JUDGMENT : B. Panigrahi, J. - In this appeal the order of acquittal passed by the teamed Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar in Sessions Trial No. 3/166 of 1985/84 Is under challenge. The respondent alongwith 34 Ors. were prosecuted under Sections 302/324/323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code having committed murder of one Bhikari She and for causing injuries on Satyabadi Pradhan.'Meghanad Bhoi, Bhagaban Bhoi and Hazari Bhoi. The trial Court, however, acquitted the accused-respondents, of all the charges levelled against them. Therefore, the State being aggrieved by the said order of acquittal, had sought for save to file an appeal against all the accused-respondents. But the Court has granted leave to appeal only against respondent Srundaban Sahu and this Government appeal was admitted only against respondent Brundaban Sahu. 2. The FIR story as it reveals in the trial Court's judgment is as follows: On 25.3.1983 in the morning hours the informant's son Bhikari Bhoi (deceased) had gone for ploughing the land which was kept by them on mortgage from one Bauribandhu Samantaray. P.W 4. Kanhu Charan Pradhan came and informed the informant, father of the deceased, (hat the respondent Brundaban Sahu had killed his son Bhikan by firing a gun and his dead-body was lying in the field After getting such information, the informant went alongwith his wife to the field and found his son Bhikari was lying dead with his face upwards in the land of Sudarsan Sethi, which was close to his mortgaged land They further found punctured wounds little below the left arm pit caused by gun tiring. The matter was reported to the then O.I.C.. Banpur Police Station which was registered as FIR. The O.I.C. Banpur police station reached at the spot and found the deadbody lying in the filed of Sudarsan Sethi. He held inquest over the deadbody. The blood stained earth and the sample earth were collected, witnesses were examined, the deadbody was despatched for cost mortem examination the accused persons were arrested and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the respondent and his other associates. 3. The plea of the respondent was one of complete denial of the incident. 4. The prosecution had examined about 10 witnesses, of whom P.Ws. 3, 9 and 10 were the Investigation Officers. PW.1 was the lather of the deceased Bhikari Bhoi and the informant in this case. P.Ws. 3. The plea of the respondent was one of complete denial of the incident. 4. The prosecution had examined about 10 witnesses, of whom P.Ws. 3, 9 and 10 were the Investigation Officers. PW.1 was the lather of the deceased Bhikari Bhoi and the informant in this case. P.Ws. 2 to 6 are said to be one witnesses, P.W.1s evidence does not help the prosecution in any planner, because him arrival at the spot was after the incident. He reached at the spot after being informal by P.W.4 Kanhu Charan Pranhan. From the evidence it has appeared that P.Ws. 2 and 3 after hearing hue and cry rushed towards the field where the deceased was plaguing and found the accused persons armed with different deadly weapons such as gun, tema and lathies. Their evidence further discloses that the villagers of Sanaspur chased them and while they were running and on turning back they found the respondent was firing a gun at deceased Bhikari as a result of which the deceased died at the spot. The trial Court disbelieved the statement of P.Ws. 2 and 3 as it appeared to him to be imaginary, unnatural and unrealistic. While a group of persons were casino P Ws 2 and 3 to assault, it was quite unlikely that they would look back and find the appellant firing the gun at the deceased the evidence of P.W. 4, 5 and 6 is also of the same line. Therefore, the trial Court did not lace any reliance on such ocular evidence 5. On perusal of the post mortem report (Ext. 5) and the evidence of the Doctor (P.W.7) it is revealed that the injury Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 are abrasions and injury No. 7 was in respect of three punctured wounds over posterior auxiliary field of the left side. Similarly injury No. 6 was in respect of three round bum spots one over lower part of front side chest below the medical right nipple and the other we over the this is sternum. From the evidence it is found that only one gun shot was fired by the respondent. By firing once from the gun there cannot he three punctures wounds. At the entry point no carbon deposit had bean noticed. From the evidence it is found that only one gun shot was fired by the respondent. By firing once from the gun there cannot he three punctures wounds. At the entry point no carbon deposit had bean noticed. From the medical evidence it is revealed that at the exist point charcoal mark was noticed on three punctured wounds through which the bullets were embodied into the body. In this background while appreciating the prosecution casa, it is to be considered whether by one bullet shot three punctured wounds could be possible or three gun shots wound be necessary for such injuries. It is also noticed from the evidence of Doctor that three buliets were recovered from the body of the deceased. Be it noted that there was no trace of empty cartridge found near the place of incident. The Ballistic expert's opinion else does not help the prosecution in order to determine the culpability of the respondents in the crime. Therefore, the learned trial Judge after discussing the evidence of the prosecution witnesses at length did not accept the prosecution case to be true, genuine or trustworthy. From the findings of the learned Sessions Judge, we also find no perversity, impropriety or illegality. Accordingly, we dismiss the Government Appeal and confirm the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Since the respondent is on bail, his bail bond be discharged. P.K. Misra, J. 6. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed