JUDGMENT Heard. 2. Order of acquittal recorded by the Sessions Judge, Kalahandi in Sessions Case No. 59 of 1986 as per the judgment delivered on 14.5.1987 is under challenge. Leave was granted to the appellant-State on 27.10.1987. 3. As it reveals from the impugned judgment and the con¬tention of the appellant, occurrence took place on 25.8.1986 at about 6.00 P.M. in front of the house of the informant Dutia @ Gaurang Bag (P.W.5). He is also an eye witness to the occurrence. Accused is his elder brother and Padia Bag (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) is his son. 4. According to the case of the prosecution, during day time the informant and his wife had gone to their cultivable land to undertake transpiration operation. After they returned, ac¬cused retaliated on the ground that P.W.5 blocked the water way to the land of former and, therefore, he (accused) would kill P.W.5. Declaring such intention and being armed with an axe, accused appeared in front of the house of P.W.5. Informant there¬for, went up to roof of his house and from there he was watchful. Two villagers came and disarmed the accused and then accused entered into the house of P.W.5 and collected a stick made of rose wood, locally termed as “Ghichina” stick. While accused was in the process of shouting and abusing P.W.5 the deceased arrived at the spot. Without any rhyme or reason accused inflicted blows to the head of the deceased by means of that stick. P.W.5 rushed to the spot and could be able to snatch away that stick, but the accused ran away. The deceased in an injured condition was taken to the nearby Mission Hospital and there he was declared dead by the doctor (P.W.4) of the said hospital. Information was given to the police and investigation was undertaken. 5. Accused denied to the charge for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and claimed for trial. To substantiate the charge under Section 302 I.P.C., prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses and relied on various documents including the Post mortem report (Ext.6), injury report of accused (Ext.5) and the reports of P.W.4 (Exts. 3 and 4). The stick was marked as M.O.I. Amongst the aforesaid witnesses, P.Ws.5,7 and 10 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence and rest of the witnesses are either doctors or witnesses to the seizure and inquest. 3 and 4). The stick was marked as M.O.I. Amongst the aforesaid witnesses, P.Ws.5,7 and 10 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence and rest of the witnesses are either doctors or witnesses to the seizure and inquest. P.W.6 is the doctor, who examined the accused and granted injury certificate (Ext.5) and P.W.8 is the doctor, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. 6. To arrive at the conclusion about the death due to assault, learned Sessions Judge referred to the evidence of var¬ious witnesses including the evidence of P.W.8, but did not note the injury sustained by the deceased and the implication thereof. Be that as it may, on perusal of evidence of P.W.8 and the post mortem report (Ext.6), we find that deceased had sustained one contusion on the parietal bone with fracture of the said bone on the right side of the scalp and two lacerated injuries i.e., on the occipital region with fracture of the occipital bone at two places. P.W.8 opined that the said three injuries were result of three separate blows and such injuries are ante mortem and homici¬dal. At the same time P.W.8 found three abrasions on the right shoulder, back of middle of right scapula and left knee and all such injuries occurred after death of the deceased. The aforesaid evidence of P.W.8 and the Post mortem examination report (Ext.6) are sufficient to conclude that deceased suffered homicidal death. There is no challenge to that finding. 7. With respect to the author of the injuries, learned Sessions Judge entertained doubt on the veracity of P.Ws.5, 7 and 10 on the ground of interestedness and exaggerated statements made. With reference to contradictions and discrepancy in the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 8 about the number of injuries on the dead body at different point of times i.e., before and after the death and non-explaining of the circumstance thereof and conduct of the prosecution in not explaining the injuries found on the body of the accused, learned Sessions Judge in totality it not safe to rely on such evidence in support of the charge. Accordingly, he granted benefit of doubt and acquitted the accused. 8. Accordingly, he granted benefit of doubt and acquitted the accused. 8. After going through the evidence and hearing argument of the learned Government counsel, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of acquittal inasmuch as the aforesaid reasons which are prominent in trial file indeed creates a doubt and the benefit thereof should go in favour of the accused. For the said reason, we do not interfere with the order of acquittal and the Government Appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.