S. Mutaza Fazal Ali, J.
1. This appeal under the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Crl. Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 is directed against the Judgment of the Madras High Court by which the High Court set aside the order of acquittal passed by Sessions Judge, Salem. We have gone through the evidence adduced by the prosecution and have also perused the judgment of the High Court and the learned Sessions Judge. The facts of the case have been detailed in the judgment of the High Court and that of the Sessions Judge and it is not necessary for us to repeat the same all over again. The central evidence against the appellant consisted of two circumstances : (1) that the appellant was produced by FW 2 and 3 before the Police Station and soon after the FIR was lodged; (2) the evidence of PW 2 and 3 show that the appellant assaulted the deceased with an Aruvel and inflicted several it juries which resulted in her death.
2. The learned Sessions Judge after considering the evidence was not satisfied that the prosecution case was proved. The High Court in appeal against the order of acquittal held that the case against the appellant was fully proved and he accordingly set aside the judgment of the Sessions Judge. The High Court believed the evidence of PW 2 and 3 and also placed reliance on the evidence of PW 1. Mukhoty appearing as amicus curiae for the appellant, has been of great assistance to us and has place the entire evidence before us. While we agree that PW 1 in view of the discrepancies found in his evidence should not have been relied upon, we are satisfied that there is no reason to distrust the evidence of PWs 2 and 3. These witnesses are absolutely independent and disinterested and they have no animus against the appellant. The High Court was fully justified in acting on their evidence. No reasonable explanation has been furnished by the accused for the circumstance that PWs 2 and 3 caught the accused almost redhanded and produced him before the Police Station. In the circumstances we cannot say that the conclusion arrived at by the High Court was wrong. Nor we can say that the view taken by the Sessions Judge was reasonably possible. For these reasons, therefore, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.