K.S. HEGDE, J.

(1) THIS is an appeal by special leave against the decision of the High court of Bombay setting aside the judgment of acquittal of the appellant by the Trial court and convicting him under S. 302, 326 and 324, Indian Penal Code.

(2) THE appellant and another person were tried before the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, on as many as eight charges. The learned Sessions Judge disbelieving the prosecution evidence acquitted both the accused. The State of Maharashtra went up in appeal to the High court against the acquittal of the 1st accused Mafhai Methews who is the appellant herein. No appeal was filed against the acquittal of the 2nd accused.

(3) THU incident from which this appeal arises had taken place ai about 9 or 9-30 p. m. on 4/02/1964, at Sewri in the city of Bombay. As a result of that incident one Appa Krishna died. P. W. 4 Purshottam sustained grievous injuries. P. W. 5, Thomas, sustained one minor injury. At the same time the appellant also received several injuries including a head injury.

(4) IN support of its ease, the prosecution examined as many as six eyewitnesses including the injured P. Ws. 4 and 5. But the learned Trial Judge was unable to accept their evidence. He came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not come forward with a true case ; the witnesses examined in support of its case are partisan witnesses and they are unreliable. In appeal a division bench of the Maharashtra High court differed from the learned Trial Judge and substantially accepted the prosecution case. We have now to see whether the conclusion reached by the High court 1s sustainable on the basis of the evidence on record.

(5) IT is now well settled that the power of an appellate court to review evidence in appeals against acquittals is as extensive as its power in appeals against convictions. It is also well settled that before an appellate court can set aside an order of acquittal, it must carefully consider the reasons given by the Trial Court in support of its order and must give its own reasons to reject those reasons, lfa finding reached by the Trial Judge cannot be said to be ;i uni-easoil.lble finding then the appellee; court should not disturb that finding even if it is possible to reach a different conclusion on the basis of the material on record. It should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and the fact that the Trial Judge had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses. In brief, the appellate court should not disturb an order of acquittal except on very cogent grounds. On an examination of the entire material on record we have come to the conclusion that the High court was not justified in setting aside the order of the Trial court.

(6) WE shall now proceed to give our reasons in support of our conclusion but before doing so we shall set out in brief the prosecution case as well as the defence version and the proved facts of the case.

(7) P. W. 2 Jacob Anian and P. W. 3 Chacko and Papan live in room No. 5, Block No. 1, in labour camp at Sewri. On the evening of February I, 1964, P. Ws. 2 and 3 alongwith P. W. 5 Thomas Abrahim proceeded to a restaurant near the office premises of the Malayali Association at Sewri, for tea. When they were passing in front of a volleyball ground they saw accused No. 2 and some other persons playing volleyball. Then they got into the volleyball ground and demanded that they should also be allowed to play volleyball. To this accused No. 2 and his companions objected. Thereafter the game was stopped ; accused No. 2 and his companions removed the net and started going out of the ground. At that time accused No. 2 was taking the ball in his hand. P. W. 3 tried to snatch the ball from his hand. Then there was an altercation between P. W. 3 and accused No. 2. They exchanged blows. There the matter ended. On that evening at about 8 p.m. accused No. 2 and his uncle Appi went to the room of P.