ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The trial court convicted fifteen accused persons, including the five appellants of Criminal Appeal No. 801 of 2005 under Sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs 5000 each. They were further convicted under Sections 307/149 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs 1000 each, in default, to undergo further imprisonment for a period of one month. The accused persons were then convicted under Sections 324 and 148 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and one year respectively. The sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently. 3. On appeal being preferred, the High Court acquitted other ten accused persons whereas upheld convictions of the appellants of Criminal Appeal No. 801 of 2005. Hence, Criminal Appeal No. 801 of 2005 has been filed by special leave by the convicted accused persons. The State of Haryana has filed Criminal Appeal No. 674 of 2005 against the order of acquittal rendered by the High Court in relation to nine persons whereas no appeal has been preferred against the order of acquittal of Krishan-I1 (Accused 6). 4. In the present case, prosecution has relied upon the evidence of two c eyewitnesses, namely, Chhabil Dass (PW 12) and Prithavi Singh (PW 13). Both these witnesses were injured persons and out of them, PW 12 was the informant and PW 13 has been named as an eyewitness in the first information report itself. These two witnesses have consistently supported the prosecution case in their statements made before the police as well as in court. We have been taken through their evidence and we do not find any ground to discard their evidence, more so, when their evidence is corroborated by medical evidence as the doctor, who conducted post-mortem on the dead bodies of deceased Banwari and Duli Chand, opined that the injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and the same were caused by firearm as well as other weapons like kulhari and lathi. In view of these facts, it is not possible to disbelieve the evidence of these two witnesses. In view of these facts, it is not possible to disbelieve the evidence of these two witnesses. It is well settled that merely because prosecution has failed to explain injuries of the accused, the same cannot be a solitary ground for doubting the prosecution case, if otherwise, evidence relied upon is found to be credible. In the case on hand as we are of the view that no ground is made out to disbelieve the evidence of PWs 12 and 13 who are the eyewitnesses ( and whose evidence is corroborated by the medical evidence, non explanation of injuries of the accused by the prosecution cannot be a ground to record acquittal of the appellants. So far as the State appeal is concerned, having perused the judgment of acquittal rendered by the High Court in relation to some of the accused persons, we do not find that the same can be said to be perverse in any manner. 5. Accordingly, both the appeals fail and the same are, accordingly, dismissed.