ORDER : None appears on behalf of the respondents-accused. 2. We have heard Mr. Jagjit Singh Chhabra, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-State and perused the record. 3. The Session Judge, Gurdaspur, vide its judgment dated 09.09.1998 in S.C. No.138/1993, convicted respondent no.1 – Harjit Singh, under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the 'IPC') and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. Respondent no.1 was further convicted under Section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months, with fine and default clause. Respondent no.2 – Sukhwant Singh, was also convicted by the Session Judge, Gurdaspur, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the 'IPC') and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. He was further convicted under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, with fine and default clause. 4. The Trial Court accepted the prosecution version that the respondents-accused were responsible for the death of Babbal Kumar. According to the prosecution, the accused were quarreling with each other and Babbal Kumar who was their neighbour, intervened. Respondent no.1 – Harjit Singh gave a small kirpan blow on the neck of Babbal Kumar, as a result of which, Babbal Kumar died. 5. In the appeal filed by the respondents-accused, the High Court partly allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of the respondents-accused under Section 302 of the IPC and acquitted them of the said charge. The High Court convicted respondent no.1 – Harjit Singh under Section 304 Part II of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- with default clause. The conviction and sentence of respondent no.1 – Harjit Singh under Section 323 read with section 34 of the IPC, was set aside and he was acquitted of the said charges. In so far as respondent no.2 – Sukhwant Singh is concerned, the High Court maintained his conviction and sentence under Section 323 of the IPC as ordered by the Trial Court. 6. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we do not see any reason to interfere with the judgment of the High Court. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.