JUDGMENT S.K. Verma, J. - This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of the 5th Addl. Sessions Judge, Deoria acquitting eight respondents of the charges under Sections 147 148, 302/149, 307/149, 323/149, 201/144, 325/149 and 42 I.P.C. 2. Respondents Shyam Sunder Yadav, Gulab Yadav, Suraj Yadav, Damn Yadav, Saklu Yadav, Darshan Yadav, Dharamraj Dube and Gopal Dube were charged under the different sections mentioned above on the basis of the first information report lodged on 17.3.1977 at 9.10. p.m. in police station.Nata District Deoria alleging that these persons armed with different weapons had raided the house of the complainants Shiv Pujan Yadav and others. In this incident two persons, namely, Nagoo and Jagdeo had died and Kumasi Rama, Smt. Devanti, Smt. Bolraji, Smt. Salhanta, Smt. Jagwanti and Smt. Kalia had received injuries. After the first information report was lodged the post mortem was conducted on the dead body of the two deceased persons and medical examination of injured witnesses were also conducted. After due investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the respondents. 3. The prosecution examined eleven witnesses including four eye-witnesses, namely, Shiv Pujan (P.W. 2), Laxman (P.W. 4), Baijnath (P.W. 6) and Smt. Kalia (P.W. 7). The other witnesses were formal. The Court examined C.W. 1 Lallan Prasad Yadav and C.W. 2 Shiv Chand. From the side off the respondents, D.W. 1 Sripal was examined. The trial Court after considering the entire evidence on record acquitted the respondents. Hence this appeal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the State and Sri Sidanarth Shukla for the respondents and have gone through the record carefully. 5. The prosecution story as narrated in the first information report was that about 1 years before this incident one Fekoo had been murdered in which Laxman, Nagoo and Shiv Pujan were accused. Because of this enmity, the respondents came to the house of Shiv Pujan and Nagoo at about sun set on 17.3.1977 for assault. Nagoo's father Jagdeo ran towards west of his house but Suraj, Shyam Sunder and Gulab Chand chased him. Shyam Sunder fired from his country made pistol as a result of which Jagdeo fell down and died. Shiv Pujan, Nagoo and Laxman concealed themselves inside the house. Respondents Suraj, Dharam Raj Baba instigated the other respondents and some of the respondents started breaking the door with the help of a 'Tanga' (axe). Shyam Sunder fired from his country made pistol as a result of which Jagdeo fell down and died. Shiv Pujan, Nagoo and Laxman concealed themselves inside the house. Respondents Suraj, Dharam Raj Baba instigated the other respondents and some of the respondents started breaking the door with the help of a 'Tanga' (axe). Somebody from the respondents side also threw bomb from the window and when the door was broken the respondents caught hold of Nagoo and dragged him outside. The inmates of the house were also assaulted. Nagoo was given several blows with the help of 'pharsa' and shots were also fired on him. The body of Nagoo was taken by the respondents. It was untraceable till the first information report was lodged. The thorax portion of Nagoo's body was later on recovered by the police and then postmortem was conducted. 6. There are only four eye-witnesses of the incident. Out of these two of them, namely, Shiv Pujan and Laxman had turned hostile. Shiv Pujan had admitted that because of the smoke coming out of the bomb, his eyes were affected and he closed his eyes and concealed himself behind the corner and he could not see what was going on. P.W. 4 Laxman had also stated in examination-in-Chief that he did not see who committed the murder of Nagoo. The trial court has discussed thoroughly the statement of the other two eye-witnesses P.W. 6 Baijnath and P.W. 7 Smt. Kalia. It has been found by the trial court that Baijnath is an interested witness because he was one of the parties alognwith Nagoo in a litigation against the respondents. This fact had been admitted by Baijnath in cross-examination itself. Baijnath had also admitted in cross-examination that because of fear he had concealed himself and that statement was made by him before the Investigating Officer and it was the correct statement but later on he changed his statement and deposed that he came out of his house and went towards North, then towards West and then toward: South and saw the murder of Nagoo. The trial court has opined that this is a new story set up by the witness and, therefore, the trial court did not rely on his statement. The trial court has opined that this is a new story set up by the witness and, therefore, the trial court did not rely on his statement. Similarly at another place this witness