JUDGMENT - PALSHIKAR V.G., J.: - Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli, in Sessions Trial No. 24 of 1990 on 18-3-1992 acquitting all the 5 accused persons of offence under sections 302, 201 r/w 34 of the I.P.C., the State has filed this appeal contending that the order of acquittal is unsustainable in law and is, therefore, liable to be aside. 2. The case of the prosecution stated briefly is that the accused persons along with the deceased consumed liquor near the field of P.W. 3 Kashinath in the illicit plant of P.W. 4 Lomesh and there was a quarrel between them regarding payment of the liquor consumed and according to P.W. 4, the accused throttled the victim. Further, the prosecution case is that the body of the victim was found hanging to a tree by muffler. It was in a sitting position. After searching for the body, P.W. 1 Zunga found it near the tree and lodged a complaint. The investigation was carried out and the accused persons were prosecuted. P.W. 1 is the father of deceased Pandurang. He has deposed about how the search for the body was undertaken and how he found it and he had then lodged the report to police which is proved by him as the First Information Report. The First Information Report was recorded by the P.W. 5 police constable. The investigation was carried out by P.W. 6 Investigating Officer. P.W. 2 who was the panch witness was declared hostile as he did not support to the prosecution. P.W. 3 is Kashinath who is the owner of adjacent field and saw the accused persons carrying Pandurang the deceased holding him by hand and legs. However, this witness does not disclose anything about the same to any person. He just keeps quite. P.W. 4 Lomesh is the person at whose place, the accused and the victim consumed liquor and had a fight. This witness has stated how the incident occurred. According to him, the accused and the victim came to the field and consumed liquor. There was a quarrel between them and they tried to throttle the victim. He very categorically states that when the accused persons carried away the victim, he was alive, but was finding difficult in breathing. This witness has stated how the incident occurred. According to him, the accused and the victim came to the field and consumed liquor. There was a quarrel between them and they tried to throttle the victim. He very categorically states that when the accused persons carried away the victim, he was alive, but was finding difficult in breathing. The evidence of this witness, if it is accepted, discloses that the accused persons were seen last together with the victim and had a quarrel with the victim. P.W. 5 Bhagwat is the P.S.I. who recorded the First Information Report and P.W. 6 Ramesh is the Investigating Officer. Appreciating this evidence, learned trial Judge found it grossly inadequate to conclude that this evidence is unmistakably points towards the accused persons' perpetration of the crime. He, therefore, proceeded to acquit all the accused persons of all the charges levelled against them. 3. This order of acquittal is assailed before us. Learned A.P.P. took us through the entire evidence and contended that the learned trial Judge erred in rejecting the evidence of P.W. 3 and P.W. 4. It was liable to be accepted as the presence of P.W. 3 in his field was natural. He is not a chance witness. He factually has seen the victim being carried by the accused persons. His evidence is duly corroborated by evidence of P.W. 4 by their individual testimony. This evidence coupled with sufficient recovery of dead body found in a sitting position with neck tied by muffler and muffler tied to a tree was adequate to come to the conclusion that it were the accused persons who caused the death of the victim and they had the intention to commit his murder. 4. Reliance was placed by the learned Counsel on the judgment of the Supreme Court of India reported in (1996 Cri.L.J. 1134)1, wherein the Supreme Court of India has observed that when the eye-witnesses' account is clear and acceptable, but there is some delay in recording corroborative evidence or statement of corroborative witnesses, it need not require disbelieving of the witnesses who were the eye-witnesses and otherwise reliable. This judgment is, therefore, of no use to the learned Counsel. 5. The incident is of 1989. The impugned order is of 1992. The period of 12 years have passed, the accused are at liberty. This judgment is, therefore, of no use to the learned Counsel. 5. The incident is of 1989. The impugned order is of 1992. The period of 12 years have passed, the accused are at liberty. This Court has considered all these aspects including the extended powers of the High Court to interfere with the order of acquittal. Stressing the case law on this point, right from the judgment of the Privy Council, it was observed that in order to interfere with the order of acquittal, it must be found that the findings recorded by the learned trial Judge, on appreciation of evidence, are such as are perverse in nature and wholly unsustainable. In this case, the learned trial Judge has proceeded to acquit the accused and the reasons are adequate. There is no eye-witness account. P.W. 4 Lomesh at whose place they were consuming liquor has been examined after 44 days. P.W. 3 is Kashinath, his statement is recorded after 33 days. Both have deposed before the Court. Even if their entire testimony is to be accepted, it can at the most prove that these two witnesses saw the accused fighting with the victim. There is no evidence whatsoever of the accused persons being seen carrying the body and hanging it to a tree. The body itself was discovered after about 24 hours. The requisition given by the police for post-mortem to the Civil Surgeon concerned itself mentions the possibility of death by suicide. Apart from that fact, unless there is clinching evidence to connect accused with the incident merely because they were seen together with the victim last by one of the two witnesses cannot be a ground to interfere with the order of acquittal which otherwise is sustainable. It cannot be said that the order of acquittal due to inadequacy of material is liable to be interfered with. In the circumstances, we see no reasons to interfere with the appeal. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Appeal dismissed. -----