Pandrang Row, J.

1. The petitioners in this case have been convicted of affray and sentenced to pay fines. The convictions and sentences were confirmed on appeal by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jammalamadugu.

2. The only question argued in this case is whether one of the ingredients of the offence of affray, namely, fighting by two or more persons, has been established; in other words, when members of one party beat members of another party and the latter did not retaliate or make any attempt to retaliate, could it be said there was fighting between the members of the one party and the members of the other. In this case, what happened was that the petitioners attacked and beat P.W. 2, because he had given evidence against them. When P.W. 1 demonstrated, he also was beaten and he fell down unconscious. P.W. 3 who interceded was hit with stones by two of the accused who have been acquitted. From this account of the offence given by the prosecution can it be said there was fighting by two or more persons, the other ingredients of the offence, namely, that the occurrence was in a public place and that it was likely to cause alarm to the public being established. In a connected cas