opinion, the observation of the Trial Court that in absence of a direct occurrence witness, motive to commit the crime and the evidence being purely circumstantial in nature, the medical evidence becomes of less consequences, thus cannot be a fairly plausible view. The Trial Court has simply discarded the consistent testimonies of prosecution witnesses P.W.-1 & P.W.-2 as being Crl. A. No.757 of 2015 Page 15 of 16simply based on presumption; whereas the High Court in appeal has extensively dealt with each charge framed against the Appellants, the grounds on which the acquittal had been based and has dispelled those grounds with reasons. 28. Although, this Court is conscious of the fact that an Appellate Court must not ordinarily reverse the finding of acquittal, the High Court has been able to demonstrate perversity and non-appreciation of the materials on record. On a fresh appreciation of evidence, we also find ourselves unable to agree with the findings of the Trial Court and are of