JUDGMENT

The four appellant before us were tried along with others for at offence punishable under Sections 307 read with 34, 326 read with 34, 324 read with 3 IPC. The trial court convicted the four appellants. Their appeal was dismissed by the High Court. So far as appellant Harpal Singh 1 concerned, his case was tried differently because he was child and he was dealt with under the East Punjab Children Act. There fore, it may be necessary to deal with his case separately. Then there remains the case o Rain Singh. Balkar Singh and Jagir Singh All the three were convicted under Section 307 read with 34, 326 read with 34, 324 read with 34 and were sentenced to imprisonment for 2 years, 2 years and 2 years and 1/ 1/2 year respectively. The High Court relied upon the evidence of injured witness - Principal witness being Bachan Singh who was examined as PW-1. Some injuries were found on the appellants also. Then the question is whether the prosecution has property explained the injuries on the accused. The High Court referred to the evidence of Bachan Singh as well as the other witnesses and gave a finding that the prosecution in a way has explained the injuries. The learned counsel fo