Somayya, J.

1. The lower appellate Court was clearly in error in thinking that the object of the agreement was to stifle non-compoundable offences. The complaint that was made by the defendant is Ex. P-2. He gave a sworn statement which was recorded by the Magistrate on the 2nd August, 1940. Though he implicated as many as six persons as the accused in the complaint, when examined by the Magistrate he attributed specific acts only to four persons. He said that Pavayammal and Athayqmmal, accused 4 and 5, prevented him from baling out water by holding the rope and unyoking and driving away the bulls. Then he said that Kahyanna Goundan and Marappa Goundan, accused 1 and 3, removed the baling stand and threw it into the Well. No doubt in between these two statements there is another statement that the first three accused removed the baling stand and threw it into the well. That apparently was a general statement which did not satisfy the Magistrate. So he appears to have asked the complainant who it was that actually removed the baling stand and threw it into the well. Then the complainant said that it was the first and third accused. No other acts are attributed either to the s