JUDGMENT Heard further argument, hearing is concluded and the judg¬ment is as follows. 2. Government, after obtaining the leave, challenges the order of acquittal granted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadrak in favour of the respondents as per the impugned judgment in Sessions Trial No.5/30 of 1990. According to the case of the prosecution, the occurrence of harvesting of paddy from the disputed land by Pitambar Barik (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) and his injured son Narayan Barik (P.W.10) and their labourers brought the accused to the spot of occurrence as a matter of protest and they became the aggressors and dealt blows causing death of the deceased at the spot and injury on the person of P.W.10. On the aforesaid allegation, charge was framed against the six accused persons for the offence under Sections 148, 302/149, 324/149 and 325/149, I.P.C. To substantiate the charge prosecution relied on oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 15 and documents marked Exts.1 to 26 and the Material Objects such as the wearing apparels of the de¬ceased. In support of their plea of innocence accused persons examined two witnesses and relied on series of documents marked Exts. A to Q. They are all documents relating to the right over the disputed property. Amongst the fifteen witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.W.9 is the doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and proved the Post-mortem Report, Ext.12. P.W.13 is the doctor who examined P.W.10 and granted the Injury Certificate, Ext.13. P.W.14 is the other doctor who treat¬ed P.W.10 at Sub-division Hospital, Bhadrak. 3. It reveals from the evidence of P.W.9 that the deceased suffered homicidal death because of the lacerated wound on the parietal region of his head, which resulted in fracture of fron¬tal parietal bone tree inches away from the right eyebrow extend¬ing up to eight inches posteriori. That fracture has been de¬scribed as injury No.5, but that fracture was due to the blow which caused external injury No.1, as stated by the said doctor in course of his cross-examination. P.W.9 also found two punc¬tured wounds on the elbow-joint and one bruise on the right arm of the deceased. There is no mention of any injury on the chest of the deceased. 4. P.W.9 also found two punc¬tured wounds on the elbow-joint and one bruise on the right arm of the deceased. There is no mention of any injury on the chest of the deceased. 4. According to the F.I.R., accused persons forming an unlawful assembly when approached the place of harvest of paddy, the deceased and his son together with a group of labourers employed by them started running away from the spot. However, on the way the deceased was intercepted and accused Surendra Bhoi dealt a lathi blow to the chest of the deceased. Sustaining that blow the deceased fell down followed by a blow by ‘Balama’ dealt by accused Bayani Bhoi. Out of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, as noted by the trial Court, P.Ws.1, 11 and 12 are the eye-witnesses to the occurrence whereas P.W.-10 being an injured is also an eye witness to the occurrence. In their evi¬dence the said witnesses have stated about lathi blow being dealt by Surendra Bhoi without mentioning the part of the body which was injured thereby and accused Bayani Bhoi dealing blow by a ‘Balama’ to the head of the deceased. They have not stated about any other blow inflicted by any other accused persons or to any part of the body of the deceased. The trial Court, on assessment of evidence on record, entertained doubt on credibility of the eye witnesses so also took exception to the belated examination of P.Ws.11 and 12 by the Investigating Officer and in the result granted benefit of doubt in favour of the accused persons and accordingly acquitted them. 5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate vehemently argues that when the evidence of P.Ws.1, 10, 11 and 12 are consistent and corroborative in nature about the ‘Balama’ blow given by accused Bayani Bhoi to the head of the deceased and when according to P.W.9 and Ext.12 that injury was fatal and sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death of the deceased, therefore, if not other accused persons, at least accused Bayani Bhoi should have been convicted for the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. With that submission learned Addl. Govt. Advocate argues to set aside the order of acquittal accordingly. Learned counsel for the accused/respondents on the other hand defends the order of ac¬quittal and argues to dismiss the Govt. Appeal. 6. Govt. Advocate argues to set aside the order of acquittal accordingly. Learned counsel for the accused/respondents on the other hand defends the order of ac¬quittal and argues to dismiss the Govt. Appeal. 6. On due consideration of the aforesaid argument, we adhere to the principle that “man may lie but the circumstance never belie”. When the case of the prosecution is that a blow, i.e., the first blow by lathi was given to the chest, Pitambar fell down. We find absence of any injury on the chest of the deceased, which could have been possible as a result of that lathi blow. There is no evidence on record to indicate under what circumstance two punctured wounds could be inflicted on the elbow-joint of the deceased. Neither the eye-witnesses to the occurrence nor the other witnesses examined by the prosecution have explained the situation. Therefore, it appears that the witnesses have not truly and correctly accounted for the incident that happened in course of the occurrence. Under such circum¬stance, benefit of doubt, which was granted in favour of the accused persons, should not be disturbed. In the above context we may comment that two of the eye-witnesses from the labourers employed that day were withheld from the witness-box by the prosecution. Their evidence as independent witnesses could have been substantially assisted to the Court to arrive at the truth. There is no explanation from the side of the prosecution as to why they were withheld. Under the circumstance, we do not inter¬fere with the order of acquittal. Accordingly the Government Appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.