JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. Prosecution calls in question order of acquittal granted by Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Berhampur on May 8, 1987 in Sessions Case No. 3 of 1987 (12 of 1987, GDC.). Accused persons in that case are the Respondents before us. 2. Prosecution case is that, on 20.12.1985 at about 8.30 A.M., Accused persons (fourteen in number) being armed with deadly weapons were coming towards the house of Narayan Sahu (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"). The deceased and his two sons, P. Ws. 1 and 6. on seeing the Accused persons, went to their house and bolted the entrance door from inside. Accused persons broke open that door and thereafter the deceased and his sons entered into the second room (the middle room) of the their house and closed it from inside. Accused persons also attempted to open that door by breaking it and some of the accused persons had also approached the house from the Bari (backyard) side. On seeing this, P. Ws. 1 and 6, concealed themselves in the BHADI, whereas the accused persons from the Bari side took away the deceased by dragging him. P. Ws. 1 and 6 heard the cry of the deceased and sometimes after when everything became silent, they came out and saw that their father was lying in a pool of blood with multiple injuries in the Bari (backyard) of the adjoining neighbour Raghunath Sahu. Around 12.30 P.M.,i.e. shortly after the noon, Officer in-charge of Hinjili Police Station (P.W. 7) arrived in the occurrence village in connection with investigation of another case and then P.W. 1 lodged the report before him verbally. Such report was reduced to writing and treated as F.I.R. Ext. 4. Inquest was held on the dead body of the deceased is the Sari land of Raghunath Sahu as per the inquest report, Ext. 1. The dead body was sent for postmortem examination, Dr. M.P. Sarangi (P.W. 5) of F.M. & T. Department, M.K.C.G. Medical College and Hospital, Berhampur conducted the autopsy and proved the postmortem report, Ext. 3. On 22.12.1985, the Investigating Officer conducted house search and seized some weapons from the house of Accused Dandapani Das under seizure list, Ext. 2. It is noted in Ext. 2 that no family members of that house were present at that time. The weapons seized are in detail mentioned in Ext. 3. On 22.12.1985, the Investigating Officer conducted house search and seized some weapons from the house of Accused Dandapani Das under seizure list, Ext. 2. It is noted in Ext. 2 that no family members of that house were present at that time. The weapons seized are in detail mentioned in Ext. 2 Some of them have been marked as material objects. 3. While denying to the charge framed under Sections 147, 148 and 302/ 149, I.P.C. some of the Accused persons from the family of Dandapani Das took the plea of alibi by stating that because of the atrocities meted out to them by the deceased, they had left the village prior to the date of occurrence and were taking shelter in village Mahulapali in the house of father-in-law of Accused Santosh Dash and they had riot come to the occurrence village Gondala on the date of occurrence. The further defence plea of all the accused persons is that because of he dispute created by the deceased, to settle the same, gentlemen from different villages were called and when they were discussing the matter in the house of Accused Dandapani Das, deceased was annoyed with the comments made by one of the 'Bhadraloks' about the attitude of the deceased and that the deceased went to his house and returned with a sword and wanted to assault the Bhadraloks. It was tried to be prevented and in that tussle, the deceased sustained injuries on his body. 4. To substantiate the charges, prosecution relied on the, evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 6, two sons and P.W. 2, the widow of the deceased besides the evidence of P.W. 3, a child witness from the neighbourhood as the eye-witness to the occurrence. P.W. 4 is the witness to the seizure. P.W. 5 is the Doctor and P.W. 7 is the Investigating Officer. Documents, which are relevant for consideration from amongst the exhibits, have already been noted. In support of the defence plea of alibi, D.W. 1 Ranka Das was examined and three documents, i.e., the F.I.R. in three G.R. Cases were proved and marked as Exts. A, B and C. 5. On assessment of evidence, Trial Court held that P. Ws. Documents, which are relevant for consideration from amongst the exhibits, have already been noted. In support of the defence plea of alibi, D.W. 1 Ranka Das was examined and three documents, i.e., the F.I.R. in three G.R. Cases were proved and marked as Exts. A, B and C. 5. On assessment of evidence, Trial Court held that P. Ws. 1, 2 and 6 have resorted to exaggeration while making the allegations against the Accused persons on different sequence of events and also in that process, they tried to rope in innocent persons, i.e.; persons not connected with the crime in any manner and under such circumstance, evidence of those witnesses are to be scrutinized with extra caution in view of the ratio in the case of Mayappa Dhondama Padeade v. State of Maharashtra 1981 SCC (Cri.) 790. It may be noted here that Learned Addl. Government Advocate in course of his submission does not challenge to applicability of the ratio in the said case to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 6. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge further held that there was a gap of about four hours between the occurrence and lodging of F.I.R. (Ext. 4) According to P. Ws. 1, 2 and 6, they were together during that entire period, but in the F.I.R., there is no mention that P.W. No. 2. (widow of the deceased) was present in the house and saw the occurrence as an eye-witness. That omission in the F.I.R. about the name of the eye-witness and the discrepant evidence given by P.W. 2 besides her visional defect due to cataract prompted the Learned Addl. Sessions Judge to found her not credible. 7. So far as the evidence of P.W. No. 3, the child witness is concerned, Learned Addl. Sessions Judge describing that testimony as unsafe to rely on the ground that there is not convincing evidence about the manner in which the deceased was shifted from the place of assault in the premises of Accused Dandapani Das to the Bari of Raghunath Sahu, were the dead body was lying. In the said context, Learned Addl. Sessions Judge entertained a reasonable doubt that the story told by P. Ws. 1 and 3 that P.W. No. 2. In the said context, Learned Addl. Sessions Judge entertained a reasonable doubt that the story told by P. Ws. 1 and 3 that P.W. No. 2. was providing support to the deceased for bringing him to the Bari of Raghunath Sahu was found to be improbable in view of the nature of multiple serious injuries sustained by the deceased on both of his legs. It may be noted here that in course of submission, Learned Addl. Government Advocate does not dispute to the injuries on the deceased rendering him incapable of walking. Learned Addl. Government Advocate also does not dispute that the wearing apparels of P.W. 2 would have been soaked with blood, had she made attempt to carry the deceased even by dragging from the spot of assault upto the Bari of Raghunath Sahu, but no such Sari of P.w. 2. was seized or produced in the Court. In other words, the prosecution has no means to dispute the reasonable doubt entertained by the Trial Court in the above context. 8. Besides the aforesaid circumstances, Learned Addl. Sessions Judge took note of the several contradictions in the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 6, inter se, vis-a-vis evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 3. In that respect also, Learned Addl. Government Advocate is unable to point out if the Trial Court committed any illegality or perversity in locating such contradictions and relying on that for the conclusion recorded by him. 9. It is the settled position of law that in the absence of illegality or perversity in appreciating the evidence or recording a factual finding by the Trial Court, it is not proper for the Appellate Court to interfere with the factual finding on the ground that another view is also possible from the same set of evidence. As noted above, Learned Addl. Government Advocate is unable to point out either existence of perversity or illegality in the findings recorded by the lower Court. It is also the settled position of law that when two views are possible from one set of evidence and one view which is reasonable has been taken by the Trial Court in support of the order of acquittal that should not be disturbed by the Appellate Court. Thus, on examination of the relevant evidence, the findings recorded by the Trial Court and argument advanced by Learned Addl. Thus, on examination of the relevant evidence, the findings recorded by the Trial Court and argument advanced by Learned Addl. Government Advocate, we find no reason to interfere with the order of acquittal. 10. Accordingly, the Government Appeal is dismissed. Govt. appeal dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed