1. This appeal is directed by the State of Tamil Nadu as against the respondent by name Ammasi alias William challenging the acquittal of this respondent of the offence under Section 302 IPC

2. It transpires from the records that before the trial court this respondent was arrayed as accused No. 3 and that he, along with five others was charged under Sections 147, 449, 302, 302 read with 149 and 323 IPC on the allegation that on February 27, 1977 at about 8.30 p.m. at Melakurumbanai they all formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object of the said assembly they committed house-breaking by entering the house of Vasthian, the deceased herein and murdered the deceased, and that in the course of the same transaction the accused Nos. 3 and 6 caused hurt to the witness Rosammal and A 5 to Theresamma. The trial court convicted all the accused inclusive of this respondent, in that this respondent was convicted under Sections 147, 449, 302, 323 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 and to various terms of imprisonment for the other offence

3. On an appeal preferred by the respondent, the High Court acquitted the respondent of the offence under Section 302 IPC while retaining the convictions and sentences for the other offences. According to the prosecution, this respondent gave a beating on the head of the deceased which resulted in the death of the deceased subsequently

4. After going through the judgment of the High Court and the contents of the first information report, a copy of which is now furnished, we feel that the judgment of the High Court is not liable to be dislodged or interfered with. While the evidence adduced by the prosecution is to the effect that A 1 beat on the head of the deceased, the version made in the first information report is that it was A 1 Clemens who beat on the head of the deceased. The overt act attributed to A 5 in the first information report is in general that he beat. Thus we find a material contradiction between the version of the first information report and the evidence given by the witnesses before the court. It was under these circumstances the High Court was inclined to acquit this respondent of the offence under Section 302 giving the benefit of doubt. We are in full agreement with the finding of the High Court and hold that the impugned judgment cannot be said to be suffering from any perversity or illegality. Under these circumstances, this appeal is dismissed5. We place on record our appreciation of the service rendered by Mr Vikrant Yadav who appeared as amicus curiae at the instance of the Court.