JUDGMENT :- Special leave granted limited to the nature of offence and sentence.

2. Two appellants, who are brothers, along with their father Sardari Lal were prosecuted for an offence under Section 302 read with S. 34 and under S. 324 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Prosecution case is that the appellants have a sweetmeat shop in Katra Baghian, Amritsar. P. W. 6 Amrik Singh is residing in a house opposite to the shop. On April 13, 1980, Sardari Lal, the father of the appellants requested Amrik Singh 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. Sardari, Lal was offended. On April 18, 1980, a wet underwear drying-up on the roof flew away which was picked up by the 1st appellant Jawahar Lal. But when witness Amrik Singh 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 Sardari Lal visited the shop of the appellant, Amrik Singh complained about the conduct of the 1st appellant Jawahar Lal. However, Sardari Lal persuaded, the 1st appellant to return the underwear of witness Amrik Singh. At about 9.30 P. M. on that day deceased Darshan Singh accompanied by P. W. Santokh Singh visited the house of witness Amrik Singh for settling the details of the marriage that was to be performed in the near future. At about 10.00 P. M., deceased Darshan Singh and P. W. Santokh Singh left the house of witness Amrik Singh. Amrik Singh followed them. When they reached the bazar locality, all the three of them saw the two appellants and Sardari Lal standing in front of their shop and on seeing deceased Darshan Singh and his companions, they raised chargers. Sardari Lal raised lalkaras and exhorted the appellants to catch hold of witness Amrik Singh and 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 Jawahar Lal gave a blow with dagger on the left side of the chest of deceased Darshan Singh, who fell down on the ground. When P. W. Santokh Singh rushed to the rescue of deceased Darshan Singh, second appellant Kewal Krishan gave two blows with a dagger and he also fell on the ground. Witness P. W. 8 Surinder Mohan Singh raised an alarm and the appellants ran away from that place. The injured were removed in two rickshaws to the hospital where on reaching the hospital Darshan Singh was pronounced dead by the Medical Officer who examined him. P. W. Santokh Singh was admitted in the hospital. P. W. 6 Amrik Singh 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.

4. At the trial P. W. Amrik Singh and P. W. Surinder Mohan Singh were examined as witnesses to the occurrence. P. W. 4 Dr. Amar Singh, who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of deceased Darshan Singh 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 Oclock 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 forehead. 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.

5. The defence of the accused, the 1st appellant Jawahar Lal, was that he caused one single injury to deceased Darshan Sing He has given his own version of the incident to which we would presently refer. Appellant No. 2 and Sardari Lal denied having committed any offence.

6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the defence version put forth by the 1st appellant Jawahar Lal as unworthy of credit and held that the evid