ORDER : RANJAN GOGOI, J. 1. This appeal arises from the judgment dated 02.07.2007 passed by the High Court of Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 188 of 1999. 2. The accused appellants who are eleven in number have been convicted, inter alia, under Sections 302/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. They have also been convicted under other provisions of Indian Penal Code i.e. 147, 148, 307, 326 etc. For each offences, different periods of imprisonment have been imposed. 3. Two of the accused i.e. Rajan (Accused No. 6) and Muthukumar (Accused No. 11) have died during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court. We will, therefore, confine the present consideration to the cases of the remaining accused-appellants. 4. PW-1 and PW-2 are the injured witnesses whereas PW-4 is the person who took the injured to the hospital along with one Chelladurai who also suffered injuries in the incident and subsequently died in the hospital. 5. We have perused the evidence of the injured witnesses and on such perusal, we find that each of the accused have been implicated by them. The evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 specifies the injuries caused by each of the accused on the deceased as well as PW-1 and PW-2. The weapon(s) used by each accused have also been testified with clarity. Both the said witnesses also withstood the test of cross examination. 6. Shri R. Balasubramanian, learned senior counsel appearing for the accused Nos. 1 to 4, 7, 9 and 10, has urged that the evidence of PW-1 should be discarded, inter alia, on account of certain omissions and contradictions in the evidence and also on account of the fact that the said witness was a known criminal, who had several criminal cases including murder cases pending against him. Insofar as PW-2 is concerned, learned senior counsel assailed the testimony of the said witness by pointing out to certain inconsistencies in the evidence tendered. 7. We have considered the specific grounds on which the evidence of the aforesaid two witnesses have been sought to be assailed. On such consideration we find that the inconsistencies and contradictions do not affect the core of their testimonies. The said witness have without any ambiguity implicated the accused for the injuries caused leading to the death of Chelladurai and also the injuries caused to PW-1 and PW-2. 8. On such consideration we find that the inconsistencies and contradictions do not affect the core of their testimonies. The said witness have without any ambiguity implicated the accused for the injuries caused leading to the death of Chelladurai and also the injuries caused to PW-1 and PW-2. 8. Learned senior counsel also relied on the evidence of DW-1 and DW-2 to demolish the prosecution case. We have considered the evidence of the said defence witnesses which have been read out to us. DW-1 was examined to show that a dance performance was going on at the time of the incident at a place close by whereas DW-2 was examined to bring in a discrepancy as to the time of the incident. 9. We have taken note of the grounds on which the two courts below had thought it proper to reject the evidence tendered by the DW-1 and DW-2. The specific reasons for rejecting the evidence of the two witnesses have been considered by us. On such consideration, we do not find any infirmity on the above score. 10. Accused No. 5 and 8 who are represented by Shri M.N. Rao, learned senior counsel, has vehemently contended before us that PW-4 was not examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C., 1973 and, therefore, the evidence tendered by him should be disbelieved. That apart, injury No. 4 suffered by the deceased was found to be sutured by the Doctor (PW-17), who performed the postmortem. It is accordingly urged that the deceased had received medical treatment elsewhere which would go to establish the falsity of the prosecution case. 11. Learned counsels appearing for the aforesaid two accused have further submitted that though the occurrence had taken place in the presence of a large number of persons who were present in the celebrations that were going in the immediate vicinity of the place of occurrence, no other witnesses have been examined. 12. The reasons for which the learned senior counsel appearing for the accused Nos. 5 and 8 would like us to disbelieve the case of the prosecution would hardly be acceptable in the light of the evidence tendered by the PW-1 and PW-2. The defence version, as unfolded by the defence witnesses examined in the case, has been noted above. We are not inclined to give any credence to the same. 5 and 8 would like us to disbelieve the case of the prosecution would hardly be acceptable in the light of the evidence tendered by the PW-1 and PW-2. The defence version, as unfolded by the defence witnesses examined in the case, has been noted above. We are not inclined to give any credence to the same. Merely because the defence witnesses have not been contradicted by reference to their previous statements following the provisions of Section 145 of the Evidence Act would not permit the Court to accept the version as unfolded by the said witnesses to be the correct version. 13. Consequently in the facts of the case and in light of the above discussions, we find no merit in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The order of conviction and sentence awarded by the High Court is affirmed. Appeal dismissed.