ORDER : 1. In these appeals, nine persons, including three appellants herein, were charged for committing offence of murder of one Santokh Singh @ Tokhi under Section 302 read with Section 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as "IPC") and Section 149 IPC. One accused person, namely, Shambu absconded and was declared as proclaimed offender by the Court. 2. To proceed with the trial of eight accused persons, charge was framed by the Court of Additional Session Judge on 24.09.1999 under the aforesaid provisions of the IPC. The Trial Court after conclusion of the trial and hearing the arguments convicted four persons, namely, Amandeep Singh @ Romi, Gurpartap Singh, Dasondha Singh and Baljit Kaur and acquitted other four accused persons. 3. It was specifically held that since the persons convicted are less than five in number, prosecution has failed to prove the charge framed against them under Sections 148 and 149 of the IPC. Likewise, they were also acquitted of the charge framed against them under Section 120-B of the IPC. 4. To reiterate, the conviction was recorded only under Section 302 of the IPC against the acquittal of four accused persons. The State did not file any appeal and, therefore, the judgment of the trial court attained finality to that extent. However, the convicted persons preferred an appeal against their conviction before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh and by impugned judgment dated 22.09.2011, the High Court has dismissed the appeal of these persons thereby affirming the judgment of the trial court. One of these convicted person has died in the meantime. It is for this reason that only three convicted persons have filed these special leave petitions in which leave was granted and that is how these appeals have come up for final hearing. 5. Mr. R.S. Sodhi, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, has pointed out that it is only Amandeep Singh who had inflicted the injury on the deceased by sword and other three persons had not attacked the deceased in any manner whatsoever. This is the case of the prosecution itself. 5. Mr. R.S. Sodhi, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, has pointed out that it is only Amandeep Singh who had inflicted the injury on the deceased by sword and other three persons had not attacked the deceased in any manner whatsoever. This is the case of the prosecution itself. On that basis, submission is made by learned senior counsel that they could not even be convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC simpliciter when no injury is attributed on them and once they were acquitted of the charges under Sections 148, 149 and 120B of IPC. In support of the submission, reliance is placed on the judgment of Nanak Chand v. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1955 SCC 274 and Subran alias Subramanian & Ors. v. State of Kerala reported in 1993 CRI.L.J.1387. 6. We find force in the aforesaid submissions of the learned senior counsel and are of the opinion that the matter is squarely covered on the ratio of aforesaid judgment cited by the learned senior counsel. As a result, Crl.A.No.325/2013 filed by Baljit Kaur and Crl.A. No. 323/2013 preferred by Gurpratap Singh are allowed thereby setting aside the conviction recorded against them. Since both these persons are still in jail, they shall be released forthwith unless required in any other case. 7. Crl. A. No. 324/2013 filed by Amandeep Singh is dismissed. .