JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - The State of Orissa has preferred Government Appeal No. 38 of 1995 u/s 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order passed on June 27, 1995 by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar acquitting the four respondents of their respective charges u/s 235(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in S.T. No. 11/98 of 1994. Criminal Revision No. 356 of 1995 has also been preferred by one of the informants (P. W. 7), father of the deceased, challenging the judgment of the trial Court acquitting the opposite parties who are respondents in the Government Appeal. Both the Govt. Appeal and the Criminal Revision were heard together. For the sake of convenience in the judgment, we refer to the accused persons before the Court below as respondents as described in the Government Appeal who are opposite parties in the Criminal Revision. 2. All the four respondents were accused and stood charged u/s 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder by intentionally causing the death of one Abhiram Senapati in furtherance of their common intention. Added to it, respondent No. 2-Bibhuti Bhusan Roul and respondent No. 3-Kailash Ch. Jena stood further charged u/s 109 read with Section 302, IPC for abetting the commission of murder of said Abhiram Senapati alleged to have been committed by the other two respondents. They were also charged u/s 201/34, IPC, for causing disappearance of evidence of the said offence of murder with full knowledge about commission of the offence with intention to screen the offenders from legal punishment. 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the prosecution case as spelt out in the FIR (Ext. 1) is as follows : Strain relationship existed between deceased Abhiram Senapati and Harekrushna Senapati (P.W. 1) on one hand and the respondents on the other. All of them were permanent residents of village Sudha Sarangi under Balianta Police Station in the district of Puri. On October 6,1992, the villagers attempted to settle up the dispute amicably and a meeting was convened, but the attempt ended in vain and the meeting was adjourned. On the same night at about 8 to 8.30 p.m., P.W. 1 Harekrushna and deceased Abhiram went in a moped to Delta Chhak to bring some medicines for the mother of the informant. On the same night at about 8 to 8.30 p.m., P.W. 1 Harekrushna and deceased Abhiram went in a moped to Delta Chhak to bring some medicines for the mother of the informant. It is alleged that on their way back, near Dedhal Chhak, Mita alias Bibhuti Bhusan Senapati (Respondent No. 4) who was a member of the Yubak Sangha and Bharat Jena (Respondent No. 1) of Brahman Sarangi village obstructed them and brought out weapons to assault them. P.W. 1 and the deceased tried to escape from them, but P.W. 1 Harekrushana Senapati could only manage to return to his village. He informed P.W. 7 and others about the fact. Thereafter, there was a search for the deceased, but his whereabouts could not be ascertained. It is stated in the FIR that the informants apprehended that Bibhuti Bhusan Roul (Respondent No. 2) who was the President of the Yubak Sangha might have instigated others to kill their son. The informants requested the police to investigate into t,he matter and to trace out Abhiram Senapati, the deceased. P.W. 1 and P.W. 7 were the joint signatories to the First Information Report. 4. The said FIR was lodged at 3.30 a.m. on 7.10.1992 at Balianta Police Station. After receipt of the FIR, a cognizable case under Sections 341/307/364/34, IPC was registered as P.S. Case No. 146 and the Officer-in-charge of Balianta P.S. commenced investigation. On the day following, the dead-body of Abhiram with multiple cut injuries was discovered from the water of a Nayanjori situated at a little distance from Dedhal Chhak. The I.O. conducted inquest over the dead-body and sent the dead-body for post-mortem. Autopsy was conducted by an Assistant Surgeon of Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar (P.W. 25) and as many as eight internal injuries were found on the dead-body. The cause of death was opined to be haemorrhage and shock due to multiple wounds. On the basis of the medical evidence, chargesheet was filed against the accused-respondents. 5. To substantiate the charges, prosecution examined as many as twenty-five witnesses, out of whom P.Ws. 1 and 7 were the informants. P.W. 1 was a witness to the first part of the occurrence. P.Ws. 1,17 and 18 were the post-occurrence witnesses. P.Ws. 5, 6, 11 and 12 are said to be occurrence witnesses. P.Ws. 3, 4, 15, 19 and 20 were witnesses to seizure. P.Ws. 1 and 7 were the informants. P.W. 1 was a witness to the first part of the occurrence. P.Ws. 1,17 and 18 were the post-occurrence witnesses. P.Ws. 5, 6, 11 and 12 are said to be occurrence witnesses. P.Ws. 3, 4, 15, 19 and 20 were witnesses to seizure. P.Ws. 8, 9 and 16 were witnesses to inquest. P.W. 10 is a witness who heard about the plan to commit the murder of Abhiram. P.Ws. 13, 23 and 24 were witnesses to discovery of the weapons. P.W. 14 is one of the village gents who attended the meeting for settlement of the dispute. P.W. 22 was the Scientific Officer who inspected the spot. P.W. 25 was the medical officer who conducted the post-mortem and P.W. 21 was the investigating officer. 