JUDGMENT : The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bhagwati, J. 1. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad reversing the order of acquittal passed favour of the appellant by the learned Sessions Judge, Medak and convicting him of the offence under Section 243 of the Hyderabad Penal Code and sentencing him to transportation for life. 2. The case of the prosecution was that Bugga Reddy was coming from Ananthasagar to Puttapahad accompanied by Mohammad Kasim when on the way in a jungle at Ananthasagar village border the appellant and one Pedda Baliga fired at him and butchered him with a dagger due to enmity. Mohammad Kasim witnessed the occurrence and he ran away. On his way he met Mala Budadu to whom he narrated the occurrence and asked him to inform the Police Patel of Ananthasagar village of the occurrence. Mala Budadu went to Anthiah, the Police Patel and reported the occurrence to him and the police Patel thereupon prepared his report which was sent by him to the Police Station Mohamadabad and the first information report was prepared on the basis of the same. Mohammad Kasim further met Butchiya and asked him to report the occurrence the brothers, of the deceased. Butchiya informed Bhim Reddy, the brother of the deceased of the occurrence. The police took up the investigation of the offence. One Sheikh Hussain, a Jemadar of the police carried on the investigation and prepared a panchnama of the causes of the death. He prepared the panchnama or the inquest report in two parts, the original of which was produced in court as Ex. 2. This bore the signatures of the panchs as well as the heirs of the deceased and in column 5 contained the names of the Appellant and Pedda Baliga as the assailants of the deceased, though curiously enough the counterpart Ex. 9 did not contain these names. The appellant and Pedda Baliga were challaned before the Munsiff and were committed to the sessions. 3. The prosecution examined in the Sessions Court Mohammad Kasim, Anthiah, Bhim Reddy and Sheikh Hussain abovementioned. They also examined Rama who along with Buchigadu was proceeding towards Ananthasagar and Kethapali to purchase leather and witnessed the occurrence. He was an eyewitness of the occurrence along with Mohammad Kasim. 3. The prosecution examined in the Sessions Court Mohammad Kasim, Anthiah, Bhim Reddy and Sheikh Hussain abovementioned. They also examined Rama who along with Buchigadu was proceeding towards Ananthasagar and Kethapali to purchase leather and witnessed the occurrence. He was an eyewitness of the occurrence along with Mohammad Kasim. Buchigadu was however not examined by the prosecution alleging that his evidence would merely be a duplication of that of Rama. After a close scrutiny of the evidence of the above witnesses and the other evidence which was led by the prosecution before him the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the guilt of the appellant and Pedda Baliga was not established and acquitted them of the offence with which they were charged. 4. An appeal was taken by the State of Hyderabad to the High Court. The High Court reassessed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and came to the conclusion that the criticisms levelled by the learned Sessions Judge against that evidence were not justified and that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing the guilt of the appellant and Pedda Baliga. It therefore reversed the decision of the learned Sessions Judge and convicted and sentenced the appellant as above. 5. Shri R.S. Narula, the learned counsel for the appellant before us took us through the relevant portions of the evidence led by the prosecution and contended that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge. He drew our attention to a decision of this Court in Surajpal Singh v. The State 1952 SCR 193 , where this Court held that 'it is well settled that in an appeal under Section 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the High Court has full power to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded. But it is equally well settled that the presumption of innocence of the accused is further reinforced by his acquittal by the trial court and the findings of the trial court which had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing their evidence can be reversed only for very substantial and compelling reasons'. But it is equally well settled that the presumption of innocence of the accused is further reinforced by his acquittal by the trial court and the findings of the trial court which had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing their evidence can be reversed only for very substantial and compelling reasons'. He urged before us that there were no substantial and compelling reasons for the High Court to reverse the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge in favour of the appellant and that the High Court was in error when it reversed the order of acquittal and convicted the appellant. 6. The main ground which appears to have appealed to the learned Sessions Judge in arriving at the conclusion which he did was that neither in the report of the police Patel nor in the first information report which was prepared therefrom on 28th October, 1947 was there any mention of the names of the appellant and Pedda Baliga as the assailants of the deceased, which would have been the case if the story of Mohammad Kasim that he had given to Mala Budadu the names of the appellant and Pedda Baliga as the persons who inflicted the injuries on the person of the deceased was true. This ground was further supported by the fact as found by the learned Sessions Judge that Bhim Reddy, brother of the deceased came to know about the names of the appellant and Pedda Baliga from his informant Butchiya and reached the place of the occurrence before the report was sent by Anthiah and yet there was no mention of the names of the appellant and Pedda Baliga therein as the assailants of the deceased. The learned Sessions Judge also discounted the evidence of Rama who according to him could not have been present at the place of the occurrence if the statement of Mohd. Kasim that he saw nobody else at or near the place of the occurrence, was true. He also criticised the fact that Buchigadu, who was alleged to have accompanied Rama on the occasion was not called by the prosecution. The learned Sessions Judge was also impressed by the circumstance that neither Mohd. Kasim nor Rama went to any nearby village to inform any police Patel, nor did Mohd. Kasim himself go and