Judgment.- This is an appeal by accused 2, 3 and 6 in Sessions Case No. 15 of 1964 in the Court of Session, Anantapur, who have been convicted as under: A-2 has been convicted under section 326, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years. A-3 and A-6 have been convicted each for an offence under section 324, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. In Sessions Case No. 15 of 1964 these accused and 5 others, in all A-1 to A-8, were tried for offences of rioting and the murder of one Pedda Nagappa. The Sessions Judge acquitted five of the accused i.e., A-1, A-4, A-5, A-7 and A-8 finding that the prosecution had failed to establish that 5 or more persons had participated in the crime. He convicted A-2, A-3 and A-6 for the acts of grievous hurt and hurt caused by themselves to the deceased and sentenced them as aforesaid. The State has not preferred an appeal against the acquittal. But the aggrieved complainant (P.W.3) preferred a revision, Cr.R.C. No. 745 of 1964 which 1 shall consider after the appeal. The State, however, has preferred a revision for enhancement of the sentence, which is Cr.R.C. No. 604 of 1964. In the said circumstances, the appeal in the main is restricted to the proof or otherwise of individual acts of grievous hurt and hurt alleged to have been caused by the the convicted persons to the deceased. It would suffice if reference is made generally to the prosecution case which was thus: All the accused belonged to a faction led by the 1st accused. The 2nd accused was the right hand man of the 1st accused and they were hostile to the deceased and some of (he prosecution witnesses. The deceased was the main target of the accused faction on account of personal jealousies between A-2 and the deceased and A-1 and the deceased. The deceased was a weaver, and so was A-1. Both of them had looms on which they wove sarees and carried on business. There was therefore rivalry in business between A-1 and the deceased. A-2 had personal grudges against the deceased for many reasons: Firstly the deceased was elected as a ‘Pinna Pedda’ of Kummetha channel in preference to the 2nd accused about a year or so prior to the occurrence. There was therefore rivalry in business between A-1 and the deceased. A-2 had personal grudges against the deceased for many reasons: Firstly the deceased was elected as a ‘Pinna Pedda’ of Kummetha channel in preference to the 2nd accused about a year or so prior to the occurrence. As Pinna Pedda he was directing distribution of water to the ryots. He levied a fine from A-2 as a Pinna Pedda for an alleged default of his. The deceased did not give him water out of turn. The 2nd accused owed Rs. 650 to the deceased under a pronote, Exhibit P-21 dated 22nd July, 1960, and the deceased was demanding the money due thereon. 4 or 5 days prior to the occurrence he threatened to file a suit against A-2. About 4 days prior to the incident when the deceased refused to let water to A-2’s field out of turn, A-2 left in a huff uttering threatening words. There were security proceedings in 1955 where A-1, A-2, A-5 and A-6 and others were arrayed as one party and the deceased and P.Ws. 1 to 3 and others were arrayed as the opposite party in M.C. Nos. 124 and 125 of 1955 on the file of the First Class Magistrate, Ananthapur. For these reasons it was alleged by the prosecution that accused 1 to 8 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly on 1st November, 1963, with the common object of killing the deceased, that the 2nd accused was armed with a ‘Medi Thoka’ (plough handle), M.O. 1 and A-3 and A-6 were armed with spears and A-1, A-4, A-5, A-7 and A-8 were armed with sticks, that they lay in wait in ‘Maddalamadi Pora Channel’ and that at about 1 p.m. they attacked the deceased in the filed of Angadala Veeranna, known as ‘Maddalamadi’ when he was proceeding to see his Ragi field along with P.W. 1 and that the deceased succumbed to the injuries at about 4 p.m. the same day at the place where he was attacked. P.W. 1 was accompanying the deceased at that time. He was an eye-witness to the occurrence. The prosecution has examined P.W. 2, a resident of Narasapuram also as an eye-witness. P.W. 1 was accompanying the deceased at that time. He was an eye-witness to the occurrence. The prosecution has examined P.W. 2, a resident of Narasapuram also as an eye-witness. Alter the deceased was attacked in the field and he lay there, the accused ran away and P.W. 1 went to the village and informed the deceased’s kith and kin and nephew, P.W. 3. Meanwhile P.W. 2 stayed on with the deceased. It was said that P.W. 3 enquired the injured as to what had happened and that the injured told him that the 8 accused had beaten him with sticks and spears. P.W. 3 informed the Village Munsif, P.W. 5, at about 4 p.m. and returned with the Village Munsif to the scene of occurrence. The Village Munsif recorded the information of the occurrence from P.W. 3, Exhibit P-1 and then drew up his printed reports, Exhibits P-3 and P-4. He proceeded to the Yadiki Police Station about 7 miles away and handed Exhibits P-1 