6. The defence plea was of total denial of the occurrence though in the statements recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. some of the accused persons admitted discovery of the dead-body of Abhiram from a Nayanjori as well as presence of injuries on his dead-body. The defence examined five witnesses in support of its plea. 7. The Sessions Judge on the basis of the medical evidence as well as the statements made u/s 313, Cr.P.C. and other evidence arrived at the conclusion that death of Abhiram was homicidal. After going through the evidence and other documents, especially the medical report, we have absolutely no doubt with regard to the correctness of such conclusion and we confirm the said finding. 8. The Trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubts that respondents 1 and 4 committed murder of the deceased. It was also held that there was absolutely no evidence against other two accused persons so far as commission of the offence, their active participation in the crime or their presence at the scene of the occurrence. It was held that there was no substantive evidence to reveal that the murder was committed in consequence of abetment of accused-respondents 2 and 3 or with regard to the allegation that they caused disappearance of evidence regarding commission of murder. On the basis of the aforesaid conclusion, the Trial Court held that the prosecution failed to bring home any of the charges levelled against the accused persons and found all of them not guilty of the charges under Sections 302/34, IPC. On the basis of the aforesaid conclusion, the Trial Court held that the prosecution failed to bring home any of the charges levelled against the accused persons and found all of them not guilty of the charges under Sections 302/34, IPC. Accused-respondents 2 and 3 were also found not guilty of the charges under Sections 109/302 and 201/34, IPC and all the accused-respondents were acquitted of the respective charges u/s 235(1), Cr.P.C. The Trial Court directed that the accused-respondents be set at liberty forthwith. 9. Mr. Misra, learned Standing Counsel for the State, forcefully submitted that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge did not properly appreciate the oral evidence vis-a-vis the contents of the FIR. The FIR not being the encyclopaedia, a little variance as regards . facts should not have been a cause to discard the same. The Trial Court has made much about the fact that there was no medicine shop at Delta Chhak and disbelieved the FIR story on that ground. The Trial Court also took exception to small discrepancy with regard to'the place of occurrence, I.e. whether at Delta Chhak or Dedhal Chhak, and disbelieved the prosecution evidence on that ground. The clear admission of some of the accused persons regarding presence of injuries on the dead-body of the deceased, coupled wit the consistent evidence of P.W. 2 that accused Mita Senapati and Bharat jena chased the deceased on the night of 6th October, 1997 and his dead-body was found with multiple injuries on the next day, was sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that those two accused persons (respondent 1 and 4 respectively) were guilty and to convict them. In support of his contention, Mr. Mishra relied upon the decisions reported in 1975 SCC (Cri.) 225 (Ram Kumar Pandey v. State of M.P.) 1992 OCR 529 (Krushna Podha v. State of Orissa) 1996 SCC (Cri.) 972 (Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujrat). There is absolutely no legal quarrel about the ratio of the decisions. 10. At the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents, strenuously took us through the evidence, both oral and documentary, and submitted that the Trial Court was justified in discarding the evidence of most of the prosecution witnesses who turned hostile and also rightly observed that though the occurrence took place during the Dasahara festival and there was a rice-haulier nearby, not a single eye-witness was examined. The finding regarding material variation and discrepancies as regards the scenario as described in the FIR and as stated in the court, it is submitted, was justified. It is also submitted that the prosecution story was improved from stage to stage to implicate the respondents. The learned counsel for the respondents while supporting the impugned judgment, strenuously submitted that taking advantage of the prior enmity, a false case has been set up against the respondents and the entire episode clearly reveals that the respondents became victims of political vendetta and the appeal has no merit and it is a fit case where the order of acquittal is to be confirmed. