Terrell A-G CJ:

The facts and arguments sufficiently appear from the judgment.

Two points of law were urged on behalf of the appellants.

As regards No. 1 accused, it was submitted that he was charged under s. 148 of the Penal Code (rioting armed with a deadly weapon), but was convicted under s. 147 (simple rioting). Mr. Braga relied on s. 168 of the Criminal Procedure Code which provides that any alteration in the charge should be read and explained to the accused. But it is clear that under s. 178 an accused person may be convicted of a minor offence of the same character without being charged. A person charged with murder may be convicted of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, or of voluntarily causing grievous hurt, without being specifically charged. There is accordingly no substance in this objection.

As regards all three accused, it was submitted that, as of the five persons originally charged two had been acquitted, the remaining three did not constitute an "unlawful assembly" within the meaning of s. 146 of the Penal Code, and could not accordingly be convicted of rioting. This would be a valid argument if the three appellants were the only people who took part in the disturbance. There was, however, ample evidence that the complainants were attacked by a number of people far in excess of five, and the fact that only three have been sufficiently identified does not prevent these three from being convicted of an offence under s. 147.

On the facts of the case generally the learned District Judge, after a careful consideration of all the evidence, accepted the story of the prosecution, and considered the stories of the appellants to be incredible, and I see no reason to differ from his conclusions.

The appeals are accordingly dismissed and the sentences on Nos 1 and 3 confirmed. The second accused Hashim Ahmad Angullia was the moving spirit in collecting a gang to beat up the complainants. In view of his special activities and his two previous convictions his sentence is increased to six months rigorous imprisonment, and a fine of $100 or two months rigorous imprisonment if the fine is not paid.

The facts and arguments sufficiently appear from the judgment.

Appeal dismissed and sentence on second accused enhanced.