JUDGMENT Order of acquittal by learned Addition¬al Sessions Judge, Rourkela on 02.03.1988 in S.T. No.46/18 of 1986 is under challenge. 2. Respondent was the sole accused and was charged with the offence under Section 307, I.P.C. Case of the prosecution is that Mausumi Ghose (P.W. No.1), an unmarried girl reading in second year in the Vedvyas College, Rourkela was residing in the railway colony together with her parents, brothers and sister. She fell in love with one P.G. Chandrasekhar (P.W.4), a co-employee of her father and brother in the same department notwithstanding the fact that said P.G. Chandrasekhar had a living wife and two children. The relationship between P.W.1 and P.W.4 was not appre¬ciated and approved by the family members and she was asked to dissociate with P.W. 4. P.W.1 declined to abide by that command and therefore she was not permitted to stay inside the quarter but was permitted to construct a hut and stay within the campus of that quarter. Accused is the brother of the wife of P.W.4. On account of inter se relationship between P.Ws. 1 and 4, there was quarrel in the family of P.W.4 and his wife. To save the family of his sister (wife of P.W.4), accused-respondent approached P.W.1 to dissociate from the life of P.W.4. It is alleged by the prosecution that in the same context at about 9.00 p.m. on 20.07.1984 the accused came and knocked at the door of the hut of P.W.1. The noise produced thereby attracted attention of the mother and younger sister (P.W.7) of P.W.1 and on the banging of the mother, accused left that place. According to the version of P.W.1, half an hour past mid night accused again appeared with another unknown person, entered into her premises (hut) and throttled her, which was sufficient to make her breathless and senseless and thereafter when she regained her senses she found that she was lying near a park with bleeding injuries on her person. She went to secure assistance of P.W.4 and thereafter left that place and went and reported the matter to her mother and sister. The younger brother of P.W.1 was examined as P.W.6 being a post-occurrence witness but the informant of the case. 3. She went to secure assistance of P.W.4 and thereafter left that place and went and reported the matter to her mother and sister. The younger brother of P.W.1 was examined as P.W.6 being a post-occurrence witness but the informant of the case. 3. Prosecution examined as many as eleven witnesses and none of them is an eye-witness to the occurrence of assault and causing injury to the victim save and except the injured (P.W.1) herself. Rest of the witnesses are post-occurrence witnesses. P.W.8 is one of the doctors who attended to her in the Ispat General Hospital, Rourkela and proved the injury report-Ext.2. 4. It transpires from the medical evidence so also from the evidence of P.W.1 that she lost her eight teeth, i.e., six from upper jaw and two from lower jaw besides other bleeding injuries including incised wound in course of the occurrence of assault. There is no eye-witness to the occurrence of such as¬sault on P.W.1, because she herself has not stated who caused those injuries save and except stating that on throttling of her neck she became unconscious. Therefore, looking to the totality of the entire facts and circumstances, admission of P.W.1 that she had also been threatened by a group of boys and the deficien¬cy in prosecution’s case in proving the case in the manner it is narrated in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the impugned judgment, it goes to indicate that the benefit of doubt which was to invoke in favour of the accused to grant him an order of acquittal is not on the basis of any illegal appreciation of evidence suffer¬ing from perversity. After going through the evidence on record, the findings recorded by the trial Court and argument from learned Standing Counsel, this Court finds no good reason to interfere with the order of acquittal. Thus, the Government Appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.