K. P. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) IN this appeal by the State Government, the order of acquittal of the respondents passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pun has been challenged. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case may by briefly stated: - P. W. 1 is a former Sarabarakar and a rich man of village Rayapur. In the said village, there was strong party faction. P. W. 1 belonged to one faction, whereas, the respondents belonged to the other. There were litigations between both the factions, so much so, that some time prior to the alleged occurrence P. W. 1 had involved some of the respondents in a proceeding under Section 107 of Criminal Procedure Code. On account of previous enmity, the respondents entered into a conspiracy to do away with the life of P. W. I and with such intention, formed an unlawful assembly in the midnight of 18-3-1973 and in a body, being armed with deadly weapons, attacked his house. In order to escape from their attack, P. W. 1 along with P. W. 5 concealed himself inside a room of P. W. 2 wife of P. W. 1 and their niece, P. W. 4, obstructed the attackers. Although they succeeded in saving the life of P. W. 1, they could not save his property. The respondents removed in all about, 50 Bharans of rice and paddy and 60 Gaunis of green-gram from the house of P. W. 1. They also forcibly removed a gold necklace from P. W. 2. As a result, P. W. I sustained loss of Rs. 16,700/ -. The attack continued from midnight upto early hours of the morning. When it became daylight, P. W. 1 came out of the room where he had concealed himself, went to Brahmagiri Police Station and lodged F. I. R. (Ext. I ). P. W. 12, the Investigating Officer during investigation seized the paddy from the houses of respondent Doma Jena and Madan Bhol, father of respondent Gandu Bhol. The necklace of P. W. 2, however, could not be traced. After close of investigation, he submitted charge- sheet against the respondents. ( 3 ) THE learned Sub. Divisional Judicial Magistrate framed charges against the respondents under Sections 143, 379 and 551 of the Indian Penal Code (TI. P. C. T for short ). He recorded the evidence of 12 witnesses. After close of investigation, he submitted charge- sheet against the respondents. ( 3 ) THE learned Sub. Divisional Judicial Magistrate framed charges against the respondents under Sections 143, 379 and 551 of the Indian Penal Code (TI. P. C. T for short ). He recorded the evidence of 12 witnesses. According to him, the prosecution could not establish the charges against the respondents. Therefore, he acquitted all of them. ( 4 ) MR. Ajit Rath, learned Additional Standing Counsel, contended that there were eye-witnesses to the alleged occurrence who saw the illegal actions of the respondents from the beginning till the end. The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate committed a grave error in not taking their evidence into account and so he came to erroneous conclusions which cannot be supported according to law. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, urged that the evidence, of the alleged eye-witnesses was of partisan character unsupported by trustworthy evidence. Therefore, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial. Magistrate was justified in disbelieving the prosecution evidence. ( 5 ) THE following points arise for consideration: - (1) Whether there was an occurrence, in the night of 18/3/1973 in the house of P. W. 1. (2) Whether during the occurrence, his house was attacked and a large quantity of rice, paddy and cereals were removed. (3) Whether a gold necklace was snatched away from P. W. 2. (4) Whether the respondents or any of them were responsible for the aforesaid acts. ( 6 ) THE evidence of P. Ws. 1, 2 and 4 who were inmates of the house at the time of the alleged occurrence will show that in the midnight of 18/3/1973 their house was attacked by a large number of persons. As they were the inmates of the house, their evidence in this regard cannot be doubted. At such a time it was futile to expect the presence of independent witnesses for corroborative support to evidence. When P. W. 12 arrived in the house of P. W. 1 on the next morning for the purpose of investigation, he found brickbats in the courtyard and seized the same. A door was also found to have been broken open. There is no reason to doubt his evidence. From the aforesaid evidence, it can be safely concluded that during midnight of 18-3-1973 the house of P. W. 1 was attacked by a large number of persons. A door was also found to have been broken open. There is no reason to doubt his evidence. From the aforesaid evidence, it can be safely concluded that during midnight of 18-3-1973 the house of P. W. 1 was attacked by a large number of persons. ( 7 ) ACCORDING to the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 2, 4 and 5, a large quantity of rice, paddy and cereals were removed by the culprits. If that was so, rice, paddy and cereals would have been scattered inside the house, as well as, outside and the containers would have been forced open. But curiously enough P. W. 12 did not notice any paddy or straw in the courtyard of P. W. I. He did not find any trace of paddy or any trail of paddy in the granary of P. W. 1. P. W. 4 admitted that no sign of taking of paddy was noticed in the courtyard by P. W. 12. Straw was also not to be seen