B. K. BEHERA, J. ( 1 ) UPON hearing the learned counsel for both the sides and on a perusal of the impugned judgment and order of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge holding the two respondents not guilty of the charge framed under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for having committed the murder of Sk. Chaudhary (hereinafter to be referred to as the deceased) on 23. 6. 1978 in furtherance of their common intention and having judged the findings to the light of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, we find no case for interference in this appeal against acquittal. Brief reasons in support of. his conclusion are recorded hereunder. ( 2 ) THE two respondents, one of them being the son and the other being the grand son of the deceased, were alleged to have committed the murder of the deceased. Reliance had been placed by the prosecution on the evidence of some persons who had claimed to be the witnesses to the occurrence, namely, P. Ws. 2 to 6 and the recoveries of some incriminating articles consequent upon the statements said to have been made by the respondents. It is not disputed at the Bar that the deceased had sustained a number of injuries on his person and had died a homicidal death. The sole question for consideration is as to whether the respondents were the authors of the crime. ( 3 ) ON a consideration of the evidence of the witnesses to the occurrence, the learned Sessions Judge, for the reasons recorded in the judgment which need not be reiterated in this affirming judgment, has found that some of the witnesses could not have seen the occurrence from the places where they were and the prosecution witnesses had given prevaricating statements and their evidence was not worthy of credence. ( 4 ) THE learned Additional Standing Counsel has not seriously challenged the findings recorded by the trial court holding that the evidence of the persons examined as witnesses to the occurrence could have been relied on. He has, however, submitted that the trial court has unreasonably rejected the evidence adduced from the side of the prosecution that a Katuri (M. O. 1) and a napkin. (M. O. III) had been recovered consequent upon the statement said to have been made by the respondent Sk. He has, however, submitted that the trial court has unreasonably rejected the evidence adduced from the side of the prosecution that a Katuri (M. O. 1) and a napkin. (M. O. III) had been recovered consequent upon the statement said to have been made by the respondent Sk. Azimuddin and that a lathi (M. O. V) had been recovered consequent upon the statement made by the other respondent in the courts of investigation. The trial court by rightly concluded, keeping in mind the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Mohmed Inayatullah v. The State of Maharashtra,1 that the evidence would not warrant a conclusion that the recoveries had been made in pursuance of the statements made by the respondents while in custody. It is, however, not so much necessary to go into the question in greater details as it ill noticed from the reports of the Chemical Examiner and the Serologist that no human blood had been detected in any of these item. Thus recoveries of M. Os. I, III and V, even if made from the possession of the respondents or consequent upon their statements while in custody, could not be guilt-pointing circumstances against them. ( 5 ) WE find that the reasons recorded by the trial court for ordering acquittal of the respondents are well founded. ( 6 ) THE appeal fails and is dismissed. If, for any reason, any of the two respondents is in custody in connection with this Government Appeal, he be set at liberty forthwith.