Two appellants, who are brothers, along with their father P1 was prosecuted for an offence. Prosecution case in that the appellants have a sweetmeat shop in L1. PW 6 P2 is residing in a house opposite to the shop. On April 13, 1980, P1, the father of the appellants requested P2 to permit him to tie a rope of the canopy with the projection of the house of the witness, but he did not allow the same. P1 was offended. On April 18, 1980, a wet underwear drying-up on the roof flew away which was picked up by the first appellant P3. But when witness P2 demanded the same, the appellant had declined to return the same saying that he had found the same lying in the bazar and moreover he had not allowed his father to tie the rope. There was an exchange of abuses, but the matter ended there.In the evening on that day when P1 visited the shop of the appellants, P2 complained about the conduct of the first appellant P3.  However, P1 persuaded the first appellant to return the underwear of witness P2. At about 9.30 p.m. on that day deceased P4 accompanied by PW P5 visited the house of witness P2 for settling the details of the marriage that was to be performed in the near future. At about 10.00 p.m., deceased P4 and PW P5 left the house of witness P2. P2 followed them. When they reached the bazar locality, all the three of them saw the two appellants and P1 standing in front of their shop and on seeing deceased P4 and his companions, they raised chargers. P1 raised lalkaras and exhorted the appellants to catch hold of witness P2 and that he should not be allowed to escape. It is alleged that appellants 1 and 2, each of them was armed with a dagger. The first appellant P3 gave a blow with dagger on the left side of the chest of deceased P4, who fell down on the ground. When PW P5 rushed to the rescue of deceased P4, second appellant P7 gave two blows with a dagger and he also fell on the ground. Witness PW 8 P6 raised an alarm and the rickshaws to the hospital where on reaching the hospital P4 was pronounced dead by the Medical Officer who examined him. PW P5 was admitted in the hospital. PW 6 P2 lodged the first information report and the offence was registered. After completing the investigation, the appellants were prosecuted and tried for the offences hereinabove mentioned. At the trial PW P2 and PW P6 were examined as witnesses to the occurrence. PW 4 Dr. D1, who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of deceased P4 deposed that he found one incised stab wound 4 1/2 cm. x 2 1/2 cm. on front of left side of chest at 6 O'clock position, 3 1/2 cm. below left nipple oblique in direction. He also found two minor abrasions, one on front of left knee and the other on left side of fore-head. In his opinion, death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injury to heart corresponding to injury No. 1 and in his opinion this injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The defence of the accused, the first appellant P3, was that he caused one single injury to deceased P4. He has given his own version of the incident to which we would presently refer. Appellant 2 and P1 denied having committed any offence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the defence version put forth by the first appellant P3 as unworthy of credit and held that the evidence of two witnesses P2 and P6 was reliable and is borne out by a part of the statement made by the first appellant P3 . He however rejected that the first appellant caused injury to P4 in furtherance of the common intention of all the accused. Accordingly, the second appellant P7 was held responsible for his own act of causing injury to PW P5. The Sessions Judge was not satisfied with regard to the participation of the third accused P1 and he was given benefit of doubt and acquitted. Accordingly, the first appellant P3 was convicted for an offence and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000 in default to suffer further imprisonment for one year. Second appellant P7 was held guilty for an offence, and as he was aged about 17 years on the date of the occurrence with no previous conviction, he was given benefit of a provision. First and second appellant having been dissatisfied with the order of the Sessions Judge, appealed to the High Court. The High Court agreed with the findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and confirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellants.