M. F. SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) THE State of Karnataka has preferred this appeal which is directed against the judgment and order dated 3-1-1997 in SC No. 25 of 1991. Of the seven accused before the Court, accused 4 has passed away and hence the appeal survives only against accused 1 to 3 and 5 to 7. It is relevant to point out that the learned Trial Judge had, on the basis of the reasoning and conclusions, recorded the finding that as far as accused 5, 6 and 7 are concerned, that the allegation of the prosecution was that they had instigated or abetted the accused 1 to 4. Since the evidence did not bring home this limited charge, the Trial Court recorded an order of acquittal as against them. At the stage of admission of the appeal, this Court dismissed the State appeal as against the original accused 5 to 7 and consequently, we are left with accused 1, 2 ana 3. As regards these accused, it is again relevant to point out that they were charged with offences punishable under Section 302 read with section 34 of the IPC and Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC and that the learned Trial Judge after a detailed analysis of the evidence held that the material on record was not good enough to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt. Making a slight distinction as far as the cases of these accused are concerned, the Trial Court afforded them the benefit of doubt and acquitted them. As indicated earlier, it is against this order of acquittal that the present appeal has been filed. At the hearing of the appeal, the State has been represented by the learned additional State Public Prosecutor and the respondents-accused by their learned Counsel Sri A. H. Bhagwan. As indicated earlier, it is against this order of acquittal that the present appeal has been filed. At the hearing of the appeal, the State has been represented by the learned additional State Public Prosecutor and the respondents-accused by their learned Counsel Sri A. H. Bhagwan. As far as accused 4 is concerned, learned Advocate Sri Somashekar Angadi had been appointed as Amicus curiae and we make it clear that even though it now transpires that this particular respondent has died and the appeal has abated, the record of this case is relatively heavy, there is a reasonably big paper book, the learned Advocate was appointed by the Court as Amicus Curiae, he has read the record, prepared himself and has also made his submissions with regard to the point as to whether at all this is a case in which interference is called for and consequently, he would be entitled to receive his fees as Amicus Curiae Counsel. ( 2 ) AS is required to be done, this appeal having been admitted, we have had to do a total and complete review of the record for purposes of deciding as to whether the State is right in its contention that the accused 1 to 3 are liable to be convicted of the offences punishable under both the heads under which they were charged. We briefly set-out the well-settled norms that apply in cases against acquittals and which again we were bound to observe as far as the present case is concerned. Firstly, it is well-settled law that it must be demonstrated by the State in an appeal against acquittal that the Trial Court has grossly erred in overlooking the material parts of the evidence or evidence of a substantial nature both of which, if accepted and relied upon would be good enough to record a conviction. There are instances where a Court may, due to a process of default, overlook certain pieces of evidence or the court may record the finding that nothing turns on this evidence and this alone would not be sufficient for interference unless it is demonstrated that the evidence in question if accepted by the Court is good enough to sustain a conviction. Next, it is open to the State to demonstrate that the evaluation is not only incorrect, that it is wrong and that it has resulted in a failure of justice. Next, it is open to the State to demonstrate that the evaluation is not only incorrect, that it is wrong and that it has resulted in a failure of justice. We emphasise here that merely because the Trial Court has taken a particular view and another view is possible, that it is well-settled law that the Appeal Court will not substitute with other view in preference to the one that has been accepted, provided the findings of the Trial Court are logical and pass the general test of principles that the Courts have now accepted for purposes of evaluation of evidence. The Supreme Court has also laid down that while considering an appeal against acquittal, it is necessary for the high Court to bear in mind that the principle of presumption of innocence which is available to the accused during a criminal trial and which gets dislodged only if the accused is convicted, on the other hand gets reinforced when the Trial Court acquits the accused and in one of the decisions, the Supreme Court has held that when the Trial Court records an acquittal, it is almost on par with a double presumption of innocence and the Appeal Courts must be slow in interfering or disturbing that order. ( 3 ) THIS is a case in which prima facie, the prosecution allegations may appear to be rather distressing insofar as it was alleged that the accused 1 to 4 had at about 9. 30 p. m. on the night of 17-12-1990, assaulted the deceased Doddahalappa who was an elderly person aged 70 years with deadly weapons. The deceased sustained a serious head injury and died on the spot. The prosecution produced as many as eight eye-witnesses and it was also alleged that four witnesses other than the deceased had sustained injuries in the incident. On the face of it therefore, the submission canvassed by the prosecution was that despite such overwhelming evidence that the Trial Court had wrongly and recklessly acquitted the accused and that obviously is the reason why this appeal was admitted. ( 4 ) AFTER carefully hearing the learned Counsels on both sides and perusing the evidence, we then examined as to how the Trial Court has dealt with this material. ( 4 ) AFTER carefully hearing the learned Counsels on both sides and perusing the evidence, we then examined as to how the Trial Court has dealt with this material. We find that the learned Trial Judge who is one of our better Judicial Officers has done a very concise, very careful and very correct analysis of the evidence viz. , eye-witness evidence and the remaining forensic evidence and medical evidence. It is equally pertinent for us to record that as many as ten of the witnesses were hostile and out of the material that survived, the Trial Judge has done a meticulous analysis of the evidence on record and he has found that the blemishes and the inconsistencies in the oral evidence are numerous, that the evidence is inter se contradictory and that above everything else, it has been established that there, was bitter political rivalry between the parties. The witnesses who were not hostile are admittedly partisan and consequently, the learned Trial Judge has analysed their evidence with the level of caution that is required under these circumstances. Having done so, the learned Trial Judge has come to the conclusion that it would be impossible to sustain a conviction because out of this mass of material there is precious little that can be safely relied upon. It is in this background that the order of acquittal has been recorded. After having redone the entire exercise and re-examined the record both on facts and in law, we find that the conclusions of the Trial court being both logically and legally correct cannot be interfered with. ( 5 ) IN this view of the matter, the appeal fails and stands dismissed. The bail bonds of the accused-respondents are cancelled. We direct the office to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as professional charges to the learned Advocate Somashekar Angadi who has represented respondent 4. --- *** --- .