As per case facts, a police party on barricade duty spotted four scooterists who refused to stop and fled. During the chase, the scooterists attacked a police official with daggers, ... injuring him and snatching his carbine, then escaped. The trial court convicted all four accused for attempt to murder and robbery. The appellants appealed, claiming false implication, lack of proper identification, and absence of independent witnesses. Baljinder Singh also argued that Section 397 IPC was not applicable to him as he didn't use a deadly weapon. The question arose whether the prosecution proved charges beyond reasonable doubt, specifically regarding identity, reliance on police testimony, and common intention. Finally, the High Court found consistent police eyewitness accounts, supported by medical evidence and weapon recovery, to be reliable. It ruled that the absence of independent witnesses was understandable given the circumstances. The court concluded that the prosecution established intent to kill, use of sharp weapons, and common object/intention, upholding the convictions and dismissing all appeals.