ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State.

( 2 ) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High court upsetting the judgment of acquittal recorded by learned Sessions Judge, Bidar in SC No. 8/93, Each of the appellants was convicted for offence punishable under section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian penal Code (in short the 'ipc' ).

( 3 ) THE prosecution version, as unfolded during the trial, is that on 22/9/1992 at about 8. 15 p. m. , in the course of an altercation, pandit (A. 4) inflicted a stab injury on the abdomen of one Jagannath (hereinafter referred to as the deceased ). The other three accused persons caught hold of different parts of the body of the deceased on being told to do so by the accused No. 4 Pandit. The first Information Report was lodged at about 11. 30 p. m. The trial Court, on consideration of the evidence of the witnesses came to hold that the prosecution has not been able to establish the accusations. The State preferred an appeal after obtaining leave in terms of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (in short the Code'), The high Court n