JUDGMENT : 1. We have heard counsel for the parties and after going through the judgments of the Courts below, it is not necessary to give the facts which have been detailed in the judgment of the High Court and the Sessions Court. The appellants were convicted by the Trial Court both under sections 302/149 and 302/34 of I.P.C. for having caused the death of two ladies namely, Sukhdasi Devi and Kishori Devi. A chronic land dispute between the parties seems to have been the object of the Killing of the two ladies. The central evidence in the case consisted of the eyewitness P.W 3 corroborated as it was by P.Ws. 1 2, and 5 and the medical evidence. The Trial Court believed P.W. 3 and other witnesses and accordingly convicted the appellants. 2. The High Court accepted the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 5 but it clearly found that there could be no doubt regarding the presence of P.W. 3 at the time of the occurrence and further P.W. 3 did see the accused entering the house variously armed and leaving the house shortly after the murder when they returned after the second entrance and fled away. The exact finding of the High Court on this point may be extracted thus : "I have not the least doubt that Sudarshan Singh was at the house and that he saw ten accused entering the house variously armed. He may have seen the cutting of the necks or he may not have seen. The benefit of doubt must go to the accused". 3. After going through the evidence of P.W. 3, we do not agree with the view taken by the High Court as regards the actual occurrence because a perusal of the evidence of P.W. 3 would show that he must have seen the assault on the deceased by the accused because he gives a very detailed and graphic picture of the manner and the weapon with which the two ladies were killed by the appellant. The evidence of P.W. 3 is fully corroborated by the evidence of doctor P.W. 4. Further more at least P.Ws. The evidence of P.W. 3 is fully corroborated by the evidence of doctor P.W. 4. Further more at least P.Ws. 1 and 2 who have been believed by both the Courts have categorically stated that immediately after the occurrence when they came to the house of the deceased ladies, they found P.W. 3 there to whom he narrated the factum of the assault by mentioning the names of the accused. Even the evidence of P.W. 5 which was disbelieved by the trial court was accepted by the High Court and the High Court found that the incident was immediately narrated to P.W. 5 also, apart from P.Ws. I and 2 by P.W. 3. 4. Mr. R.K. Garg took us through the evidence and mainly contended that P.W. 3 ought not to have been believed at all and in view of the background of the case, the prosecution case should have been discarded. This however, is a question of fact which has been found against him by the Courts below and we cannot reopen the question in an appeal by special leave. On a review of the evidence we do not fully agree with the High Court that the evidence of P.W. 3 Judgment dated April 5. 1984 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 439 to 441 of 1982. should be disbelieved in part because a close reading and scrutiny of the evidence of P.W. 3 would show that he must have seen the occurrence for two reasons : (1) his presence at the house was not doubted and (2) the graphic description of the death of the ladies and the fact urn of the assault was mentioned to P.Ws. 1, 2 and 5 immediately after the others. For these reasons we hold that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. 5. The appellants I to 5 who are on bail will now be taken into custody and sent to jail to serve out the sentence of imprisonment.