JUDGMENT : 1. Head argument from both the parties, hearing is concluded and the judgment is as follows. 2. Order of acquittal from the charge u/s 302/34, I.P.C. granted by Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jajpur in S.T. No. 54/4 of 1992 as per the impugned judgment delivered on 04.01.1993 is under challenge.. 3. Prosecution case is that there was a party feeling between the deceased and the informant party as against the accused persons. On the date of occurrence, i.e., on 08.08.1991 at about 7.30 p.m. Anand Palei (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') went to the shop of the accused persons and there he was assaulted and killed by the accused persons, as alleged by the prosecution, by piercing 'tenta' blow by accused Sankar Barik and dealing of lathi blow by accused Babaji Barik. It is further alleged that accused Bishnu Barik was standing there holding a 'katuri'. The dead body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem examination and the doctor (P.W. 11) conducted the postmortem examination and submitted Post-mortem Report Ext. 11 and the Opinion Report Ext. 12. Evidence of P.W. 11 is specific that deceased succumbed to the injuries and more particularly to the incised wound and internal bleeding in the brain. In course of his cross-examination he has categorically stated that none of the injuries found on the dead body of the deceased was possible by a 'tenta' blow. When the evidence of P.W. 11 stands at that, four out of six eye-witnesses to the occurrence, namely, P. Ws. 1,3,5 and 6 narrated the incident by stating that deceased was injured by piercing a 'tenta' and also by dealing lathi blows. Two of the eye-witnesses namely P. Ws. 2 and 4 however stated that the accused Sankar, in self-defence whirled a 'katuri' and sustaining blow from that 'katuri' deceased fell down on the stony stairs and died at the spot. That is also the defence plea of the accused persons. On examination of such evidence on record and the plea of the accused substantiated by the prosecution witnesses, Learned Addl. Sessions Judge found that the P. Ws. 1, 3, 5 and 6 are not credible to be relied upon relating to assault part and the plea of the defence is supported by P. Ws. 2 and 4 to probablise exercise of right of private defence of person. 4. Sessions Judge found that the P. Ws. 1, 3, 5 and 6 are not credible to be relied upon relating to assault part and the plea of the defence is supported by P. Ws. 2 and 4 to probablise exercise of right of private defence of person. 4. After going through the evidence on record and the findings of the Trial Court, we are unable to agree with the argument advanced by Learned Addl. Standing Counsel that even if 'tenta' theory is eliminated,then also since blows were given by lathi and there was internal injuries to the brain,therefore,the accused persons should be convicted for the offence u/s 302/34,I.P.C. On the other hand,we find the approach of the Trial Court to be appropriate in discarding the evidence of such untruthful witnesses who account for the occurrence by introducing 'tenta' and piercing injury on the backside neck by such a 'tenta'.At the risk of repetition,we reiterate that P.W.11 has ruled out any injury on the neck and more so any,injury possible by 'tenta'. 5. Under such circumstance,the view taken by the Trial Court being neither unreasonable nor suffering from perversity,is not interfered with.Accordingly,there is no merit in this Government Appeal and the same is dismissed. Govt. Appeal dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed