The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's interpretation of the power of the appellate court to alter the finding of the lower court and convict the accused of offenses for which they were acquitted.

1. The accused in this case were all charged with the offence of rioting under Section 148, Indian Penal Code. The second accused was farther charged with culpable homicide amounting to murder under Section 302, and the sixth and fourth accused with causing grievous hurt with a dangerous weapon under Section 326. The accused against whom there was no charge of murder or causing grievous hurt as the immediate perpetrators of these offences were, however, charged with the commission of the offences constructively under Section 149 of the Code.

2. The facts of the case are clearly set forth in the judgment of the Sessions Judge and we consider it unnecessary to repeat them. The cause of the rioting was an encounter between prosecution witnesses No. 1, 3 and 4 and probably also 5 on the one side and one Narasakka the mother of accused Nos. 6 to 8 on the other side. A case of abduction of one Narasamma against accused Nos. 2, 3, and 6 initiated by the prosecution fifth witness, her husband, was pending at the time of the encounter. Narasakka, according to the prosecution, was helping the prosecution fifth witness in the abduction case. The prosecution witnesses referred to above were going from their village for sowing their fields on the morning of the day of the offence. The encounter with Narasakka took place just on one side of the village. Abusive words and a quarrel ensued between the prosecution party and Narasakka. According to the prosecution all the eight accused went up to the place where the quarrel was going on. A fight ensued between them and the prosecution party in which very serious injuries were inflicted on Narasakka who died in consequence. Prosecution witnesses Nos. 3 and 4 also sustained serious injuries and prosecution first witness was also injured. Some of the accused also received some injuries. The lower court acquitted all the accused of murder. It also acquitted them of rioting, holding that "what happened was a sudden fight" - that is to say apparently that it was not proved that the accused acted in pursuance of a common object and were therefore not members of an unlawful assembly. But the Judge found that the evidence established that all the accused were guilty of causing hurt and accused Nos. 2 and 6 of causing grievous hurt. His judgment does not show what injuries each at the accused inflicted and on which of the prosecution witnesses except with respect to the sixth accused. According to him it is not certain who dealt the fatal blow which killed Narasakka : He proceeds : - "Though it is not certain that the second accused dealt the fatal blow he certainly took a leading part in the fight. I think there is no reasonable doubt too that the sixth accused was particularly active and that he caused grievous hurt to prosecution third witness." He convicted all the accused under Section 325, Indian Penal Code, and the second and the sixth accused under Section 326, Indian Penal Code, also. Accused Nos. 1 to 3, 4 and 6 have preferred this appeal. The evidence as to the details of the fight and as to the accused who inflicted the fatal blow on B the deceased Narasakka or caused grievous hurt to prosecution witness No. 3 is extremely discrepant and some of the witnesses for the prosecution gave different accounts on different occasions before the trial of the case in the Sessions Court. We are unable to confirm the Sessions Judges finding that it was the sixth accused that caused grievous hurt to the third accused. Nor are we able to decide on the evidence whose act caused the death of Narasakka. We are, however, of opinion differing from the Sessions Judge that the evidence is sufficient to prove that all the accused were members of an unlawful assembly and were guilty of rioting and that they were all responsible for the injuries inflicted on the several prosecution witnesses in the course of the fight. The cause of the quarrel, as already mentioned, was the deceased Narasakkas helping the pros