1. The petitioners seek to revise the judgment and sentence of the Sessions Judge Anantapur, in C. A. No. 25 of 1925, convicting them of rioting.
2. There is a clear finding in the Court of trial that they are guilty as charged, and I do not find that the common object was lost sight of in the lower Courts. The petitioners mainly rely upon a sentence in the appellate Judgment.
the very witnesses that speak to the loss of jewels, speak to the entry into the house, and I cannot see my way to believe them in one part of the story when the other part has been found to be false.
3. Here the Judge means that he neither believes the story of theft nor of the house-breaking. But he agrees with the lower Court in believing the story of rioting; and the Courts have shown sufficient reason for that belief. Hari Krishna v. Emperor  42 Cal. 784 merely lays down the elementary principle that false evidence should not be believed; it does not preclude a Court from exercising its powers of discrimination by eliminating exaggerations from evidence which is otherwise found to be true.
4. The petition is dismissed.