had admitted that after the culprits had left the place of occurrence the witness found Smt. Jagwanti, Smt. Baijraji, Smt. Kalia, Smt. Salhanta, Smt. Devanti, and Smt. Rama in injured condition. Later on he changed his statement and said that his earlier statement was wrong and he had seen these ladies being assaulted' and receiving injuries. The trial court, therefore, found that the witness was an unreliable witness and very little reliance could be placed on his deposition. Yet at another place P.W. Baijnath had deposed that Jagdeo had not been assaulted with the help of lathis. The post-mortem examination, however, showed that he had two lacerated wounds and three abrasions. Again Baijnath had stated that Jagdeo had fallen down and had received injuries on his face and mouth. His postmortem examination showed that there were no such injuries either on the face or on the mouth. For this reason also the trial court dis-believed the statements of Baijnath. Similarly whereas Baijnath (P.W. 6) had stated that Nagoo, one of the victims, was murdered outside the house and his dead body was taken away, in a after part of his statement this witness stated that when Nagoo was dragged out he was alive and his hands, legs and head - were served away on a mud mound outside the house. These contradictions were correctly and rightly appreciated by the trial court and the evidence of this witness was rightly rejected. 7. The next eye-witness was Smt. Kaliya. The trial court has thoroughly discussed the evidence of this witness also and has, after proper appreciations of the statement of Smt. Kalia, found that she is also an unreliable, witness. It has rightly been opined by the trial court that while according to this witness all the male members of the family were concealing themselves inside the house, the fem ae members were ready to face the assailants and to come out of the house to witness the entire incident. This itself was highly improbable situation. 8. It has rightly been opined by the trial court that while according to this witness all the male members of the family were concealing themselves inside the house, the fem ae members were ready to face the assailants and to come out of the house to witness the entire incident. This itself was highly improbable situation. 8. The trial court also came to the conclusion that the thoraic portion recovered later on by the police from a canal could not be correctly identified as the deady body of Nagoo and when Nagoo's dead body could not be traced it could not be concluded that he was murdered during this incident. We are of opinion that these conclusions of the trial court are correct and we do not find any scope for interference with the findings recorded by the trial court regarding the acquittal of the respondents. 9. There is one more fact which has been properly appreciated by the trial court. Pieces of bom were found where the incident occurred but the eye-witnesses Baijnath and Smt. Kaliya did not say anything about the throwing of the bomb in this incident at all. Therefore also the trial court rightly dis-believed the statement of the two eye-witnesses, namely, Baijnath (P.W. 6) and Smt. Kalia (P.W. 7). In Awadhesh v. State of M.P. AIR 1988 S.C. 1958, the Supreme Court has observed that, Although the powers of the High Court to reassess the evidence and reach its own conclusion are as extensive as in an appeal against the order of conviction, yet, as a rule of prudence, the High Court should always give proper weight and consideration to matters e.g., (i) the view of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses, (ii) the presumptions of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at the trial, (iii) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt, and (iv) the slowness of an appellate court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses. If on appraisal of the evidence and on considering relevant attending circumstances it is found that two views are possible, one as held by the trial court for acquitting and the accused and the other for convicting the accused in such a situation the rule of prudence should guide the High Court not to disturb the order of acquittal made by the trial court.. Unless the conclusions of the trial court drawn on the evidence on record are found to be unreasonable, perverse or unsustainable, the High Court should not interfere with. the order of acquittal." 10. In the instant case after due consideration of the evidence on record we do not find any reason to differ from the findings of the trial court. It cannot be said that the findings of the trial court )are perverse on material points. 11. For these reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal. It is dismissed.