JUDGMENT B. PANIGRAHI, J. — This appeal has been filed by causing delay of more than 2 1/2 years along with an application for con¬doning delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. At the time of hearing of the application for condonation of delay, we thought it proper to hear the matter on merits. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Mr. Mohapatra, the learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the State has filed this appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Khurda in a case under Section 302, I.P.C. read with Section 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. The prosecution case is that prior to six months of occurrence i.e. on 4.2.1995 the deceased Gada alias Gayadhar Behera kidnapped the sister of the respondent, opp.party Bimbadhar for which there was a dispute in the village, but, the matter was somehow subsided amicably. On the date of incident at about 8.00 A.M. while the informant Sundari Dei (P.W.3) was going to Ranga Math from her village, she saw the deceased near the pond of Sahadeb Khuntia. At that moment the accused-respondent went near the deceased and dealt a blow on his head by means of a sword as a result of which the deceased fell down on the ground and fur¬ther the accused-respondent went on giving successive blows on the deceased. After receiving severe bleeding injuries, he col¬lapsed on the ground. On seeing such ghastly incident, P.W.3 raised hue and cry which attracted many other villagers, who later on reaches the spot. By the time other villagers came near the spot, the injured was already dead. The dead body of the injured Gayadhar Behera was sent for post-mortem examination. A report was lodged at the Police station. During investigation, the accused-respondent was arrested. The Investigating Officer visited the spot and recovered the sword, the weapon of offence, blood-stained clothes and recorded the statement of the witnesses and after closure of the investigation, submitted the charge-sheet. 4. In order to sustain conviction against the accused, 12 witnesses have been examined of which the evidence of P.W.3 gains importance, as she has claimed to be the eye witness to the occurrence. The trial Court has closely examined her evidence and found her testimony not worthy of credence. 4. In order to sustain conviction against the accused, 12 witnesses have been examined of which the evidence of P.W.3 gains importance, as she has claimed to be the eye witness to the occurrence. The trial Court has closely examined her evidence and found her testimony not worthy of credence. P.W.3 is the informant in this case. It is stated in the F.I.R. that while she was going towards the house of the accused, she found the accused the accused-respondent assaulting the de¬ceased, as a result, the deceased after receiving severe injuries fell down on the ground. She raised hue and cry, as a result, several persons reached the spot. But by the time others arrived at the spot, the accused-respondent disappeared from the scene of occurrence. Therefore, apart from the evidence of P.W.3, there has been no other ocular evidence to connect the accused-respondent with the crime. During her examination in Court, P.W.3 made a statement which contradicted from the F.I.R. story and depicted completely a different version by stating that she was in the betel vine with the child of the deceased on her lap. Therefore, the trial Court felt rightly unsafe in placing implic¬it reliance on P.W. 3. 5. Mr. Mohapatra, the learned Addl. Standing Counsel wanted us to take other circumstances into consideration. We do not think it proper to accept such a contention inasmuch as the prosecution story hinges on the testimony of P.W.3 and if P.W.3 is disbelieved, then the entire edifice of the prosecution would naturally collapse. 6. In the result, after hearing on merits, we also do not find any justifiable ground to interfere with the order of ac¬quittal. Accordingly, the appeal as well as the application for condonation of delay are hereby dismissed. CH. P. K. MISRA, J. I agree Appeal dismissed.