ORDER Heard. 2. Order of acquittal vide impugned judgment dated 9.2.1988 in S.T. No. 31/126 of 1986 of the Court of Asst. Ses¬sions Judge, Nayagarh his under challenge. 3. It reveals from the prosecution case that the loan sanctioned in favour of the accused/respondent No.2 (Dipti Kumar Mohanty) was cancelled because of interference of the informant/injured Bijoy Kumar Sahoo (P.W. No.7), the then Sar¬panch of Chandapur Grama Panchayat. As per the allegation in the F.I.R., on 17.3.1986 at about noon time P.W. No.7 was detained in Chandapur Bazar by the accused persons who are brothers and in the evening at about 8.45 P.M. when P.W. No.7 was in his Radio Shop at Chandapur Bazar, the accused persons came over there in a vehicle being armed with deadly weapons like sword and that he was attacked. According to P.W. No.7 accused Gula @ Dipak Kumar Mohanty dealt sword blow and accused Dilip Kumar Mohanty and Dipti Kumar Mohanty dealt fist blows. The matter was reported at the Police Station. P.W. No.7 was medically examined on police requisition and injury certificate, Ext.3 was granted. It tran¬spires from Ext. 3 that P.W.7 sustained one incised wound 2" x 1/2" x 1/4" over the upper part of right side face below the right side lower eye-lid. That injury was found to be grievous. Besides that the Doctor (P.W. No.5) found a swelling over the right lower eye-lid and other injuries around that area, so also abrasion on the left eye-brow. There were eye witnesses to the occurrence. Upon completion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted and because of the offence under Section 307, I.P.C., the case was committed to the Court of Session and trial was undertaken by learned Asst. Sessions Judge, Nayagarh. Accused took plea of complete denial to the allegation and also stated that the case is an outcome of business rivalry because the accused persons had also a Radio Shop in the same bazaar. 4. In course of trial, as many as 9 witnesses were exam¬ined. Out of them, P.W. No.1, Surendra Singh, P.W. No.2, Radhash¬yam Maharaj, P.W. No.7, Bijoy Kumar Sahu and P.W. No.8, Sukanta Kishore Senapati were described as eye witnesses to the occur¬rence. 4. In course of trial, as many as 9 witnesses were exam¬ined. Out of them, P.W. No.1, Surendra Singh, P.W. No.2, Radhash¬yam Maharaj, P.W. No.7, Bijoy Kumar Sahu and P.W. No.8, Sukanta Kishore Senapati were described as eye witnesses to the occur¬rence. P.W. No. 1 in his examination in chief though stated about presence of accused Gula @ Dipak Mohanty in the gathering holding a sword and P.W. No.7 having sustained some bleeding injuries on the right cheek, but he has not stated anything about the occur¬rence of assault. P.W. No.2 narrated that incident by stating that on arrival of the accused persons in the vehicle, he heard the sound of cry for help and immediately rushed to the spot which was about 150 cubits away from his shop. At the spot he saw P.W. No.7 was holding his right cheek and crying. All the three accused persons were present there, accused Dipak being holding a sword standing there and in his (P.W. No.2) presence accused Dipak dealt a sword blow which the injured warded of with a iron plate (used as the shutter of the doors) and that the other ac¬cused persons were intimidating and instigating the informant to kill him. He also saw about 50 to 60 persons came over the spot and on seeing them all the accused persons fled away. In the cross examination he stated that at the time of his arrival about 50 to 60 persons were standing at the verandah of the informant and 100 to 150 persons were standing on the road. P.W. No.7 narrated the incident by stating about the manner of assault and the reason leading to the occurrence. He added that besides from the electric bulb, the area was also lighted by the petromax light in some nearby shops. P.W. No.8 was having a Dry Fish shop about 100 cubits behind Radio shop. On hearing the cry for help raised by P.W. No.7, he came out to the spot and saw accused Gula dealt two sword blows and each of them being awarded off by P.W. No.7 and by then P.W. No.7 had put his hand on his right eye and shouting ‘Marigali Marigali’. Taking note of the contradic¬tions in such ocular evidence of the aforesaid prosecution wit¬nesses and the surrounding circumstances emerging from the other evidence on record trial Court granted benefit of doubt to the accused/respondents. Taking note of the contradic¬tions in such ocular evidence of the aforesaid prosecution wit¬nesses and the surrounding circumstances emerging from the other evidence on record trial Court granted benefit of doubt to the accused/respondents. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate places the entire evidence on record so also the findings recorded by the trial Court and thereafter argues that the contradictions are non-consequential inasmuch as on re-narration of event that cannot be a parrot like statement and, therefore, the findings recorded by the trial Court in support of order of acquittal is legally not sustainable. 5. It is true that when an incident is narrated and re-narrated, on every narration, there may be some difference in the manner of describing the fact or event and, therefore, difference in such narration should not be regarded as contradiction shaking credibility of the witnesses unless such difference amounts to contradiction on material particulars. But when narration of events either makes presence of the witnesses inherently improba¬ble or exaggeration of the event, then the Court is to come to its aid, to guard, to scan and scrutinize such other jealous evidence to find out if the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt from the charges levelled after elimi¬nating the exaggerated part of the evidence or the unreliable part of the evidence. In this case, applying that text, this Court finds that P.W. No.7 does not state as to on hearing his cry which of the aforesaid witnesses arrived at the spot. He might not have noticed their presence and, therefore, that ground is not alone sufficient to discredit his testimony. P.W. Nos. 1,2 and 8 also do not speak of arrival of the other witnesses previ¬ous or subsequent to their arrival. It might have so happened that they might not have taken note of presence of the other eye wit¬nesses. Therefore, credibility of their respective oral evidence is free from attack on that score. When totality of such oral evidence is read together it appears that only any one of them is telling the truth and not all because of the glaring discrepan¬cies in their evidence regarding the sequence of events, manner of assault and improbable factor connected there with. Under such circumstance, grant of benefit of doubt cannot be found to be illegal and reversible. Under such circumstance, grant of benefit of doubt cannot be found to be illegal and reversible. That having been done by the trial Court through in a different language, therefore, this Court do not find any merit in this Govt. Appeal. Under such circumstances, the Government Appeal is dis¬missed. Appeal dismissed.