ORDER The Appellant was tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC for causing death of Babu. The trial Court acquitted him on the ground that the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, who claimed to be the eye-witnesses, was highly improbable. The trial Court did not believe the evidence of PWs 3 and 4 that the deceased has told them, as soon as they had gone to the arrack shop of the deceased after the incident, that he was stabbed by the Appellant. The trial Court further held that even if it was assumed that the accused had inflicted the injury on the deceased, it certainly could not have been in the manner alleged by the prosecution. Taking this view, the trial Court acquitted the Appellant. 2. On appeal by the State, the High Court held that the reasons given by the trial Court are not sustainable. After appreciating the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, who were the eye-witnesses, the High Court held that their evidence does not suffer from any infirmity and there was no reason to believe that the accused was falsely implicated by them. The High Court held that the trial Court s finding that the version given by PWs 1 and 2 was not proper and not at all sustainable. It found that the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 stood corroborated by the evidence of PWs 3 and 4 who are having shops nearby the place of the incident. The High Court considered the discrepancy pointed out by the trial Court and found that the trial Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence on this point. The evidence if properly read discloses that PW 1 had removed the deceased out of the room and that was not done by PW 2. The High Court further held that the trial Court was not right in disbelieving the evidence of PW 2 on the ground of his conduct. Soon after the incident PW 2 had gone to bring a jeep for taking the injured to hospital. That conduct cannot be regarded as un-natural. The High Court, therefore, rightly held that evidence of the two eye-witnesses PW 2 and PW 3 was wrongly discarded by the trial Court. 3. Soon after the incident PW 2 had gone to bring a jeep for taking the injured to hospital. That conduct cannot be regarded as un-natural. The High Court, therefore, rightly held that evidence of the two eye-witnesses PW 2 and PW 3 was wrongly discarded by the trial Court. 3. It also appears from the judgment of the trial Court that it was also inclined to believe that the accused had inflicted the injury on the deceased. But the suspicious approach of the trial Court led it to acquit him. We agree with the finding of the High Court that the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 establishes beyond doubt that the Appellant had given a knife blow to the deceased. Therefore, the High Court was right in reversing the findings recorded by the trial Court and convicting the Appellant under Section 302 IPC. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal. (C.R.) Appeal dismissed. ************* Parallel Citations of other Journals : M. Thomas @ Joyi v. State of Kerala, 2000(6) Supreme 419 : 2000 (7) JT 389 : 2000 (3) All. Crl. L.R. 157 : 2000 (4) Crimes 59 00018