Appellants call in question legality of the judgment rendered by the High Court upholding conviction of the appellants (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') and sentence as imposed by the trial Court which had sentenced each to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months, two years and seven years respectively with separate fines for each of the alleged offences with default stipulations. Background facts leading to the trial of the accused appellants are as follows: The case was registered on the basis of information lodged by P1 (PW-6), which was recorded on 10.11.1989 at about 2.00 a.m. According to the informant, he and his son P2's wife P3 (PW- 7) were sitting in the courtyard of the house of P2 (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased'). It was about 11.00 a.m. on 9.11.1989 when deceased was coming from the village after purchasing vegetables. When he reached near the house of P4, son of P5, P6 (A-1) armed with a Gandasi and P7 (A-2) armed with a lathi were present there. P7 made an obscene gesture. At this P7 and the deceased exchanged hot words and abused each other. P6 gave a Gandasi blow on the right hand of the deceased, which caused a grievous injury. P7 gave a lathi blow on the left foot of the deceased and also gave a thrust blow of lathi on the left side of his head. Deceased fell down on the ground. The occurrence was witnessed by P1 (PW-6) and P3 (PW-7). Both of them took P2 injured to their house. When P1 and P3 raised alarm, both the accused persons ran away from the spot. Since the condition of P2 became serious during the night time, he was taken to the Primary Health Centre. On 10.11.1989 at night at about 0.15 a.m. Dr.D1 examined P2. He found injury No.1 which was an incised wound in the middle phalanx of the index finger of right hand. The second injury was an abrasion on the lateral side of upper 1/3rd part of left leg and the patient complained of pain on different parts of the body. Dr.D1 sent information to the Police Station. ASI P7 reached the Primary Health Centre and recorded the statement of P1 which is the FIR. On the basis of this statement, FIR was recorded by ASI P8. P2 expired at about 1.50 a.m. on 10.11.1989. Hence, information to this effect was sent. The accused persons were charged for offences. The accused persons pleaded innocence and claimed trial. Eight persons were examined to further the prosecution case. P1 (PW-6) was the complainant and claimed to be an eye-witness. P3 (PW-7) wife of the deceased also claimed to be an eye-witness. Placing reliance on their evidence, the learned Additional Session Judge found the accused persons guilty and sentenced them to undergo sentences as noted above. In appeal, the High Court confirmed the conviction and the sentences. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the accused appellants submitted that the prosecution version was based on testimonies of relatives and, therefore, does not inspire confidence. Further there was delay in lodging the FIR. Additionally, it was submitted that the sentences imposed were high.