and P-3 to the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.W. 12, at 7 p.m. He handed the printed report, Exhibit P-4 and a copy of Exhibit P-1, Exhibit P-2 to the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Tadpatri, at about 5 p.m. On receiving the reports of the occurrence at 7 p.m. the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.W. 12, registered Crime No. 48 of 1963 of Yadiki Police Station under sections 147, 148 and 302, Indian Penal Code, and despatched express reports to the authorities concerned. He also despatched an express F.I.R. along with Exhibits P-1 and P-3 to the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Tadpatri. He reached the scene of occurrence at 10-30 p.m. the same day. He said that the scene of occurrence was about 6 furlongs from Narasapuram Village and about a mile from Kummetha Village. He saw the dead body of the deceased. He posted a constable toguard the corpse and proceeded to the Narasapuram Village to apprehend the accused but all of them were absconding. The next day he held an inquest over the dead body from 6-30 a.m. to 9-30 a.m. Exhibit P-5 is the inquest report. At the inquest he examined P.Ws. 1 to 4 among others. He then despatched the body for postmortem. He seized the ‘Medi Thoka’ (plough handle) which was found with blood-stains at about 10 a.m. on 2nd November, 1963, under Exhibit p-7. At the inquest he examined P.Ws. 1 to 4 among others. He then despatched the body for postmortem. He seized the ‘Medi Thoka’ (plough handle) which was found with blood-stains at about 10 a.m. on 2nd November, 1963, under Exhibit p-7. That was lying about 67 yards from the place where the dead body lay. He drew a rough sketch of the scene of occurrence, Exhibit P-20 and continued investigation. The post-mortem over the dead body was conducted by the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Tadpatri (P.W. 11) commencing at 3-30 p.m. on 2nd November, 1963. Externally he found these injuries: 1. “An irregularly circular lacerated injury on the right side of the vault of the skull above the right frontal eminence 1½” in diameter, bone deep. The bone underneath was seen. On the left side of the skull there was a fracture of the left parietal and left temporal bones 4“in length and fracture in nature. 2. An incised injury on the right leg located 4” above the right ankle 1“x 1” x 3’‘ 3. A lacerated injury on about the middle of the front of the right leg 1“x 1” bone deep. On palpation, the right tibia was broken into pieces. 4. Another lacerated injury was seen located 3“above the left ankle 1” x 1“bone deep. 5. Another lacerated injury located 4” below the left knee. The bone underneath Was broken. 6. An oval incised injury on the front of the left thigh located 3“above the light knee 1/2’‘in length 1/2” in width at the widest part 1“in depth. 7. A diffuse contusion about the middle 1/3 with 5 small abrasions in it.” On dissection he found these injuries: 1. Around injury No. 1 subscutaneous haemotoma. On reflecting the scalp, subscutaneous haemotoma was seen in the left side of the brain and on accipital region. 2. On the dissection of injury No. 2, there was laceration of the tissues and diffuse haemotoma was seen in the surrounding area. Also the tibia was seen to be broken. 3. On dissection of injury No. 3 comminuted fracture of the tibia was found and on continuing the dissection, fracture of the tibia was seen at higher level into 4 pieces and also the right fibula into 2 pieces. 4. Also the tibia was seen to be broken. 3. On dissection of injury No. 3 comminuted fracture of the tibia was found and on continuing the dissection, fracture of the tibia was seen at higher level into 4 pieces and also the right fibula into 2 pieces. 4. On dissection of injuries 4 and 5 on the left leg, diffused haemotoma was seen around injury No. 4 and fracture of the left tibia and also fracture at the side of injury No. 5. 5. Dissection of injury No. 6 revealed laceration of Soft tissues. 6. Dissection of injury No. 7 revealed diffuse subscutaneous haemotoma in the right fore-arm. All the injuries were ante-mortem and death had occurred due to shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries. Exhibit P-18 is the post-mortem certificate that he issued. After completing the investigation, a charge sheet Was laid on 12th December 1963. All the accused were absconding by the date of the charge sheet. They surrendered on various dates later. On chemical analysis the plough handle was found to be stained with human blood. Exhibit P-15 and P-16 are the reports of the Chemical Examiner and the Serologist respectively. As I am concerned with A-2, A-3 and A-6 in this appeal, it would suffice it say here that A-2, A-3 and A-6 denied that they had beaten the deceased and stated that the evidence involving them was false. In support of this appeal, the learned Counsel has contended that the alleged eye-witnesses, P.Ws. 1 and 2 on whose evidence the Sessions Judge convicted the accused, cannot be considered as truthful. His main criticism is that they were persons of the opposite camp, and that could be seen from the evidence of P.W. 1 himself P.W. 1 has stated that he and P.Ws. 2 and 3 and the deceased belonged to one party and they among others were respondents in security proceedings under section 107, Criminal Procedure Code. It was also elicited from him that A-1, A-2, A-5 and A-7 formed a rival group in the security proceedings. It is no doubt true that the security cases were not referred to by the case numbers; but the learned Sessions Judge has referred to the numbers of the security proceedings in his judgment as M.Cs. 124 and 125 of 1955 on the file of the First Class Magistrate, Anantapur. It is no doubt true that the security cases were not referred to by the case numbers; but the learned Sessions Judge has referred to the numbers of the security proceedings in his judgment as M.Cs. 124 and 125 of 1955 on the file of the First Class Magistrate, Anantapur. These security proceedings were of the year 1955. The occurrence had taken place in 1963. A-3 and A-6 did not belong to any of the parties involved in the security proceedings. P.Ws. 1 and 2 are shown as of the anti group. At the most it can be said that A-2 was in the opposite camp in the security proceedings of 1955. It seems to me rather far-fetched to say that it is a sufficient reason for discrediting P.Ws. 1 and 2. The evidence as to motive given by P.Ws. 1, 7 and 8 shows that the deceased and A-2 were at logger heads and that A-2 had personal grudges against the deceased for various reasons which I have referred to supra. But these P.Ws. apart from the security proceedings had no personal grudges against A-2 or against A-3 and A-6. I find myself therefore unable to accede to the contention of the learned Counsel that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 should be treated as hostile. The learned Counsel next contended that the first report, Exhibit P-1 has infirmities. He contended that the overt acts now attributed to A-2, A-3 and A-6 were not mentioned therein, but there was a sweeping statement there that all the accused, 8 in number, beat his (informant’s) maternal uncle with sticks and spears and ran away. He would therefore say that the individual acts of violence are an after-thought. His further contention is that it is doubtful if the version of the occurrence was given at 4 p.m. and the reports were drawn up by the Village Munsif by 5 p.m. and despatched from the scene of occurrence, as it is seen from the evidence of P.W. 10, a clerk of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate’s Court that Exhibits P-2 and P-4 were received by the Magistrate at 2-45 a.m. on 2nd November, 1963. He contended that the Talari, who is said to have taken the reports, Exhibits P-2 and P-4, was not examined and the delay in the reports reaching the Magistrate is not explained. He contended that the Talari, who is said to have taken the reports, Exhibits P-2 and P-4, was not examined and the delay in the reports reaching the Magistrate is not explained. He would therefore invite me to view the entire report as having been drawn up later at 10 p.m. at the Yadiki Police Station as suggested to the Village Munsif (P.W. 5) and to the Sub-Inspector of Police (P.W. 12) It seems to me that such an inference is too-far fetched. We have the evidence of the clerk of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate (P.W. 10) that Exhibits P-1 and P-3 were also received by the Magistrate along with the F.I.R., Exhibit P-17, at 2-45 a.m., and P.W. 12 has deposed to the receipt of the first information at 7 p.m. and his registering the crime and despatching the express reports to the authorities concerned through Police Constables. P.W. 12 specifically deposed that Exhibit P-17 was the F.I.R. issued by him which he despatched at 8 p.m. to the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Tadpatri, along with Exhibits P-1 and P-3. If the suggestion was true, the entire record of the case in the Police Station has to be scrapped as untrue. That is too much of an inference from the mere fact that the Talari was not examined to explain how he came to hand over the report at Tadpatri, 10 miles away, at 2-45 a.m. The comment that the first information in the case, viz., Exhibit P-1 did not mention the overt acts, cannot be an infirmity because the first informant, viz., P.W. 3, was not questioned about this omission to mention the overt acts. The learned Counsel has argued that the information is attributable to P.W. 1, an eye-witness and it appears from the evidence of the Village Munsif (P.W. 5) that P.W. 1 was present when the report was recorded and so he would say that P.W. 1 should be discredited because of this omission in the report. But here again the learned Counsel could not explain why P.W. 1 was not questioned about this omission. If the information is attributable to him it was he who should have been questioned about this omission. But here again the learned Counsel could not explain why P.W. 1 was not questioned about this omission. If the information is attributable to him it was he who should have