ORDER : The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 828-DB of 2005 whereby the High Court has declined to entertain the appeal preferred by the appellants, namely, Saudagar Singh and Nahar Singh. Be it noted, during the pendency of this appeal, Nahar Singh has expired and accordingly the appeal qua him has already been dismissed. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the deceased Teja Singh Tufan was traveling with his wife, Darshan Kaur, the complainant PW 4 near Patiala Railway Crossing. At that juncture, Saudagar Singh came and stopped the vehicle, as a result of which, both husband and wife fell down on the road. No sooner did they fall down on the road than late Nahar Singh, son of the appellant, inflicted severe blows with the knife, as a consequence of which Teja Singh Tufan suffered injuries and eventually after being carried to the hospital in a jeep breathe his last. After an FIR was lodged by the wife, the criminal law was set in motion and the investigation commenced. The autopsy of the body was conducted, witnesses were examined and after completing further formalities charge-sheet was filed against the four accused persons, namely, Saudagar Singh, Nahar Singh, Najam Singh @ Roshan Singh and Nikka Singh. The prosecution examined number of witnesses and marked series of documents and relying on the same, the Court of Session convicted Saudagar Singh, Nahar Singh and Najam Singh under Section 302 IPC and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. However, it acquitted Nikka Singh. 3. In a motion of appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court found that prosecution has not been able to substantiate the charges levelled against Najam Singh alias Roshan Singh and accordingly acquitted him. As far as Saudagar Singh and Nahar Singh are concerned, they stood convicted. 4. Questioning the defensibility of the judgment, Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is no allegation against the appellant except that he had stopped the vehicle in which Teja Singh was riding and, therefore, the appellant could not have been convicted under Section 302 IPC. 5. Per contra, Mr. 4. Questioning the defensibility of the judgment, Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is no allegation against the appellant except that he had stopped the vehicle in which Teja Singh was riding and, therefore, the appellant could not have been convicted under Section 302 IPC. 5. Per contra, Mr. Saurabh Ajay Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the State of Punjab submitted with immense vehemence that had the scooter not been stopped by Saudagar Singh, there would have been no opportunity on the part of late Nahar Singh to inflict the blows and, therefore, both the Courts have correctly recorded a conviction against him. 6. To appreciate the said submissions raised at the Bar, we have scrutnised the judgments in detail and perused the evidence. It is categorically deposed by the complainant that she was elected as a member of the Gurdwara Prabhandak Committee and after being so elected, she found certain things against the Saudagar Singh and accordingly removed him from the post of Sewadar in a Gurudwara and, therefore, he had a grudge against her and her family. It has also come out in the evidence that at the railway crossing, the accused appellant stopped the scooter and, in fact, blocked him to proceed further, as a consequence of which the husband and wife fell down and immediately thereafter Nahar Singh inflicted blows. On the basis of evidence brought on record, it is difficult to attribute a role of innocence to the accused-appellant that he had done nothing except stopping the scooter. We are inclined to agree with the submission of Mr. Saurabh Ajay Gupta, learned counsel for the State that had the scooter not been stopped, the crime which has been committed by the late Nahar Singh could not have been facilitated and ultimately accomplished. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we find there is no illegality in the judgment of the High Court and accordingly, we concur with the same. 7. We may hasten to add for the sake of completeness that late Nahar Singh had already been convicted for the offences on two cases, and, one for assaulting the son of the deceased. The said aspect has been noted by us to indicate that the appellant and his son nurtured grudge and animosity against the family of the deceased. 8. We may hasten to add for the sake of completeness that late Nahar Singh had already been convicted for the offences on two cases, and, one for assaulting the son of the deceased. The said aspect has been noted by us to indicate that the appellant and his son nurtured grudge and animosity against the family of the deceased. 8. In view of our aforesaid analysis, the appeal being bereft of merit stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.