JUDGMENT Heard and the Government Appeal is disposed of in the fol¬lowing way. 2. Order a acquittal passed by learned Sessions Judge, Balasore in Sessions Trial No. 56 of 1986 is under challenge in this Government Appeal. It appears from the impugned judgment that 12 accused persons were charged for the offence under Sec¬tions 148/302/149 I.P.C. on the allegation of committing riot and murder of Bidyadhar Das (hereinafter referred to as “the de¬ceased”). Accused-Respondent Padma Lochan Khilar was separately charged under Section 325 I.P.C. for causing fracture injury to Govinda. 3. According to the prosecution occurrence took place in the early morning hours of 30.1.1986. It is alleged that when the deceased was returning from the village pond, in front of the house of accused Sarat, all the twelve accused persons forming unlawful assembly assaulted and seriously injured the deceased. Govinda Biswal, the injured (P.W.3) when went to intervene, he was also assaulted as a result of which he sustained fracture injury on his leg. The deceased as well as Govinda were taken to the hospital for treatment. Dr. Gokulananda Mohanty (P.W.8) granted them treatment. Since the condition of the deceased was serious, P.W.8 referred him to the District Headquarter Hospital, but on the way the deceased succumbed to the injury. 4. To substantiate the charge, prosecution relied on the evidence of 11 witnesses. Amongst them P.Ws. 1 to 4 have been described as eye witnesses to the occurrence, P.W.7 is the doctor who conducted autopsy and proved the Post mortem report (Ext.4), P.W.8, as noted above, is the doctor who treated the deceased as well as P.W.3 and proved the injury certificates, Exts.6 and 7 respectively. He also recorded the dying declaration of the de¬ceased marked Ext.7. P.W.9 is the doctor who verified the X-Ray and confirmed the fracture injury on P.W.3. P.Ws.10 and 11 are two police officials associated with the investigation from commence¬ment till submission of the Charge Sheet. 5. P.W.8 in his deposition stated that while examining the deceased he found : (i) Two cut injuries over shaft of Tibia below the knee joint. Both the injuries we located 3" apart from each other. One of the injury therein has caused fracture of the Tibia. (ii) Trauma to right knee with bruise and haematoma. (iii) Trauma to chest. (iv) Cut injury over lower end of medial mellolus of left leg with multiple fracture. Both the injuries we located 3" apart from each other. One of the injury therein has caused fracture of the Tibia. (ii) Trauma to right knee with bruise and haematoma. (iii) Trauma to chest. (iv) Cut injury over lower end of medial mellolus of left leg with multiple fracture. P.W.7 who conducted Post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased noted the following juries to have been found on the dead body. (i) Lacerated wound below the right patella on anterior aspect with presence of haematoma. (ii) Two abrasions around the medial malleous of right ankle with swelling and haematoma. (iii) Lacerated wound on the left medial malleous with presence of swelling and haemotoma. (iv) Three abrasions on the left patella on the medial side of left leg just above the patella and the medial side of left leg of below the patella. (v) Bruise on the front thigh 2" above the right patella. (vi) Abrasion on the posterior aspect of right forearm 1/2" below the elbow; and (vii) Bruise with abrasion on the posterior aspect of the left forearm 2" below the elbow. The doctor also noticed partial fracture of right tibia at the side of external injury No.(i), fracture of lower end of left tibia and fracture of upper end of left tibia. He has opined all those injuries to be ante mortem and death of deceased was due to shock and haemorrage. In their evidence the eye witnesses, par¬ticularly P.Ws.1 to 4 have stated in the examination-in-chief in the following manner. P.W.1 deposed that accused Sarat stabbed by Balam to the right leg, accused Narahari by Tenta stabbed to the left leg, Banamali by Tenta also stabbed to the left leg and thereafter other accused persons present there gave Lathi blows on different parts of the body from leg to chest. P.W.2 accounted for the occurrence by stating that accused Sarat gave stab blow on the right leg by means of a Balam, accused Narahari and Banamali gave stab blows on the left leg by the respective Tenta hold by them and other accused persons dealt Lathi blows. P.W.3 stated that hearing the shout of P.W.1 he came out and found Bidyadhar was lying flat on the Danda (village road). P.W.3 stated that hearing the shout of P.W.1 he came out and found Bidyadhar was lying flat on the Danda (village road). Some of the acquitted accused persons were giving Lathi blows and then accused Sarat holding a Balam, accused Narahari and accused Banamali each holding a Tenta were present there. P.W.4, the widow of the deceased has accounted for the occurrence almost in similar manner like P.W.3. 6. Learned Sessions Judge while recording homicidal death of the deceased, however entertained doubt on the veracity and truthfulness of the eye witnesses and accordingly granted benefit of doubt and acquitted them. After quoting and noting the afore¬said evidence on record, we feel that a benefit of doubt was duly extended to the accused persons inasmuch as the doctors were not unanimous about the injuries which the deceased sustained in course of the occurrence. No effort was made by the prosecution to reconcile the contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws.7 and 8. The death might be due to injury sustained resulting in homicidal death, inasmuch as unless particular injuries are attributed to the accused persons in a systematic and consistent manner the accused persons cannot be asked to suffer punishment inasmuch as leave to appeal was granted only as against the present four accused persons who appeared as accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 in the impugned judgment and the benefit of acquittal granted to the other eight co-accused was not interfered with. Under such circumstances, we do not interfere with the order of acquittal and accordingly we dismiss the Government Appeal. Appeal dismissed.