been questioned about this omission. For the first time this could not be questioned in appeal; and I am inclined to say that if there was any substance in this contention the matter would have been pursued at the trial. An opportunity given to clear a matter which was not availed of is tantamount to the concerned party placing on reliance thereon. The learned Counsel next contended that it is doubtful if P.Ws. 1 and 2 are eye-witnesses because it appears from the evidence of P.W. 3 that he had enquired the deceased as to what had happened and that the deceased had told him that A-1 to A-8 attacked him with sticks and spears and caused bleeding injuries. He also read the evidence of P.W. 5, the Village Munsif, that he enquired the deceased as to what had happened and that the deceased could not talk and made a gesture with his hand signifying that he could not talk. The learned Counsel has contended that these enquiries by P.Ws. 3 and 5 could not have been made if there were eye-witnesses to the occurrence and that their enquiring the deceased meant that they wanted to know from the deceased for the first time what had happened. This line of comment on the enquiries made by P.Ws. 3 and 5 of the deceased appears rather farfetched. It is not unusual to ask the injured what had happened. That did not necessarily mean that there were no eye-witnesses to the occurrence. In fact, from the evidence it is seen that an eye-witness had fetched P.W. 3 and P.W. 3 fetched P.W. 5 to the scene of occurrence. The learned Counsel would have me assume that P.W. 1 had not seen the occurrence and that he saw the injured casually and that all this was wovenlater. These assumptions cannot be made excluding positive evidence to the contrary. The learned Counsel has also argued that there is no mention of ‘Medi Thoka’ i.e. the plough-handle having been used by A-2 in Exhibit P-1. This omission is correlated to the omission of an overt act about which no substantial point has been made out. These assumptions cannot be made excluding positive evidence to the contrary. The learned Counsel has also argued that there is no mention of ‘Medi Thoka’ i.e. the plough-handle having been used by A-2 in Exhibit P-1. This omission is correlated to the omission of an overt act about which no substantial point has been made out. The learned Counsel has next contended that P.W. 2 has come with different reasons as to why he went to Pedda Papoor. In evidence he said that his cousin sister was ill but it would appear that in his statement under section 164, Criminal Procedure Code, before the Magistrate, Exhibit D-2(a),he had said that he had gone there on some work. It may be that both the reasons were true or that one of them was true. But that, however, does not discredit his returning to Narasapuram from Pedda Papoor, even if he has given reasons differently for his going to Pedda Papoor. Further it seems to me that it is too much of an endeavour to think of planting P.W. 2 there. P.W. 2 is unquestionably a resident of Narasapuram. The occurrence had taken place at the outskirts of Narasapuram. His being anywhere near Narasapuram need not be made out by inventing that he was returning from Pedda Papoor at the material time to witness the occurrence. P.Ws. 1 and 2 are otherwise labelled as partisans; but this partisanship is eventually whittled down to security proceedings of 1955 i.e., about 8 years prior to the occurrence, and nothing further appears to have taken place as a motive for these witnesses to involve these accused falsely. The learned Counsel next argued that the Sessions Judge has discarded the dying declaration which has been spoken to by P.Ws. 1 to 4 and so the accused are entitled to have it found in their favour on that score that the witnesses have invented a dying declaration to implicate these accused. A perusal of the judgment would show that the dying declaration was discarded on an unsound reasoning that the actual words of the deceased were not spoken to by the witnesses. The learned Judge observed that from the evidence that it was difficult to find out as to what were the actual words of the deceased. Para 13 of the judgment, which contains this reasoning, does not specify any material discrepancies. The learned Judge observed that from the evidence that it was difficult to find out as to what were the actual words of the deceased. Para 13 of the judgment, which contains this reasoning, does not specify any material discrepancies. So remarking the learned Judge obviously rejected an important piece of evidence on an erroneous appreciation. I need not, however, dilate further on this point. It would suffice in this context to point out that the learned Counsel is not entitled to have it found in his favour as he contended, that the witnesses had falsely invented a dying declaration, and so were prone to introduce spurious material for involving the accused. The learned Counsel next contended that the learned Judge discarded the prosecution case of an unlawful assembly comprising these convicted accused and the other accused who were