JUDGMENT P. K. TRIPATHY, J. — In his report dated 20.9.2002. Superin¬tendent, Criminal Section, has reported that evidence of P.W. No.1 was recorded twice. The first date of recording was 22.5.1984 and the second date of recording of such evidence was on 21.1.1985 and that such depositions was correctly prepared and kept in the paper book. On a reference to the order sheet dated 22.5.1985 of the trial Court, it is seen that after examination and cross-examination of P.W. No.1, application filed by the prosecution under Section 319, Cr.P.C. to summon accused Gopinath Mishra to face the trial was allowed by the trial Court. After securing attendance of that accused trial was undertaken, de novo and that is how evidence of P.W.No.1 was afresh recorded on 21.1.1985. Thus, the doubt in that respect is cleared. 2. Heard. 3. For the reasons noted below the Government Appeal failed and accordingly dismissed. 4. Judgment of the Court of C.J.M.-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Puri in Sessions Trial No.10/8 of 1984 is under challenge. The Respondents in this case faced the trial and were acquitted by the trial Court by recording the prosecution allegation to be a mistake of fact. 5. Case of the prosecution in substance is that one Upen¬dra Kumar Sinha, a Police Constable along with his widowed moth¬er, wife, children and brother-in-law (wife’s brother) were residing in the occurrence house situated at Heragohiri Sahi, in Puri town. On 4.3.1983 at about noon time the three accused per¬sons with around 20 to 25 gunda elements came up on the said house, broke open the entrance door and ransaked the house by damaging and putting the thatched roof and throwing the household articles to the road. According to the further allegations in that process, the Respondents removed a cash of Rs.200/- and gold necklace from P.W. No.1 and her daughter. According to the prosecution, by the time of occurrence, there was no male member in the house. Suchitra Sinha (P.W. No.1) is the wife of said Upendra Kumar Sinha. Her brother, Bimal Kumar Sinha (P.W. No.3) by the time of occurrence, had gone to the market. He was intimated by P.W. No.9, about the occurrence and therefore P.W. No.3, went to the Puri Town Police Station and came upon the spot alongwith the police. All the culprits fled away but two of them, viz., accused Gopinath Mishra and Bhagaban Behera could be appre¬hended. He was intimated by P.W. No.9, about the occurrence and therefore P.W. No.3, went to the Puri Town Police Station and came upon the spot alongwith the police. All the culprits fled away but two of them, viz., accused Gopinath Mishra and Bhagaban Behera could be appre¬hended. A photographer was brought to the spot by somebody and snaps of the scene of occurrence, the house and the articles were taken by him. Ext. 3 series is the negative and Ext.4 series are the positive photographs. On completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted for the offence under Sections 454/395 and 426, I.P.C. and charge was framed accordingly. 6. To substantiate the accusation, prosecution examined ten witnesses. Out of them, P.W. No.1 Suchitra Sinha, P.W. No.2, Sailabala Sinha (mother-in-law of P.W. No.1) and P.W. No.3, Bimal Kumar Sinha (brother of P.W. No.1) claimed in the trial Court to be the eye-witnesses to the occurrence as the occupants of the occurrence house. P.W. No.5, is a neighbour having his house at a distance of 200 yards and he is a post-occurrence witness. Simi¬larly, P.W. No.9, is also a neighbour of P.W. No.1 and he has stated to have informed about the occurrence to P.W. No.3. P.W. No.4, is a police Havildar and he came to the spot on the direc¬tion of the Officer-in-charge Town police station. P.W. Nos.7 and 8 are two Police Officers, who undertook some part in the inves¬tigation and P.W. No.10 is the Investigating Officer who conduct¬ed the actual investigation. Prosecution also relied on various documents. Out of the same, Ext.1 is the F.I.R. lodged by P.W. No.1 and Ext.2 is the zimanama executed by the said witness, relating to receiving the house-hold articles seized under Ext.5. As already noted, Exts.3 and 4 series are the negatives and positive of the photographs. 7. The defence took the plea of bona fide ownership and right over the house by accused Gopinath Mishra and denial to the occurrence of criminal trespass, dacoity and mischief. In support of their defence plea, accused persons examined one witness and relied on the Municipal tax receipts and the rent receipts, besides the rent schedule marked Exts. A to F. 8. In support of their defence plea, accused persons examined one witness and relied on the Municipal tax receipts and the rent receipts, besides the rent schedule marked Exts. A to F. 8. On assessment of such evidence on record, trial Court recorded the finding that the claim of ownership and possession of the house by accused Gopinath Mishra has not been falsified by the prosecution and in that context, the defence evidence, stands in a better footing than the bald assertion of P.W. No.1 in claiming such right and possession. According to the trial Court, prosecution did not prove by proper evidence that the occurrence house was owned and/or possessed by the husband of P.W. No.1 and therefore, when P.W. No.2, the mother-in-law of P.W. No.1 has not stated anything regarding ownership and possession, when husband of P.W. No.1, did not appear and proved the ownership or posses¬sion and above all, when P.W. No.1 did not produce any document in support of the claim of ownership and possession the claim of bona fide right by the accused, weakens the prosecution allega¬tions. Trial Court also recorded the finding that though the photographs Exts. 3 and 4 series and evidence of P.W. No.6, the photographer indicate about some scratch from the thatch and house-hold articles has been stacked in front of the road, but that evidence is shaky in character inasmuch as none of the P.Ws 1 to 3, stated that they secured the attendance of the photogra¬pher and apart from that, the Investigating Officer did not say that he requisitioned the service of a photographer. In addition to that in course of hearing this appeal, this Court finds that there is no evidence on record through the mouth of P.Ws. 1 to 3, to connect the photographer with the occurrence house. Trial Court also recorded a finding that the allegation of house tres¬pass is without adequate proof inasmuch as, according to the P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 the entrance door is broken into two pieces for secur¬ing forcible entrance into the house but there is nothing on record to indicate that either the independent witnesses or the Police Officer noticed such broken door nor the Investigating Officer seized the same. 1, 2 and 3 the entrance door is broken into two pieces for secur¬ing forcible entrance into the house but there is nothing on record to indicate that either the independent witnesses or the Police Officer noticed such broken door nor the Investigating Officer seized the same. Similarly, the trial Court found the allegations about damage to the articles and thatched of the house is against unnamed accused persons and they were not brought on record in course of investigation nor attempt was made by use of Section 319, Cr.P.C. Broadly on the aforesaid glaring circumstances, trial Court acquitted the accused in the manner indicated above. After going through the evidence on record and hearing learned Standing Counsel, this Court does not find the aforesaid order of acquittal to be illegal, unjust or perverse. It is the trite law that appellate Court is to find out if the reasons assigned by the trial Court is reasonable and legally sustainable. If that be so, then the appellate Court should not interfere with the order of acquittal. Therefore, finding absence of any illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the trial Court, this Court declines to interfere with the order of acquittal and accordingly the Government Appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.