JUDGMENT : P.K. Tripathy, J. - Order of acquittal passed by Learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Chatrapur in Sessions Case No. 37 of 1988 (Sessions Case No. 75 of 1988 GDC) is under challenge. 2. According to the prosecution, on 16.03.1987 at about 1.00 P.M. when Bhagaban Gouda was returning to his house, on the village 'Danda' in Adua Sahi, accused Udayanath Maharana caught hold of Bhagaban and accused Bhaskar dealt a blow to the chest of Bhagaban by means of a 'Chela'. On sustaining bleeding injury, Bhagaban became unconscious and was taken to the hospital. Police was intimated and law was set into motion. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted for the offence u/s 341 read with Sections 326 and 307/34, I.P.C. Both the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. In course of trial, prosecution relied on the evidence of six witnesses. Out of them, PW. No. 1 is the informant, P.W. No. 2 is the injured, P. Ws. 3 and 4 are the two eye witnesses, P.W. No. 5 is the Doctor, who proved the injury certificate Ext. 1 and P.W. No. 6 is the Investigating Officer. Accused persons did not adduce any defence evidence. On assessment of such evidence on record, Trial Court disbelieved the consistent evidence of P. Ws. 2 to 4 on the ground of contradictions with the medical evidence, Ext. 1 and deposition of P.W. No. 5 and no attempt being made by P.W. No. 6. to reconcile the doubtful situation. Learned Assistant Sessions Judge also took note of the fact that though in the F.I.R. it was alleged that 'Chela' was the weapon of offence, but in the police requisition it was mentioned as 'Tenta' (piercing weapon) being used to injured (P.W. No. 2). On the other hand, Chela/Bhusa produced in the Court being marked as M.O.I indicated that it had no sharp edge nor pointed end to cause the injury found on the body of P.W. No. 2. Trial Court also took note of the fact that several persons, who were said to be present at the spot, were not examined in course of investigation. The wearing apparels of the accused and the injured were not produced and the injury was not x-rayed. Trial Court also opined that according to P. Ws. Trial Court also took note of the fact that several persons, who were said to be present at the spot, were not examined in course of investigation. The wearing apparels of the accused and the injured were not produced and the injury was not x-rayed. Trial Court also opined that according to P. Ws. 3 and 4 in the process of assault, accused had the intention to cause death of P.W. 2 but that could not have been so because, Bhaskar could have succeeded in committing murder of P.W. No. 2 being not prevented by anybody. In other words, the Trail Court concluded from the circumstances that there was no attempt to commit murder of P.W. No. 2 nor it was proved on record that P.W. No. 2 sustained a grievous injury punishable u/s 326, I.P.C. For the said reason Trial Court acquitted the accused persons. 3. After placing the judgment and the evidence on record, Learned Addl. Government Advocate is unable to counter to the factual finding recorded by the Trial Court so as to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court for interference with the order of acquittal. Under such fact situation, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order of acquittal. Accordingly, the Government Appeal is dismissed. Govt. Appeal dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed