ORDER : The appellants, who are six in number, have been acquitted by the learned trial Court from the charge under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC"). In appeal by the State, the High Court of Karnataka by the impugned judgment has reversed the acquittal and convicted the accused appellants of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. They have also been convicted for lesser offences which would not be necessary to be specifically noticed. For the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC for which the accused have been convicted, they have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each. Aggrieved, this appeal has been filed by the convicted accused. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that the deceased Basayya was involved in a criminal case involving the murder of the brother of the first accused. He was acquitted in the said case. The relation between the parties, therefore, was inimical. After his release from prison the deceased was staying with his mother Basamma (P.W.1). On the day of occurrence i.e. 25th October, 1998, the deceased was taken to work in the land of one Pampanna (P.W.2) and Jambanna (P.W.3). In the afternoon, at about 4-4.30 p.m., the deceased followed by P.Ws. 2 and 3 were returning from the place of work. According to the prosecution, on the way at Kudrimoti cross the deceased was accosted by the accused who inflicted several injuries on him by means of a knife, iron rod and clubs/lathies. Thereafter the accused persons chased P.Ws. 2 and 3 and in the process injured Jambanna (P.W.3) and his mother Chennamma (P.W.4) who had come to rescue her son. Pampanna (P.W.2) managed to extricate himself and lodged a verbal information with the Bevoor Police Station. Thereafter, it appears that the injured (deceased Basayya) along with the injured P.W.3 was taken to the hospital but before medical aid could be rendered to the injured Basayya he had succumbed to his injuries. 3. Subsequently, Basamma (P.W.1.) lodged an FIR on the basis of which investigation was carried out and charge-sheet was submitted against the accused who were committed for trial. As the accused appellants pleaded not guilty to the charges framed, the prosecution examined 21 witnesses and also brought on record certain documentary evidence. 3. Subsequently, Basamma (P.W.1.) lodged an FIR on the basis of which investigation was carried out and charge-sheet was submitted against the accused who were committed for trial. As the accused appellants pleaded not guilty to the charges framed, the prosecution examined 21 witnesses and also brought on record certain documentary evidence. At the conclusion of the trial, the accused appellants were acquitted by the learned trial Court which has been reversed by the High Court in appeal, as already noticed. 4. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 5. Mr. A.T.M. Ranga Ramanujam, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants has taken us elaborately to the materials on record, particularly, the evidence of the relevant witnesses and also the conclusions of the learned trial Court on the basis of which the learned trial Court acquitted the accused and the reasons for reversal of the said view as recorded by the High Court in the impugned judgment. Having considered the materials on record, we are of the view that it is the evidence of Basamma (P.W.1), Pampanna (P.W.2), Jambanna (P.W.3), Chennamma (P.W.4), Basateppa (P.W.5), Mahantayya (P.W.8), Mahantappa (P.W.9), Dr. Venkat Rao (P.W.16), Soddanna (P.W.17, the P.S.I.) and Dr. Majjappa (P.W.21, who conducted the postmortem) which would be relevant so as to require specific notice. We, therefore, proceed to consider the said evidence of the witnesses mentioned above. 6. Basamma (P.W.1) is the mother of the deceased and claims to be an eye-witness to the incident. According to her, at the time of the incident she was in the shop house owned by her located near about the place of occurrence. She could see the incident clearly from the shop house. The evidence of the said witness goes to indicate the detailed manner in which the assault was committed by the accused persons on the deceased and the weapons with which the accused were armed with. This witness also mentions about the assault by the accused persons on Pampanna (P.W.2) and Jambanna (P.W.3) and other relevant facts surrounding the incident. 7. P.Ws. 2 and 3 are the persons who had taken the deceased to work in their land and were returning from the place of work. According to P.Ws. 2 and 3, the deceased was ahead of them at Kudrimoti cross when the accused persons caught hold of the deceased and assaulted him by knife, iron rod and clubs/lathies. 7. P.Ws. 2 and 3 are the persons who had taken the deceased to work in their land and were returning from the place of work. According to P.Ws. 2 and 3, the deceased was ahead of them at Kudrimoti cross when the accused persons caught hold of the deceased and assaulted him by knife, iron rod and clubs/lathies. Thereafter they were attacked by the accused persons. P.W. 3 suffered certain injuries at the hands of the accused persons and these injuries have been proved by P.W. 16 (Dr. Venkat Rao) who was examined by the prosecution. 8. Chennamma (P.W.4) is the mother of P.Ws. 2 and 3. She was also attacked by the accused persons when she had gone to rescue her son Jambanna (P.W.3) from the clutches of the accused. The injuries sustained by her have also been proved by the evidence of P.W. 16. 9. Basateppa (P.W.5) is an eye-witness who has deposed with regard to the incident of assault by the accused on P.Ws.3 and 4. 