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Being the final Court of facts, we meticulously went through the evidence, both oral and documentary. The Supreme Court in umpteen number of cases have observed that the High Court while dealing with an appeal from an order of acquittal should be slow in reversing the order of acquittal and unless there are good and strong grounds, the order of acquittal should not be interfered with. 12. Law is also well settled that powers of the High Court in an Appeal from the order of acquittal to reassess the evidence and reach Its own conclusion under Sections 378 and 379, Cr.P.C, are as extensive as in any appeal against the order of conviction, But as a rule of prudence, it is desirable that the High Court should give proper weight and consideration to the view of the Trial Court with regard to credibility of the witnesses, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt and the slowness of appellate Court justifying a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witness. But then, if the High Court finds on scrutiny of evidence that the view taken by the Trial Court in acquitting the accused is based on non-consideration of material evidence or is extremely perverse and is not reasonably sustainable on the evidence on record, then the Appellate Court can interfere with such an order of acquittal and set at naught the injustice done to the parties. (See AIR 1992 SC 1879 ). 13. (See AIR 1992 SC 1879 ). 13. The appellate court while reversing the order of acquittal has to consider the entire evidence in detail and give cogent and convincing reason as to why the interference is warranted. See Sham Kant Vs. State of Maharashtra, 14. The view expressed by us is also fortified by the Supreme Court in the case of Allarakha K. Mansuri Vs. State of Gujarat, where it has been observed as follows : "In criminal case the golden thread running through the web of administration of justice is that if two views are possible on evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to accused should be adopted. It is not a jurisdictional limitation on Appellate Court. In an appeal filed against acquittal of accused the paramount consideration of the court should be to avoid miscarriage of justice. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from the acquittal of guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where the trial court has taken a view based upon conjectures and hypothesis and not on the legal evidence, a duty is cast upon the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence in acquittal appeal for the purposes of ascertaining as to whether the accused has committed any offence or not. Probable view taken by the trial court, which may not be disturbed in the appeal, is such a view, which is based upon legal and admissible evidence. Only because the accused has been acquitted by the trial court, cannot be made a basis to urge that the High Court under all circumstances should not disturb such a finding. In the instant case the trial court relied upon certain aspects of the case for passing an order of acquittal from offence of murder. Examined critically, none of the aforesaid circumstances or aspects can be held to be based upon legal evidence." 15. In the instant case the trial court relied upon certain aspects of the case for passing an order of acquittal from offence of murder. Examined critically, none of the aforesaid circumstances or aspects can be held to be based upon legal evidence." 15. Examining the case with the touch stone of the aforesaid principle of law, we find that the trial court has disbelieved the prosecution case against all the accused persons for the following reasons : (i) There are discrepancies between the FIR and the depositions of P.W. 1 and P.W. 7, who lodged the F.I.R. (ii) There is discrepancy between the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 7, who jointly lodged the F.I.R. (iii) There is discrepancy about the place of the incident i.e. whether it took place at Dedhal Chhak or Delta Chhak and there is no proof that there was any medicine shop at Delta Chhak where the deceased and P.W. 1. could come to fetch medicine as alleged. (iv) There is no evidence that any quarrel between the members of the Yuvak Sangha and the deceased and P.W. 1 took place on the date of incident as alleged. 16. The Trial Court's finding relating to accused persons other than Bharat Jena and Mita ' Bibhuti Bhusan Senapati (Respondents 1 and 4) is that there is no conclusive evidence regarding their direct or indirect participation in the alleged crime. However, the materials on record are to be carefully scrutinised for the purpose of considering the acceptability of the Trial Court's aforesaid finding relating to Bharat Jena, respondent No. I and Mita ' Bibhuti Bhusan Senapati-respondent No. 4, who are alleged to be directly involved in the murder of the deceased. 