inform any of the relatives of the deceased. The learned Sessions Judge was also impressed by the circumstance that neither Mohd. Kasim nor Rama went to any nearby village to inform any police Patel, nor did Mohd. Kasim himself go and inform any of the relatives of the deceased. The above circumstances together with other minor circumstances which we need not advert to were particularly relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge as entitling the appellant to the benefit of the doubt and led him to acquit the appellant as he did. 7. The High Court in appeal did not consider the non-mention of the names of the appellant and Pedda Baliga as the assailants of the deceased by Mala Budadu as of any consequence because of the fact that Mala Budadu was hard of hearing and it was highly probable that even-though Mohd. Kasim gave the names to Mala Budadu the latter did not hear them and therefore did not convey the same to Anthiah, the police Patel. It consequently relied upon the evidence of Mohd. Kasim in this behalf and brushed aside the criticism which had been levelled by the learned Sessions Judge against the non-mention of these names in the report by the police Patel as also in the FIR. The High Court also considered the evidence of PW 3, Bhim Reddy and Buchiah, PW 8, which showed that Mohd. Kasim had given the names to Buchiah when the latter was asked by him to convey the information of the death to the heirs of the deceased and that Buchiah in his turn had conveyed these names to Bhim Reddy when he informed him about the occurrence. This circumstance was considered by the High Court as corroborative of the testimony of Mohd. Kasim and sufficient to dispel all doubts, which were created in the mind of the learned Sessions Judge by reason of the non-mention of these names in those two documents. The High Court also accepted the evidence of Rama and did not see any reason to discount his evidence or the evidence of Mohd. Kasim merely by reason of the fact that Buchigadu was not examined by the prosecution. The High Court also had before it the evidence of Era Reddy, PW 11, the brother of the deceased who had stated that when he reached the place of occurrence Mohd. Kasim was there and Mohd. Kasim merely by reason of the fact that Buchigadu was not examined by the prosecution. The High Court also had before it the evidence of Era Reddy, PW 11, the brother of the deceased who had stated that when he reached the place of occurrence Mohd. Kasim was there and Mohd. Kasim stated that the appellant and Pedda Baliga had murdered the deceased. Having regard to all these circumstances the High Court came to the conclusion that the story as narrated by Mohd. Kasim and Rama the eyewitnesses of the occurrence was true and accepted the same observing that that evidence was in its opinion sufficient to convict the appellant. The High Court reinforced its conclusion by referring to the circumstantial evidence also which went to show that the appellant was seen going with a gun on the day of the occurrence which evidence was not in the least rebutted by the evidence led on behalf of the defence. 8. We are of the opinion that having regard to the evidence on record there were substantial and compelling reasons justifying the reversal by the High Court of the order of acquittal passed in favour of the appellant by the learned Sessions Judge. Apart from the circumstances referred to by the High Court as regards Mala Budadu not having heard the names of the appellant and Pedda Baliga when Mohd. Kasim informed him about the occurrence and asked him to report the same to Anthiah, Anthiah was not expected to ask Mala Budadu who the assailants were because column 4 of the report to be made by him only required him to give the names of the accused if given by the complainant or informant. There was moreover definite evidence on the record which went to show that by the time Anthiah prepared the report and sent it to the Police Station Mohamadabad nobody else had arrived at the place of occurrence and the statement of the learned Sessions Judge in the course of his judgment that Bhim Reddy, the brother of the deceased knew the names of the accused and reached the place of occurrence before the report was sent by Anthiah to the police station was not correct. Our attention was drawn to the evidence Era Reddy, Anthiah and Bhim Reddy which goes to show that the report was despatched by Anthiah to the police station before Bhim Reddy and Era Reddy, the brothers of the deceased went to the place of occurrence. If that was so there was no substance in the criticism which was levelled by the learned Sessions Judge against the absence of the names of the appellant and Pedda Baliga in the report which was written out by Anthiah and also the FIR which was prepared at the Police Station Mohamadabad on the strength of that report. Buchigadu was no doubt an important witness and it would have been much better if the prosecution had not dropped him on the plea that his evidence would merely be a duplication of the evidence of Rama but had examined him so as to give an opportunity to the counsel appearing for the accused to cross-examine him. This however was not such a circumstance as would detract from the testimony of the other witnesses particularly Mohd. Kasim and Rama whose evidence was believed by the High Court. As regards Mohd. Kasim and/or Rama not going to the nearby villages to inform any police Patel and Mohd. Kasim in particular not informing any relative of the deceased it is necessary to observe that Mohd. Kasim was very much unnerved and ran away for his life. Even though he was so running away he took the opportunity of informing Mala Budadu of the occurrence and asking him to go to the police Patel at Ananthasagar and report the occurrence to him. He further took the opportunity of informing Buchiah about the occurrence and asking him to go to the heirs of the deceased and convey the information of the occurrence to them. If all these things were done by Mohd. Kasim there is no force in the criticism levelled by the learned Sessions Judge against Mohd. Kasim and/or Rama in not informing the police Patel or the relations of the deceased as above. 9. The High Court was therefore in our opinion justified in re-weighing the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution as it did and coming to the conclusion that the prosecution had established the charge against the appellant. We accordingly dismiss the appeal and confirm the conviction and the sentence-passed by the High Court against him.