10. The evidence of the aforesaid eye-witnesses have been brushed aside/ discarded by the learned trial Court on the ground that it is very doubtful to conclusively hold that Basamma (P.W.1) was present at the place of occurrence at the time she had claimed. If the aforesaid fact which is the foundation of the prosecution case is found to be doubtful, according to the learned trial Court, the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 also has to be discarded inasmuch as the said witnesses have testified that Basamma (P.W.1) was an eye-witness to the incident being present at the place of occurrence. The basis on which the learned trial court had come to the aforesaid conclusion is certain statements made by Basamma (P.W.1) with regard to her going to some place and the buses returning therefrom at 6 to 6.30 p.m. in the evening whereas the incident took place at about 4.30 p.m. The learned trial Court had also relied on the evidence of Soddanna (P.W.17), the P.S.I. of Bevoor Police Station, who had stated that for the first time he had seen Basamma (P.W.1) in front of the hospital. 11. There is a basic fallacy in the above view taken by the learned trial Court. The evidence of Basamma (P.W.1) is clear and cogent. 11. There is a basic fallacy in the above view taken by the learned trial Court. The evidence of Basamma (P.W.1) is clear and cogent. A mere statement that the buses reach the Kudrimoti cross at 6 to 6.30 p.m. without correlating it to any specific date or journey undertaken by the witness is not a correct manner of considering the evidence of the P.W.1. Insofar as P.W.17 is concerned, we have noticed from the evidence of the said witness that the witness had corrected himself by spontaneously stating that P.W.1 was at the scene of occurrence and had accompanied the Police party to the hospital along with the deceased and the injured P.Ws.2 and 3. 12. In the above view of the matter, we find no cogent reason for the learned trial Court to have discarded the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3. Insofar as the evidence of P.W.4 is concerned, the same appears to be consistent, cogent and reliable. The evidence of P.W. 5 which supports the evidence of P.W.4 has been discarded by the learned trial Court on the ground that it was in variance with what was deposed by the D.W.1.(Konappa Desai). Having considered the evidence of D.W.1, his antecedents and his cross-examination we find that D.W.1 is unworthy of credence. In these circumstances, when the eye-witnesses have clearly testified with regard to the assault and there is no reason to disbelieve them, we can find no fault with the view taken by the High Court that the present is a fit case for reversal of the acquittal ordered by the learned trial Court. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants has stressed before us the inconsistencies appearing in the medical evidence on record i.e. the evidence of Dr. Majjappa (P.W.21) who had conducted the postmortem. Learned counsel has also pointed out that the recovery of Material Object No. 6 - knife with which the fatal injuries were caused was not bloodstained and also that in Exhibit 27 - report of the FSL there was no mention of any human blood being found in any of the exhibits sent for analysis. 14. We cannot concur with the above contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants. A reading of the evidence of P.W.21 (Dr. 14. We cannot concur with the above contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants. A reading of the evidence of P.W.21 (Dr. Majjappa) would go to show that in his evidence P.W. 21 had stated that it will be difficult to cause injury No.1 found on the deceased with the aid of Material Object No.6. Having considered the evidence of P.W. 21 in totality we are of the view that the said part of the evidence relates only to injury No.1 and there is no dispute with regard to other six injuries. So far as the injury No.1 is concerned, at best, the evidence of P.W.21 can be considered to be an opinion of the doctor. Having regard to the nature of the injuries caused as well as the internal injuries and the explanation offered by P.W.21 in this regard in his evidence, we are of the view that it would be sufficient to conclude that injury No.1 was also caused by the offending weapon i.e. Material Object No.6. So far as the recovery of the knife without any bloodstains is concerned, what cannot be overlooked is the fact that the recovery of the weapon was made on 6th November, 1998 whereas the incident had occurred on 25th October, 1998. That apart, the evidence of P.W.9 (Mahantappa) indicates that sample of bloodstained earth was taken from both the places of occurrence and were sent to the Forensic Expert for analysis. The report (Exhibit 27) which mentions the presence of blood without any further specific details, in our considered view, is a peripheral issue and does not and cannot exonerate the accused appellants in any manner. 15. An argument has been advanced on behalf of the appellants that the initial presumption of innocence of the accused stands fortified by the acquittal ordered by the learned trial Court and the High Court ought to have been mindful of the inherent restraints in the exercise of its powers while hearing an appeal against and order of acquittal. There can be no dispute with what has been argued before us by the learned counsel for the appellants. There can be no dispute with what has been argued before us by the learned counsel for the appellants. However, if the evidence of as many as five eye-witnesses who corroborate each other coupled with the medical evidence demonstrates the guilt of the accused and the same is to be ignored in the manner and for reasons indicated by the learned trial Court, as noticed above, it has to be held that the view taken by the learned trial Court to acquit the accused is necessarily faulted and, therefore, needed correction which has been ordered by the High Court by the order under challenge. 16. In the above facts, we will have no occasion to interfere with the order of the High Court. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. The conviction and sentence ordered by the High Court is maintained.