17. It appears to us that the Trial Court has over-stressed certain aspects which are not very much material for the purpose of determining the main issue. The murder of the deceased is admitted. There is also no dispute that the body of the deceased was found in a NAYANJORI near Dedhal Chhak, the place, where the deceased and P.W. 1 were allegedly stopped and chased by Bharat and Mita with multiple injuries. There is practically no dispute that the slippers/Chappals and a coloured ladies' scarf were discovered from that place. There is also no dispute that the body of the deceased was found in a NAYANJORI near Dedhal Chhak, the place, where the deceased and P.W. 1 were allegedly stopped and chased by Bharat and Mita with multiple injuries. There is practically no dispute that the slippers/Chappals and a coloured ladies' scarf were discovered from that place. If it is found and believed that deceased Abhiram and Harekrushna were there at Dedhal Chhak and they were confronted by the respondents 1 and 4, it becomes totally immaterial whether there was any medicine shop at Delta Chhak or not. The purpose of visit otthe deceased and Harekrushna to Delta Chhak is immaterial, if their presence at Dedhal Chhak is believed. 18. The trial court has disbelieved the prosecution, only on the ground that details of the incident were not mentioned in the F.I.R.. We should remember that the F.I.R. was lodged before the dead-body was discovered and at a time when Abhiram who was chased by respondents I and 4 had not returned back home. An F.I.R. is just an information given to the police about happening of an incident and one need not go into minute details of the event. It has been stated in the F.I.R. that Bharat and Mita stopped the deceased and Harekrushna while they were coming back to their village and that Harekrushna could escape, but Abhiram did not come back home thereafter. Although there are some discrepancies regarding the role of Mita, but that Bharat had stopped the deceased and Harekrushna on the way is supported by the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. As this case involves some peculiar features and as we are intending to differ from the findings of the learned Judge below, we wish to state reasons for our dissension. 19. The peculiar feature in this case is, though 25 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, 11 witnesses turned hostile in court. Even a seizure witness disowned his signature. This gives a gut feeling to us that the witnesses backed out due to certain extraneous reasons and that the prosecution failed to discharge the onerous duties vested upon it. 20. The evidence of P.W. 1 clearly reveals that accused Bibhuti Bhusan Rout, Mita and Kailash Jena were playing great role in village politics. Accused Bibhuti was the President of the club. 20. The evidence of P.W. 1 clearly reveals that accused Bibhuti Bhusan Rout, Mita and Kailash Jena were playing great role in village politics. Accused Bibhuti was the President of the club. The accused persons, P.W. 1 and the family members of the deceased belonged to a different Political Camps. The evidence further reveals that in past, accused Bibhuti set Bharat and Mita to kill Harekrushna (P.W. 1) and the deceased. There were quarrel in the village on different flimsy grounds. The evidence of P.W. 1 also finds support from the evidence of P.W. 7 and P.W. 18, It is stated that when P.W. 1 and the deceased were proceeding in a moped and were near Dedhal Chhak, accused Bharat appeared and stopped them. He called accused Mita. Mita came there with a sword. At that moment, P.W. 1 could manage to escape from the clutch of Bharat. But both Mita and Bharat chased the deceased. This vital statement of P.W. 1 shows that the deceased was last seen with accused Bharat and Mita who were chasing him with weapon, which has been lost sight of by the Trial Court. This fact was narrated in the F.I.R. and finds support from the evidence of other witnesses like P.Ws. 2, 7,17 and 18. The dead-body was found in the Nayanjori at Dedhal Chhakon the next day. This As stated earlier, the F.I.R. was lodged on the same night i.e. in the night when accused Mita and Bharat (respondents 1 and 2) chased the deceased. Thus, this is a case where the principle of "last seen theory" squarely applies and the chain of circumstance has to be scrutinised in that light. 