ORDER 1. The two surviving accused (Accused Nos. 1 and 3 respectively), who are the appellants herein, were acquitted by the trial Court of the charges under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 read with Section Section 34 IPC. In appeal by the State, the High Court reversed the order of acquittal and thought it proper to convict the accused appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and to sentence them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulations. 2. In further appeal to this Court by the accused appellants, two learned judges of this Court had disagreed on their conclusions necessitating reference to this larger bench. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. The occurrence alleged by the prosecution took place on 14th October, 1986 in the following circumstances. There was some kind of altercation between a member of the accused family and the deceased following which about 15 (fifteen) persons were supposed to have come ostensibly to attack the deceased. The deceased was reported to have fled from the front of the house where he was taking rest on the cot but was apprehended at about 500 meters from the house and thereafter inflicted with injuries by sharp edged weapons by Accused Nos. 1 and 3 (appellants herein) and Accused No.2 (Shamrao Andekar) now dead. The prosecution further alleges use of burnt weapons by the remaining accused who have since been acquitted. 5. It is on these basic facts which the prosecution claims were witnessed by P.W.2 (Rohini), daughter of the deceased; P.W.3 (Suresh), auto rickshaw wala; and P.W.13 (Shakuntala), wife of the deceased that the culpability of the accused appellants will have to be tested. 6. P.W.3 (Suresh), auto-rickshaw wala, was disbelieved both by the trial Court and the High Court. While the prosecution case is that P.W. 2 (daughter of the deceased) and P.W. 13 (wife of the deceased) were eye-witnesses, P.W. 3 (auto-rickshaw wala) in his deposition has stated that P.W. 2 and P.W. 13 had reached the spot after the incident was over. This causes a major dent in the prosecution case. That apart, according to the prosecution, P.W. 3 had taken the deceased to the hospital in his auto-rickshaw accompanied by P.W.2 (daughter). This causes a major dent in the prosecution case. That apart, according to the prosecution, P.W. 3 had taken the deceased to the hospital in his auto-rickshaw accompanied by P.W.2 (daughter). The failure of the prosecution to show any stains of blood in the auto-rickshaw in which the deceased was taken to hospital though he was bleeding profusely is another reason why the prosecution case was disbelieved by the trial Court. 7. That apart, the prosecution case that P.W. 2 (daughter) had brought the deceased to the hospital was disbelieved by the trial Court on the ground that the record of the hospital showed that the deceased was brought to the hospital by one Rekha who was not examined by the prosecution. 8. The above facts, in their totality, would throw considerable doubt on the prosecution case. That apart, while examining the order of acquittal, though no fetters are imposed on the power of the High Court, time and again, judicial opinion has reiterated that the approach of the appeal Court while hearing an appeal against acquittal should be tempered with caution and unless the view taken by the trial Court is found to be palpably wrong and plainly unsustainable, interference should not be made. 9. On an overall consideration of the facts of the case and the evidence referred to above, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the trial Court was a plausible view and, therefore, the High Court ought not to have supplanted its views to what was recorded by the trial Court. We, accordingly, are of the opinion that the conclusion of the trial Court that the accused deserved an acquittal should not have been interfered with by the High Court. We, therefore, allow this appeal; set aside the order of the High Court; and restore the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. The accused appellants are on bail. We accordingly direct that the bail bonds shall stand discharged. 10. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.