in the courtyard. P. Ws. 1 and 5 were confined inside a room. According to their evidence, they saw the entire occurrence through a small hole on the door. They went even to the extent of stating the number of bags of paddy and rice which were removed by the respondents. Their evidence is galore with improbabilities. It was not possible on their part to notice in detail the names of the respondents, the specific actions performed by them, removal of bags of paddy, rice and green-gram from different places particularly when it was night though there might be moon light. It is also to be noted from their evidence that there was no electric light or petromax burning inside the house at the relevant time. P. W. 2 stated that being the daughter-in-law of a Sarbarakar, she did not go out of the house and could not identify all the accused persons. She could only identify some of them. But she did not name them. P. W. 4 did not name the respondents except making a general statement that she knew all the respondents. When a large group of persons attacked the house during night and no light was burning inside, it was not possible on the part of these two ladies to have identified the respondents. According to the evidence of P. Ws. P. W. 4 did not name the respondents except making a general statement that she knew all the respondents. When a large group of persons attacked the house during night and no light was burning inside, it was not possible on the part of these two ladies to have identified the respondents. According to the evidence of P. Ws. 6 and 7, they did not go to the house of P. W. 1 when the alleged occurrence took place. In view of the aforesaid evidence, there is scope for doubt the complicity of the respondents in the alleged occurrence and further that they were responsible for the removal of paddy, rice and cereals from the house of P. W. 1. ( 8 ) ACCORDING to the evidence of P. W. 2, the gold necklace belonging to her was snatched away by respondent Dayanidhi Jena. Her evidence has been corroborated by P. W. 4. The necklace was not recovered. The evidence of P. W. 1 and 5 to the effect that they was snatching of the gold necklace by respondent Dayanidhi Jena does not appear to be probable because they were inside the room. The F. I. R. (Ext. 1) does not disclose that respondent Dayanidhi Jena removed the necklace. If, as a matter of fact, the necklace was removed from P. W. 2 in natural course of extents she would have stated the name of the culprit who had removed the necklace so that the name would have found place in the F. I. R. itself. But in the F. I. R. (Ext. 1) only a general statement was made to the effect that the culprits removed the necklace. It will appear from the evidence of P. W. 12 that P. W. 4 did not state before him that respondent Dayanidhi Jena had removed the necklace from P. W. 2. In view of the aforesaid evidence and the fact that there are reasons to doubt the main theme relating to attack and removal of a huge quantity of paddy, rice and cereals, the story of removal of the gold necklace from P. W. 2 is also shrouded with doubt. ( 9 ) IT is necessary to point out that the main witnesses to the alleged occurrence are very close relations of P. W. 1. ( 9 ) IT is necessary to point out that the main witnesses to the alleged occurrence are very close relations of P. W. 1. Although according to the settled principle of law, relationship or interestedness of witnesses are no grounds for throwing out their evidence abroad, all that is necessary is that their evidence, should be examined with caution and having done that if the Court feels that the same should be accepted in the absence of any legal or factual infirmity, then the Court shall be free to accept such evidence. If on the other hand, their evidence is found to suffer from legal or factual infirmity or otherwise unbelievable and unacceptable due to material discrepancies affecting the main stream of the prosecution case, then there is no embargo for rejection of their evidence. In this case, having scrutinised the evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 4 with more than ordinary care and having considered the probabilities, it is not possible to accept their version of the prosecution case. If they are disbelieved, the edifice of the prosecution case crumbles to the ground State of Uttar Pradesh v. Han Ram and others, and Madhuban Dharai and others v. State. ( 10 ) IT is also settled principle of law that where two reasonable conclusions can be drawn on the evidence on record, the High Court should as a matter of judicial caution, refrain from interfering with the order of acquittal recorded by the trial court. In other words, if the main grounds on which the trial court has based its order acquitting the accused, are reasonable and plausible, and cannot be entirely and effectively dislodged or demolished the High Court should not disturb the acquittal Mehtab Singh and others v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, Ganesh Bhawan Patel and another v. State of Maharashtra, and Smt. Dhara Dei v. Prafulla Swain and others. In this case, on the evidence on record, it is not possible to take a view different from that taken by the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate. ( 11 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, I find no merit in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .