Dr. ANAND, J.:- In the broad day light on 6th of November, 1985, in front of village workshop Jairam met with homicidal death as a result of serious injuries suffered by him on his head, hands and legs allegedly at the hands of the appellant. First Information Report was lodged by Datta, PW1 the grandson of Jairam-deceased. 2. According to the prosecution case, Damodar, PW6 along with his brother Sahebrao, both carpenters-cum-blacksmiths were working at their workshop in the afternoon, when Pundlik, PW7 and Gajanan came there for a chat. Deceased-Jairam also came there a little later. While PWs 6 and 7 and others were chatting with the deceased, the appellant came there armed with a stick and suddenly started assaulting Jairam with the stick. He inflicted a number of blows on the deceased. PW6, PW7 and others ran way from the spot. After sometime PW6 and PW7 came back along with Waman, PW3 and found Jairam lying on the ground having sustained number of injuries on his head, hands and legs which were bleeding. The appellant was not there. Dutta, PW1 procured a bullock cart and removed his grand-father to the Police Station and after lodging the first information report took the injured to the dispensary where Jairam was pronounced "dead on arrival". In the trial Court, the prosecution with a view to connect the appellant with the crime mainly relied upon the evidence of Dutta PW 1, Waman PW3, Damodar PW6, Pundlik PW7. The prosecution also relied upon the recovery of the shirt and dhoti of the appellant on the basis of the statement made by him under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The weapon of offence, stick, was also taken into possession from the appellant. The stick, shirt and dhoti were sent to the chemical examiner, who, however, found on examination that there was no trace of blood on any of the article. 3. The trial Court after a detailed and critical appreciation of the evidence came to the conclusion that there was no motive at all for the appellant to have assaulted the deceased. It was also found that the evide.nce of PW6 and PW7 was not believable and for arriving at that finding their unnatural conduct of not making any effort whatsoever to rescue the deceased while he was being assaulted only by means of stick was taken note of. It was also found that the evide.nce of PW6 and PW7 was not believable and for arriving at that finding their unnatural conduct of not making any effort whatsoever to rescue the deceased while he was being assaulted only by means of stick was taken note of. The trial Court also found that the circumstantial evidence relating to the seizure of the stick from the appellant as well as the recovery of his clothes, pursuant to his disclosure statement, did not connect him with the crime at all. The trial Court noticed that the prosecution had withheld Bala who is reported to have given the information to his elder brother Dutta. PW I regarding the assault on the deceased, Sahebrao and Gajjan, who were also alleged to be the eye-witnesses and opined that on that account the prosecution case had been rendered doubtful. The trial Court accordingly gave the benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitted him. 4. The High Court on appeal against the acquittal filed by the State and on a revision filed by the complainant, agreed with the trial Court that the circumstantial evidence relating to the seizure of the stick and the recovery of the clothes from the appellant was of no significance. The High Court, however, taking a different view of the evidence of PW6 and PW7 found that the case against the appellant had been proved beyond reasonable doubt and convicted him for an offence under Section 302, IPC and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment. Hence these appeals. 5. We have carefully gone through the judgment of the High Court, We are at loss to understand as to on what basis the High Court upset the order of acquittal as recorded by the trial Court. The High Court has not returned any finding to the effect that the appreciation of the evidence by the trial Court was in any way perverse. It has not even said that the view taken by the trial Court was such which could not have been taken by any reasonable person on the basis of the material on the record. We also do notfind High Court to have pointed out that the appreciation of evidence by the trial Court was not fair. Without recording any of these findings, how the High Court upset the order of acquittal, is not intelligible. We also do notfind High Court to have pointed out that the appreciation of evidence by the trial Court was not fair. Without recording any of these findings, how the High Court upset the order of acquittal, is not intelligible. It was, in our view, not appropriate for the High Court to have interfered with an order of acquittal merely because it thought that it could take a different view of the appreciation of the evidence. To us, it appears that the High Court has erred gravely to set aside the order of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court. We have ourselves analysed the evidence on the record and find that the appreciation of the same by the trial Court was proper and fair. The reasons for acquittal as recorded by the trial Court appeal to us. The judgment of the trial Court is well considered and let alone perverse, it is not even unreasonable. The High Court on the other hand appears to have misread and misappreciated the evidence. The judgment of the High Court, in the peculiar facts of this case, cannot be sustained. We, therefore, accept these appeals and set aside the judgment of the High Court. The conviction and sentence of the appellant is set aside. The appellant is directed to be released forthwith from custody unless he is required in any other case. Appeals allowed. For Citation: 1995 Cri. LJ 2631 Vikas Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd.