Kumaraswami Sastri, J.
1. The finding of both Courts is against the case for the accused that they were attacked while exercising their lawful right of removing the paddy. The charge, no doubt, is defective in that it does not set out the common object, but both Courts find that the common object was to remove paddy stored in the threshing ground in spite of the objections of two of the lessors. I do not think the non-stating of the common object in the charge has really prejudiced the accused.
2. It has been argued that the judgment of the Appellate Magistrate does not discuss the evidence as against each of the twenty accused and that as different pleas were put forward, the Court was bound to apply its mind as to the evidence against each of the accused. It appears from the judgment of the Sub-Magistrate that accused Nos. 3, 4, 7 to 15, 17, 18 and 19 denied all knowledge of the occurrence and their presence at the scene of offence. The other accused say they were first beaten and acted in self-defence.
3. In cases of charges under Section 147, Indian Penal Code, against several accused there is often little difficulty in coming to the conclusion that there was an unlawful assembly. The real difficulty is to find whether individuals who deny their presence were members of the assembly. It is the duty of the Appellate Court to discuss the evidence as against each of the accused. I need only refer to Gorripati Chelamiah In re 12 Ind. Cas. 216 : (1911) 2 M.W.N. 97 : 10 M.L.T. 115 : 12 Cri. L.J. 496, Fidoi Hossein v. Emperor 20 Ind. Cas 403 : 40 C. 376 : 14 Cri. L.J. 419, Jamait Mullick v. Emperor 12 C.W.N 134 : 35 C. 138 : 6 Cri. L.J. 427, Bapu Naidu, In re 31 Ind. Cas. 175 : 2 L.W. 958 : 16 Cri. L.J. 735 and Ramasami Naidu v. Emperor 7 Cr. L. Rev. 227. In the present case the Joint Magistrate has not noticed the evidence against each of the accused.
4. I set aside the judgment of the Joint Magistrate and direct him to re-hear the appeal and dispose of the case according to law.