21. It is pertinent to mention here that none of the accused-respondents has explained the circumstances under which they were present at Dedhal Chhak and/or chased the deceased. The last seen theory can be pressed into service when persons were found together at a particular time and immediately thereafter one of them is found dead. In such a situation, it will inescapably lead to the conclusion that in all human probability, it was the accused-appellant and none else who had murdered the deceased. Coupled with this, another vital fact worth noticing is the conduct of respondents 1 and 4 after the occurrence. In such a situation, it will inescapably lead to the conclusion that in all human probability, it was the accused-appellant and none else who had murdered the deceased. Coupled with this, another vital fact worth noticing is the conduct of respondents 1 and 4 after the occurrence. Admittedly, occurrence took place in the night of October 6, 1992 and the dead-body was recovered on October 7 1992. P.W. 21 the Investigating Officer, in paragraph-10 of his deposition stated that he searched for the accused persons, but they were found absconding. He arrested Bharat Jena (respondent No. 1) only on 17.4.1993. According to the I.O., he was able to arrest Mita (respondent No. 4) only on 24.8.1993 from village Prataprudrapur. The I.O. has also said that Bharat Jena tried to escape and avoid arrest and in the process, he sustained some injuries by falling down on the ground and coming in contact with some thorny fence while being chased by police. He was medically examined and the injury report has been marked as Ext-12. While in custody, it appears, both respondents 1 and 4 disclosed the place where the weapons of offence were concealed. 22. We are conscious that the conduct of the accused in absconding immediately after the occurrence though a relevant evidence indicating to some extent his guilty mind, it is not conclusive because even an innocent person when suspected may be tempted to adopt such course to avoid arrest. (See AIR 1971 SC 1871 ). But in the present case, the respondents 1 and 4 were not only last seen chasing the deceased in the night of occurrence, but they also absconded from the village for quite some time and added to it, tried to escape arrest when chased by police, which facts complete the chain and there are the circumstances from which it would be just possible for any reasonable person to hold that it was respondents 1 and 4 and none else who were responsible for the ghastly murder of the deceased. Thus, the categorical statement of P.W. 1 and the story narrated in the F.I.R. supported by the other witnesses fulfills the well recognised tests as to sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence to enable us to apply the principle of last seen theory. Thus, the categorical statement of P.W. 1 and the story narrated in the F.I.R. supported by the other witnesses fulfills the well recognised tests as to sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence to enable us to apply the principle of last seen theory. In our view, the circumstantial evidence in this case fulfills the necessary tests and we are unable to agree with the findings arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge. 23. The Trial Court has committed error in not appreciating the evidence in its proper perspective and was swayed away by minor discrepancies in the F.I.R. vis-a-vis the statement made in court. We have also noticed while examining the impugned judgment that the Trial Court had made certain observations based on certain conjectures which are contrary to the evidence as spelt out by the P.Ws. The statement of P.W. 1 coupled with that of P.W. 7 and 18 as well as other witnesses who had seen both the accused-respondents proceeding towards the spot of occurrence coupled with the fact that the dead-body was discovered on the next day morning at the same spot, leads to an irresistable conclusion that it was the respondents I and 4 who had committed the murder of the deceased by inflicting blows with the weapon of offence. The ocular evidence of the witnesses stood corroborated by medical evidence and we have, thus, no hesitation to hold that respondent No. 1 (Bharat Jena) and respondent No. 4 (Mita ' Bibhuti Bhusan Senapati) were the assailants who brutally murdered a young, college going boy and this is a case where they should be convicted u/s 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In the result. The Government Appeal and the Criminal Revision are allowed in part, The order of acquittal so far as respondent No. 1 (Bharat Jena) and respondent No. 4 (Mita ' Bibhuti Bhusan Senapati) is concerned, is set aside and both of them are convicted u/s 302/34, I.P.C. and are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Their bail bonds shall be cancelled and the trial court is directed to take immediate steps for apprehending respondent Nos. 1 and 4 for serving the sentence. The order of acquittal of Bibhuti Bhusan Roul (respondent No. 2) and Kailash Ch. Jena (respondent No. 3) is confirmed and their bail bonds shall be discharged,