( 1 ) THE two appellants are brothers. Both of them have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian penal Code by the trial court and sentenced to imprisonment for life. The conviction and sentence in appeal were confirmed by the High Court. ( 2 ) PROSECUTION case is that both of them went to the field where deceased was sleeping. His brother was also sleeping next to him. ( 3 ) DURING the early hours of 1. 6. 1978 (at about 4 a. m.) both the accused reached near the deceased, armed with Gandasa and Banka (both are sharp cutting weapons ). PW-1, brother of the deceased woke up and flashed the torch light and found the two appellants with the deadly weapons. After raising a cry of alarm, PW- 1, escaped from scene. Thereafter, the appellants inflicted two fatal injuries on the deceased. Hearing the cry of PW-1, two other neighbours reached the spot, they are PW-2 and PW-3. The evidence of PWs-1, 2 and 3 was believed by the trial court and the High Court. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that there would not have been sufficient light for the witnesses to identify the assailants. The night was described to be a moon-lit night. That apart PW-1, brother of the deceased flashed the torch light and saw the assailants. Even otherwise, if the assailants had sufficient light to identify their victim so much light was good enough for the witnesses to identify the assailants also. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel endeavored to raise an argument based on the Uttar Pradesh children Act, 1951 on the premise that appellant Naseem was aged less than 16 years on the date of occurrence. For two reasons, we are not disposed to countenance the said contention. First is that such a point had never been taken up at any stage either in the committal court or in the trial court or in the High Court. Second is, a perusal of the documents produced in this Court which are said to be the school leaving certificates showed to us that they need not necessarily be applicable to appellant Naseem in this case. ( 5 ) IT is too late in the day and documents produced are too fragile for us to support a plea based on the Uttar Pradesh Children Act. ( 5 ) IT is too late in the day and documents produced are too fragile for us to support a plea based on the Uttar Pradesh Children Act. ( 6 ) IN the result, we dismiss these appeals. .