ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated 15.03.2012 in Criminal Appeal No.177-DB of 2002. The appellants were proceeded against for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 3. The case of the prosecution as projected before the trial Court was that on 26.02.2000, Surjit Kaur (PW-2) along with her husband Gora Singh (PW-3) and son Mandar Singh (Deceased) were going to the house of Baru Singh (DW-3) for fetching Gur (Jaggery) and fuel wood as a labour for crushing his sugarcane. At about 05.30 p.m., when PW-2 & PW3 were following their son Mandar Singh near Smadh (Tomb of Baba Sidh Bhoi), Kochar Singh (A4) and Jaggi Singh (A3) sons of Mandar Singh @ Madha Singh, Nahra Singh(A2) and Janta Singh(A1) sons of Nek Singh, came from the opposite side and were armed with gandasas. A4 and A3 raised alarm that Mandar Singh be not left alive and be taught a lesson for causing injuries to their father, whereupon, A3 and A2 inflicted gandasa blows on the left arm of the deceased; A4 inflicted gandasa blows on his head. Consequently, the deceased fell down and succumbed to his injuries, whereupon the accused decamped with their respective weapons. 4. Surjit Kaur (PW-2) made a statement to the Inspector Chuhar Singh, Investigating Officer (PW-4) that the motive behind the occurrence is that, previously, the deceased had caused injuries to Mandar Singh @ Madha Singh, father of A3 and A4. Therefore, in order to wreak vengeance, the accused persons caused injuries to the deceased. On the aforesaid statement made by PW-2, PW-4 registered First Information Report (Ex.PD/2) dated 26.02.2000 against the accused persons. After completion of the investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined seven witnesses namely Dr. Sohan Lal (PW-1), Surjit Kaur (PW-2), Gora Singh (PW-3), Inspector Chuhar Singh (PW-4), Ravinder Kumar Goyal (PW-5), HC. Prem Kumar (PW-6) and C. Hamir Singh (PW-7). In defence, the appellants examined four witnesses namely Dr. 5. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined seven witnesses namely Dr. Sohan Lal (PW-1), Surjit Kaur (PW-2), Gora Singh (PW-3), Inspector Chuhar Singh (PW-4), Ravinder Kumar Goyal (PW-5), HC. Prem Kumar (PW-6) and C. Hamir Singh (PW-7). In defence, the appellants examined four witnesses namely Dr. Asha Kiran (DW-1), Mandar Singh son of Kaur Singh (DW-2), Baru Singh (DW-3) and Satnam Singh (DW-4). 6. The trial Court upon consideration of the evidence and material available on record, by its judgment dated 31.01.2002, in Sessions Case No.12 dated 27.05.2000, found the appellants guilty of the offence alleged against them and while convicting them imposed rigorous imprisonment for life apart from a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 7. Aggrieved by the order of conviction, the accused persons preferred an appeal before the High Court. The High Court upon re-appreciation of the evidence and the totality of circumstances affirmed the conviction and award of sentence against the appellants herein (A1, A2 & A4) and modified the sentence against A3 which is reduced to that of period already undergone by him under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. Hence, the appellants are before us in this appeal challenging their conviction and award of sentence affirmed by the High Court under Section 302/34 of the IPC. 8. As seen from the aforesaid factual matrix, the Trial Court has convicted the appellants on the basis of the testimonies of PW-2 and PW-3 who were the eye-witnesses to the commission of crime. The High Court has also re-examined the entire case and has come to the same conclusion. It would be of interest to note that in the statements made under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant Nahra Singh (A2) did not deny his presence or even the fact that he has inflicted the injuries on the person of the deceased. The case put by him was that it was in his defence inasmuch the deceased had given a gandasa blow on his head and thigh. However, there was no report lodged by him in this behalf nor he presented himself for medical examination to show that any such injuries were caused to him by the deceased. The case put by him was that it was in his defence inasmuch the deceased had given a gandasa blow on his head and thigh. However, there was no report lodged by him in this behalf nor he presented himself for medical examination to show that any such injuries were caused to him by the deceased. From the testimonies of the eye-witnesses the presence of other two accused persons as well as their role of inflicting injuries thereby committing murder with a common intention stands proved beyond reasonable doubt. Since, these are concurrent findings of the courts below, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. 9. This appeal lacks merits and stands dismissed.