acquitted, acting in pursuance of a common object of killing the deceased and had also discarded that M.O. 1, the plough handle, was used by A-2 and that would mean that considerable part of the prosecution case has been rejected. As I said, there is no appeal against the acquittal. From the judgment it seems to me prima facie that the learned Judge has misdirected himself on both these aspects. He disbelieved the presence and the participation of the acquitted accused because the prosecution witnesses did not say on what parts of the body they injured the deceased by their blows. In para 21 of the judgment, the learned Sessions Judge referred to the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, the eye-witnesses that the acquitted accused beat the deceased with sticks, and then his reasoning follows thus: “There is no allegation by these two eye-witnesses that these five accused beat the deceased with sticks on the legs. According to the Doctor’s evidence injuries Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 7 are oz the legs of the deceased. Hence the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W.2 cannot be accepted in this regard. Benefit of doubt must be given to these accused.” It is therefore manifest that because the witnesses did not say where the blows landed, they stand discredited. This seems to me clearly an Unsound reasoning which is prima facie unsupportable in the matter of appreciation of evidence. Benefit of doubt must be given to these accused.” It is therefore manifest that because the witnesses did not say where the blows landed, they stand discredited. This seems to me clearly an Unsound reasoning which is prima facie unsupportable in the matter of appreciation of evidence. Then again with regard to discrediting the use of M.O. 1, the learned Judge said, that it was seized about 67 yards away from the place where the deceased lay, although the witnesses, i.e., P.Ws. 1 to 3, had said that they had found it near the deceased when they came to the scene of occurrence after the deceased was beaten. It is difficult to say how the use of M.O. 1 could be discredited because it was found some distance away when the Police Officer came on the scene the day after the occurrence. This again is prima facie unsound. The learned Sessions Judge has obviously ignored the medical evidence of P.W. 11 which is positive thus;- “Injury No. 1 could have been caused by a weapon like M.O. 1...................External injury No. 1 could be caused by one below of M.O. 1 with sufficient force....................... Cross-examination-accused 1 and 7; ............About 1” or 1½“of the rear end of M.O. 1 should have contacted to cause injury No. 1.” Further it would appear that it (M.O. 1) was stained with human blood. It was identified by the eye-witnesses as having been used by A-2 for inflicting the injury. As against this array of credible evidence, it does not appear that the learned Sessions Judge was right in discarding the use of M.O. 1 and surmising that some plough-handle and not M.O. 1 was used. His resort to conjecture as against the credible evidence to the contrary reflects only a reasoning which has to be characterised as fallacious. However, all this is referred to only to show that the criticism of the learned Counsel for the defence does not really reflect on the credibility of the testimony which has been accepted by the Court. P.Ws. 1 and 2 are the eye-witnesses. The account of the occurrence given by P.W. 1 may be set out here in his own words: “As we were proceeding further, I saw accused 1 to 8 armed with sticks and spears, coming from the direction of Maddalamadi Pora, Accused 2 was armed with ‘Medi Thoka’. P.Ws. 1 and 2 are the eye-witnesses. The account of the occurrence given by P.W. 1 may be set out here in his own words: “As we were proceeding further, I saw accused 1 to 8 armed with sticks and spears, coming from the direction of Maddalamadi Pora, Accused 2 was armed with ‘Medi Thoka’. Accused 3 and accused 6 were armed with spears and accused 1, 4, 5, 7 and 8 were armed with bamboo sticks. The deceased tried to run towards the direction of Narasapuram village on seeing them. I ran towards ‘Chintalapalli Rasta’. While chasing accused 1 cried ‘Poniya Kandira Pada Degandi’ meaning do not allow him to escape. Meanwhile Chowdappa who was seeing this came near me. The accused 1 said ‘Champandira Veeni Yalini Denga’. On this accused 2 struck the deceased on the right side of his head with Medithoka. M.O. 1 is the Medithoka. The deceased crying ‘I am dead’ fell down. Accused 3 and 6 attacked the deceased with spears and caused bleeding injuries on the legs. The other accused gave beatings to the deceased with sticks. I and Chowdappa cried ‘Champithirira, Champithiri’. But the accused did not take any heed of our crying. Accused 1 said”Chache Padandira“. Then all the accused went back to Maddalamadi Pora side and then towards the direction of Chintalapalli.” P.W. 2 has also given a concurrent version of the occurrence, which I need not repeat. The occurrence was in broad day light. The witnesses knew the accused, so that it cannot be said that there was a possibility of mistaken identity. The report of the occurrence was given as soon as was possible in the circumstances. The names of the accused were mentioned in the first information of;he occurrence. I have already commented on the defence criticism of the credibility of this testimony and found that the reasons were insufficient to discredit these witnesses. The medical evidence of P.W. 1 ,which has been set out in extenso in the foregoing paras, gave as many as 7 external injuries, two of which could have been caused by sharp edged weapons like spears or daggers, injuries 2 and6. These spear injuries were attributed to A-3 and A-6 and injury No. 1 was attributed to A-2 with M.O. 1. P.