BEHERA, J. ( 1 ) THE State is in appeal against the judgment and order recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj Keonjhar, Baripada, holding the respondents who stood charged under Ss. 148, 302 read with Ss. 149, 323 and 436, Penal Code, (for short, 'the Code') not guilty and acquitting them. The facts of the prosecution case and the plea of the defence have been set nut in the impugned, judgment. Upon hearing Mr. P. K. Mohanty, the learned Additional Standing Counsel and Mr. J. M. Mohanty for the respondents, we see no case for interference in this appeal against acquittal for the brief reasons to follow. ( 2 ) THE respondents stood charged under S. 148 of the Code with having formed an unlawful assembly being armed with dangerous instruments in prosecution of their common object of assaulting and killing Purusottam Naik (to be referred to hereinafter as the 'deceased') and under S. 302 read with S. 149 of the Code for having committed his murder in prosecution of their common object. Some of the respondents stood charged under Ss. 325 and 323 of the Code for voluntarily causing grievous hurt and simple hurt to some persons of the party of the deceased. ( 3 ) THE case of the prosecution was that there had been a land dispute between the deceased on the one hand and the respondents on the other and the respondent's side joined hands and committed the murder of the deceased in prosecution of their common object and caused grievous hurt and simple hurt to some persons of the party of the deceased. The trial Court has held that the charges have not been brought home to the respondents, after a consideration of the evidence adduced by the prosecution for the reasons recorded in the judgment which need not be restated in this affirming judgment, as it is not necessary so to do in view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court ' in 1981cri LJ 1019 : AIR 1981 SC 1417 , State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy. ( 4 ) THE learned Additional Standing Counsel has fairly submitted that the only questions involved in this appeal relate to appreciation of evidence. ( 4 ) THE learned Additional Standing Counsel has fairly submitted that the only questions involved in this appeal relate to appreciation of evidence. Even assuming that another view could be taken against the respondents in respect of any of the charges, that cannot be a ground to set aside an order of acquittal, In order to succeed, the State must show that the findings recorded by the trial Judge can effectively be dislodged and such findings are unwarranted. It has not been shown that the findings recorded by the trial Court could not have been so recorded on the evidence on record. ( 5 ) NOTICE has been taken by the trial Court that the witnesses to the occurrence coming from the side of the prosecution were either close relations of the deceased or were on highly inimical terms with the respondents. They belonged to a hostile faction and were thus partisan witnesses. Partisan evidence is not necessarily false and disinterested evidence is not necessarily true. But evidence of partisan witnesses requires great scrutiny before its acceptance and the learned trial Judge had kept this principle in his mind. ( 6 ) THE trial Court has held as a fact that the deceased was not in possession of the land in question. As would appear from the findings recorded by the Court below, the deceased and his party were the aggressors. ( 7 ) NOTICE has been taken by the trial Court in our view, rightly so, that disinterested witnesses to the occurrence had been named in the first information report, but their evidence was withheld without any reasonable explanation. It is not incumbent on the prosecution to examine each and every witness to the occurrence. That is not, however, to say that only interested witnesses would be examined and the evidence of the disinterested and independent persons would be withheld, as has been done in the case on hand. ( 8 ) THE trial Court has rightly taken note of material discrepancies appearing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses with regard to vital parts of the prosecution case and as to how the witnesses had made prevaricating statements in the course of investigation and at the trial. ( 8 ) THE trial Court has rightly taken note of material discrepancies appearing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses with regard to vital parts of the prosecution case and as to how the witnesses had made prevaricating statements in the course of investigation and at the trial. According to the trial Court, the oral evidence, which was itself of a highly interested and partisan character, had not found assurance from the medical evidence and there had been conflict between the ocular testimony and the medical evidence and the ocular testimony was not worthy of credence. This view is reasonable and acceptable. Regard being had to the unsatisfactory nature of the evidence and suspicious features in the case, the trial Court has correctly held that the charges had not been brought home to the respondents. ( 9 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid, the findings recorded by the trial Court cannot be assailed in an appeal against acquittal. ( 10 ) THE appeal fails and is dismissed. If, for any reason, any of the respondents is in custody in connection with this Government Appeal, he be set at liberty forthwith. ( 11 ) RATH, J. :- I agree. Appeal dismissed. .