JUDGMENT A.S.ANAND, CJI. (1) FIVE persons, namely, Chandra, Laxmi Narain, Kamlesh, Dhani Ram and Krishna were sent up for trial for offences under section 302/149 & 148 Indian Penal Code in connection with the murder of Ghasita and his son Nathu on 14/03/1989. Ram Prakash, another son of deceased Ghasita lodged the first information report, exhibit K-1 and appeared as Public Witness - 1 at the trial while another eye-witness Binda appeared as Public Witness-2. The trial court, after recording evidence, vide judgment dated 7th May, 1983 sentenced all the accused persons to death for offences under section 302/149 & 148 Indian Penal Code. The convicts filed appeals against their conviction and sentence in the High Court. On 5/07/1994, the High Court set aside the conviction of Laxmi Narain - R-2. Kamlesh - R-3 and Krishna - R-5 under section 302/149 and 148 Indian Penal Code and instead convicted them under section 302 read with section 34 I.P.C. and reduced their sentence from death to life imprisonment. Chandra - R-1 and Dhani - R-4 were acquitted. Reference for confirmation of death sentence was rejected. (2) THE special leave petition filed by state seeking leave to appeal against reduction of death sentence of R-2, R-3 and R-5 and acquittal of R-1 and R-4 was considered by this Court. While SLP seeking enhancement of sentence of R- 2. R-3 and R-5 was dismissed, leave was granted insofar as acquittal of R-1 and R-4 is concerned. R-3 and R-5 also filed appeals (Crl.A. Nos. 135-136/97) by special leave against their conviction and sentence. Laxmi Narain - R-2, however, has not questioned his conviction and sentence. This order will dispose of CrI. A. No. 1467/95 and CrI. Appeal Nos. 135- 136/97. (3) WE have heard Mr. Devesh Singh, learned counsel for the state, Mr. N.P. Midha, learned counsel for R-1 and R-4 and Mr. L.K. Pandey, learned counsel appearing as amicus for R-3 and R-5. (4) WE have perused the judgment of the trial court and the High Court and. with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties have been taken through the relevant record. Insofar as Kamlesh - R-3 and Krishna - R-5, the appellants in CrI. A. Nos. 135-136/97, are concerned, in our opinion the appreciation of evidence both by the trial court and the High Court is most appropriate. with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties have been taken through the relevant record. Insofar as Kamlesh - R-3 and Krishna - R-5, the appellants in CrI. A. Nos. 135-136/97, are concerned, in our opinion the appreciation of evidence both by the trial court and the High Court is most appropriate. A bare perusal of first information report and the evidence of Public Witness -1 and Public Witness -2, the two eye-witnesses, clearly goes to establish their participation in the assault of both the deceased. Medical evidence provided by Public Witness - 3 lends ample corroboration to the testimonies of Public Witness - 1 and Public Witness - 2 insofar as Kamlesh and Krishna are concerned. Nothing has been brought to our notice from which any inference may be possibly drawn of any mis-appreciation of evidence or wrong application of law by either the trial court or the High Court insofar as the guilt of these two appellants is concerned. The appeals against conviction and sentence filed by these two appellants are, accordingly, dismissed. (5) COMING now to the appeal filed by the state against acquittal of Chandra and Dhani, the High Court has, while recording acquittal of these two respondents, taken note of the fact that PW-1, the ace eye-witness of the prosecution tried to improve his case at the trial by bringing in his testimony in accord with medical evidence in as much as he deposed at the trial, after noticing the absence of any pointed weapon injury on the deceased in the medical evidence, that these two respondents had used their ballams (spears) like lathis. The High Court referred to the medical evidence and found that the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased could not be attributed to the use of ballam. The High Court, being of the opinion that the attempt made by the eye-witnesses to improve their evidence to bring it in line with the medical evidence was an infirmity which rendered it unsafe to rely upon them as to the two respondents chandra and Dhani Ram, gave benefit of doubt to both of them and acquitted them. The reason given by the High Court is sound. It does not suffer from any perversity. It is a reasonable view of the evidence. The reason given by the High Court is sound. It does not suffer from any perversity. It is a reasonable view of the evidence. Our independent analysis of the evidence also shows that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the two respondents beyond a reasonable doubt. Under these circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the order of acquittal of Chandra and Dhani Ramrespondents. Consequently, crl. appeal no. 1467 of 1995 also fails and is dismissed. (6) AS a result, all the three appeals fail and are dismissed.