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined at the inquest. Their version of the occurrence was consistent at all material times. These spear injuries were attributed to A-3 and A-6 and injury No. 1 was attributed to A-2 with M.O. 1. P.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined at the inquest. Their version of the occurrence was consistent at all material times. Thus I am not able to find any reason for differing from the trial Court as to the credibility of the testimony accepted by it. There is also the evidence that the accused were absconding. Considered with the evidence that they beat the deceased, this conduct of the accused rules out the theory that they were innocent. As against this evidence, the accused made only statements of bald denial which cannot be accepted as rebutting the credible evidence to the contrary. The learned Counsel, however, contended that it has been elicited from the Inspector of Police (P.W. 13) that a complaint had been given by one Narasamma, wife of Balappa on 22nd December, 1963, Exhibit D-8(a). The learned Counsel invited my attention to Exhibit D-8(a) which is as follows: “I belong to Narasapuram. I am a weaver and living by weaving. One and a half month back Mayakuntla Nagappa was murdered. We left the village afraid that I and my husband would be included as accused in the case. We were residing at Anantapur. We came to the village on the Saturday morning. On Sunday while I and my husband were sitting in front of our house and were talking, people belonging to the prosecution party in the murder case i.e. Aswarthu, father of Mayakuntla Chinna Nagappa, wife of Nadipenna, Talari Danamma, Nese Sunkamma, wife of Nese Sunkanna and other female and male members belong to the other party came upon us in a body and dragged my husband along the bazaar who was sitting in front of my house.” He sought to represent Ex-D-8(a) as evidence showing that there were other people who had enmity with the deceased. I am inclined to say that these is no substance in this line of argument. Firstly Exhibit D-8(a) cannot be read as substantive evidence, and secondly the Inspector of Police has said that the complaint was enquired into by the Sub-Inspector and found to be frivolous. I am inclined to say that these is no substance in this line of argument. Firstly Exhibit D-8(a) cannot be read as substantive evidence, and secondly the Inspector of Police has said that the complaint was enquired into by the Sub-Inspector and found to be frivolous. The learned Counsel has argued that this is to show that there were other enemies of the deceased; but I do not think that the Court could go into these matters about which there is no proof. I therefore find no reason to discredit the direct evidence that A-2, A-3 and A-6 caused injured to the deceased, that is to say, that A-2 caused grievous hurt and A-3 and A-6 caused simple hurt. The convictions and the sentences are therefore confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. Cr.R.C. 604 of 1964:-In the Judgment just delivered in Cr.A. No. 511 of 1964 I have confirmed the convictions and the sentences. I do not find any ground for enhancing the sentences. The revision petition is therefore dismissed. Cr.R.C. No. 745 of 1964:.-This is a revision preferred by the complainant (P.W. 3) in Sessions Case No. 15 of 1964 against the acquittal of the 8 accused of charges under sections 148, 302 read with section 34 or in the alternative under section 302 read with section 149, Indian Penal Code. In the judgment just delivered in Cr.A. No. 511 of 1964 I confirmed the convictions and the sentences. In the course of the Judgment I had observed that certain findings of the learned Sessions Judge were not prima facie correct. However, they would be only errors of appreciation of facts. It has been ruled by the Supreme Court in Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another1, that the High Court would be exercising jurisdiction in revision only in exceptional cases where there is some glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. Errors in the appreciation of facts may not be of this category. There are therefore no grounds for interference in revision. The petition is therefore dismissed. K.N.R. ----- Appeal dismissed, conviction confirmed, Revisions also dismissed.