of the judgment. The accused were also charged with having caused injuries to the deceased and so killed him pursuant to a common intention. This is a case where the intention to cause grievous hurt is also involved in the object to cause grievous hurt. Doubtless there is a vital difference between an object and an intention, but there are cases where they overlap. The present case is one such. That is to say, the unlawful assembly with the object to causing grievous hurt had also the common intention to cause grievous hurt which they caused. That is to say, the causing of grievous hurt intentionally was involved in the prosecution of the common object. So we may on the evidence find that A-1 to A-9 are also guilty of an offence under section 326 read with sections 34 and 149, Indian Penal Code. To this extent therefore the convictions have to be and are modified. We impose a sentence of 5 (five) years’ rigorous imprisonment on each of the accused under section 326 read with sections 34 and 149, Indian Penal Code. No separate sentences are necessary under sections 148 in view of the decision in In re Ponniah Lopes and seven others1, which is binding on us. We would now pass on to the attacks on P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4. A-3 hit P.W. 2 with the stick portion of the spear on his right shoulder. The said act of causing hurt was spoken to by P.Ws. 1, 2 and 5. We would now pass on to the attacks on P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4. A-3 hit P.W. 2 with the stick portion of the spear on his right shoulder. The said act of causing hurt was spoken to by P.Ws. 1, 2 and 5. The Medical Officer deposed to the injury which was simple. The wound certificate that she granted is Exhibit P-19. A-3 is therefore liable for this act of causing hurt himself to P.W. 2. Next there is evidence that A-2, A-4, A-7 and A-9 beat P.W. 3 with the stick portions of the spears. The victim P.W. 3 has spoken to the assault on her. She is corroborated by P.W. 2. The Medical Officer, P.W. 9, has deposed to the simple injuries found on her. The wound certificate that she granted is Exhibit P-20. In the circumstances the said accused must be held to have caused hurt pursuant to their common intention. Accused 2, 4, 7 and 9 are as such liable for the hurt caused by themselves to P.W. 3. Next we have evidence that A-2, A-3, A-5 and A-6 beat P.W. 4 with the stick portions of their spears. The victim P.W. 4 has spoken to this assault on him. He is corroborated by P.Ws. 2, 3 and 5. In the circumstances it is a necessary inference that they acted in pursuance of a common intention. A-3 caused grievous hurt himself by fracturing both the bones of the left fore-arm. A-3 would be liable for the grievous hurt caused by himself and the others would be liable for voluntarily causing grievous hurt as they acted in pursuance of their common intention. In our discussion we have ruled that the attacks on P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 could not be in prosecution of the common object found by us upon the evidence. There would therefore be no liability for the accused other than the actual assailants for the aforesaid offences. The convictions and the sentences passed on the other accused in the view that P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 were also attacked in prosecution of their common object are therefore set aside. With regard to the individual acts of violence caused by the particular accused, we have to notice that the evidence is that they were armed with spears, and that they beat with the stick portions of their spears. 2, 3 and 4 were also attacked in prosecution of their common object are therefore set aside. With regard to the individual acts of violence caused by the particular accused, we have to notice that the evidence is that they were armed with spears, and that they beat with the stick portions of their spears. They should be convicted as having caused hurt and grievous hurt with dangerous weapons and convicted accordingly, that is to say, for causing simple hurt under section 324, Indian Penal Code and causing grievous hurt under section 326, Indian Penal Code. It is the nature of the instrument that has to be taken into consideration under sections 324 and 326, Indian Penal Code as stated in those sections. The convictions are therefore to be altered appropriately as convictions under those sections while maintaining the sentences. In the result, therefore, the convictions and the sentences will be as follows: A-1 to A-9 are convicted under section 148, Indian Penal Code but no separate sentences are passed. A-1 to A-9 are convicted under section 326 read with sections 34 and 149, Indian Penal Code, and each of the accused is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 5 (five) years. The further convictions and sentences for individual acts of violence are as follows: A-3 is convicted under section 324, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for 6 months (altering the finding and maintaining the sentence). A-2, A-4, A-7 and A-9 are convicted under section 324 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code, and each of them is sentenced to R.I. for 6 months (altering the finding and maintaining the sentence). A-3 is convicted under section 326, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for 2 years (altering the finding and maintaining the sentence). A-2, A-5 and A-6 are convicted under section 326 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code and each of them is sentenced to R.I. for 2 years (altering the finding and maintaining the sentence). The sentences will run concurrently. The other convictions and sentences passed against the accused are set aside. The appeal is partly allowed to the extent of the modifications as aforesaid. G.S.M. ----- Appeal partly allowed; Convictions and sentences modified.