ORDER : This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 11.07.2003 passed in Criminal Appeals No. 563 of 1981 and 565 of 1981 by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad affirming the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court to the three appellants, namely, Collector Singh, Shishupal and Sia Ram along with some other persons. All the appellants stood convicted by the trial court under Section 302 in aid of 149 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life vide judgment and order dated 19.02.1981 in Sessions Trial No. 206 of 1980. It may be noted here they have also been convicted in respect of other offences in aid of 149 IPC and imposed separate sentences. 2. The prosecution case is that the deceased-Ahibaran Singh and his son Narsingh, PW.1, had gone to Bilsi as Narsingh, PW.1, had to appear in the examination and Ahibaran Singh had to draw his pension form the bank. When they were coming back, they were attacked by the appellants along with other co-accused persons and caused serious injuries. The FIR was lodged by Narsingh, PW.1, police recovered the dead body and sent it to the post mortem and after completion of the investigation filed the charge sheet against appellants and other co-accused. After concluding the trial, they have been convicted, as referred to herein above. Appeal against the same has been dismissed by the High Court. Hence, this appeal. 3. Mr. Ajay Veer Singh Jain, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that there are material discrepancies in the depositions of the witnesses and the ocular evidence runs contrary to the medical evidence and, therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed. Mr. Pramod Swarup, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of U.P., in oppugnation has contended that both the courts below have appreciated the entire evidence and recorded the conviction, and hence, it does not deserve to be disturbed by this Court. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence as well as the judgments of the courts below. Dr. O.P. Chhinga, PW.4, has conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Ahibaran Singh and found the following ante mortem injuries on his person:- "(i) Lacerated wound 5 cm x 5 cm x bone deep on the top and middle of head obliquely placed. Dr. O.P. Chhinga, PW.4, has conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Ahibaran Singh and found the following ante mortem injuries on his person:- "(i) Lacerated wound 5 cm x 5 cm x bone deep on the top and middle of head obliquely placed. Margins of would are congested and full of blood clots. Under the would there was fishered fracture of both parietal bone. On opening the skull there is haemotoma of about 20 c.c. blood under injury with laceration of mangieses and brain under it. (ii) Lacerated wound 1.5 cm x .5 cm x .5 cm on the front and left of chin. (iii) Lacerated would 3 cm x .5 cm x .5 cm transversely placed one cm below chin. (iv) Contusion 3 cm x 2 cm on the centre of right cheek. (v) Contusion 4 cm x 1 cm on the top of right shoulder. (vi) Contusion with swelling of right upper eye brow and lid." He has also opined that the cause of death was due to shock and concussion on account of injury no. 1. Dr. Ram Chandra Joshi, PW.5, had examined the Narsingh, PW.1, and he found the following injuries on his body: "(i) Lacerated wound on the middle of both the parities 2 cm x 1.8 cm x skin deep fresh blood coming out. Kept under observation. Advised X-ray scalp; (ii) Lacerated would on the left side of parieto occipital region of scalp 4 cm x 0.5 cm x skin deep in diameter. 13.5 cm from left ear. Kept under observation. Advised X-ray. (iii) Lacerated wound on the right side of parieto occipital region of scalp 4.5 cm x 0.7 cm x skin deep in diameter. 10 cm from right ear. Kept under observation. Advised X-ray. (iv) Lacerated wound on the left side of occipital region of scalp 2 cm x 0.4 cm x skin deep. Kept under observation. Advised X-ray. 9 cm from left ear. (v) Punctured wound on the left side of dorsum of left hand on meetacarpal region on left little ginge 0.4 cm x 0.2 cm x 1 cm in diameter Kept under observation. Advised X-ray. (vi) Abrasion mark on the middle of left ring finger and little finger 2 cm x 0.5 cm in diameter. (vii) Traumatic swelling on the dorsum of left hand 4 cm x 3 cm in diameter. Advised X-ray. (vi) Abrasion mark on the middle of left ring finger and little finger 2 cm x 0.5 cm in diameter. (vii) Traumatic swelling on the dorsum of left hand 4 cm x 3 cm in diameter. Advised X-ray left hand left little finger. Kept under observation" 5. The injured witness is the son of the deceased and he has graphically narrated the assault on his father. As the assailants were known to him he has stated about the individual roles played by each of the accused persons. His testimony has received corroboration from the ocular testimony of other witnesses. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment and order of the High Court affirming conviction and sentence of the learned trial Judge does not deserve any interference by this Court. The appeal, accordingly, being sans merit, is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.