B. K. BEHERA, J. ( 1 ) THE two respondents stood charged under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (Tthe Code, for short) with having committed the murder of R. Mangala Patra (to be described hereinafter as the deceased) on March 5, 1979. Twenty-two other accused persons stood charged under section 302 read with section 149 of the Code with having shared the common object with the respondent for having committed the murder of the deceased. The plea of the respondents and the co-accused persons was one of denial and false implication. Both the sides had led evidence at the trial. On a consideration of the evidence, the trial court did not accept the case of the prosecution and held that a true story had not been presented by it and the evidence against the respondents and the co-accused persons was not worthy of credence. Accordingly, all the accused persons including the respondents were actualized of the charges. ( 2 ) THE state has not challenged the order of acquittal in respect of the co-accused persons and has preferred this appeal only in respect of the two respondents who stood charged under section 302 of the Code. We have heard the learned Additional Government Advocate and Mr. Panda for the respondents. ( 3 ) IN an appeal against acquittal, unless the findings arrived at by the trial court can effectively be dislodged and such findings arc found to be unreasonable or perverse, no interference is called for, even if another view can be taken on the evidence. If two views are reasonably possible and the trial court has adopted one, the Government Appeal cannot succeed. ( 4 ) THE trial court has rightly characterized the evidence of the witnesses to the occurrence namely, P. Ws. 1 to 5, as interested and partisan. Such evidence is not to be discarded merely on that ground, but requires careful scrutiny before its acceptance. ( 5 ) THE trial court has held that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature, but the charges have not been brought home to any of the accused persons. Notice has been taken of the fact that the occurrence had not taken place as alleged by the prosecution, as on the spot where it has allegedly taken place, no stains of blood had been found. Notice has been taken of the fact that the occurrence had not taken place as alleged by the prosecution, as on the spot where it has allegedly taken place, no stains of blood had been found. If, as alleged by the prosecution, the respondent No. 2 had dealt a heavy blow by a Katua, the doctor would not have found only a superficial injury on the nose, as rightly noticed by the learned trial Judge. Thus ocular testimony was at variance with the medical evidence with regard to the complicity of the respondent Uday Rout. As regards the complicity of the other respondent, namely puma rout notice has been taken of the serious differences in the story set forth in the first information report lodged by P. W. 1, who had figured as a witness to the occurrence and in his evidence given at the trial. According to the trial court, the evidence with regard to the involvement of the respondent Puma Rout did not deserve credence. As held by the trial court, the prosecution had not explained the injuries sustained by two of the accused persons, which, as the facts and circumstances of the case would indicate, had been caused during the occurrence. It has accordingly been held and rightly so that a true story has not been presented by the prosecution at the trial. ( 6 ) REGARD being had to the aforesaid suspicious features in the evidence, the trial court has taken a reasonable view and has held that the charges have not been established. There is no justifiable reason for interference in an appeal against acquittal in a case of this nature. ( 7 ) THE appeal fails and is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.