( 1 ) DECEASED Rumal Gokal was the brother of Appellant 1 Shanabhai gokalbhai. Appellants 2, 3 and 4 are the sons of Appellant 1. Appellant 5 is the son of another brother of Appellant 1, Rai Singh. Deceased Rumal Gokal was unmarried. It appears that partition of the ancestral property had been made but since Rumal Gokal was unmarried, there were frequent quarrels between the family members mostly because of the property of deceased rumal Gokal. ( 2 ) ON 10-8-1991 in the evening Fatabhai Fulabhai, PW 6 informed the deceased, who had because of the quarrel with his brother, gone to stay with his stepsister, that the wood of the roof of the house of the deceased had come out because of rains. The deceased along with his nephew Kantibhai kuberbhai, PW 3 and his nephews wife Madhuben Kantibhai, PW 5 went to the spot with a view to repair the roof. All the appellants appeared on the spot variously armed and asked the deceased as to why he had come there and said that he should go away. On his insistence to repair the roof, the appellants assaulted him. Various injuries were caused by the appellants to the deceased not only on the spot but also when he was trying to run for his life and also after he had fallen down. The deceased succumbed to his injuries. Kantibhai Kuberbhai, PW 3 and Madhuben Kantibhai, PW 5 witnessed the occurrence. It was PW 3 who lodged the report of the occurrence. Both these witnesses (PW 3 and PW 5) as well as Fatabhai fulabhai, PW 6 who had initially conveyed information to the deceased about the damage of the roof of his house, appeared in the witness box and narrated the occurrence in the manner stated by the prosecution. They were crossexamined but their testimonies remained unassailed. Their evidence remained unshattered. The trial court relying upon the medical evidence as well as evidence of the aforesaid three eyewitnesses came to the conclusion that the appellants had formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and with the common object of causing the murder of deceased Rumal Gokal, assaulted him by various weapons which each one of them was carrying. Their evidence remained unshattered. The trial court relying upon the medical evidence as well as evidence of the aforesaid three eyewitnesses came to the conclusion that the appellants had formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and with the common object of causing the murder of deceased Rumal Gokal, assaulted him by various weapons which each one of them was carrying. The trial court accordingly convicted them for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 IPC and imposed the sentence of life imprisonment besides a fine of rs 1000 on them. In default of payment of fine, three months rigorous imprisonment was awarded. No separate sentence was recorded insofar as the offences under Sections 147, 148 and 149 are concerned. ( 3 ) THE appellants filed an appeal in the High Court challenging their conviction and sentence. A Division Bench of the High Court vide order dated 20-12-1993 dismissed the appeal. The High Court opined that the evidence of the eyewitnesses was convincing and the prosecution had successfully established its case beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the high Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants. Hence this appeal by special leave. ( 4 ) SINCE the judgment of the High Court is rather cryptic and even if we say it is telegraphic in nature, it may not be wrong. With a view to satisfy our judicial conscience, learned counsel for the appellants appearing on behalf of the Legal Services Authority, has taken us through the record. From the material on the record, we are satisfied that the findings recorded by the trial court are completely borne out by the evidence. The evidence of PWs 3, 5 and 6, reference to which has been given in the earlier part of our order, coupled with the medical evidence which discloses presence of as many as eight injuries on the deceased convinces us that the prosecution has established its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The eyewitnesses stood the test of cross-examination well. Their evidence has impressed us. They gave account of the occurrence in a straightforward and clear manner. Learned counsel has not been able to point any infirmity in their evidence. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the order of conviction and sentence. The eyewitnesses stood the test of cross-examination well. Their evidence has impressed us. They gave account of the occurrence in a straightforward and clear manner. Learned counsel has not been able to point any infirmity in their evidence. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the order of conviction and sentence. ( 5 ) AS a court of first appeal dealing with an appeal where five persons had been convicted of an offence under Section 302 IPC and awarded life imprisonment, it was expected that the Division Bench of the High Court should have dealt with the case more thoroughly. There is no reference in the judgment of the High Court about the nature of evidence or the depositions of the witnesses. Merely stating that the three eyewitnesses have convincingly given depositions against the appellants for an offence committed in broad daylight was not a proper manner to discharge its judicial obligations to discuss evidence and arguments. The approach of the High court was, to say the least, improper. We, however, say no more. ( 6 ) THE appeal consequently fails and is dismissed. The appellants are on bail. They shall surrender to their bail bonds to undergo the remaining period of their sentence.