JUDGMENT Heard argument from the parties, hearing is concluded and the judgment is as follows. 2. Order of acquittal passed by learned Additional Ses¬sions Judge, Balasore in favour of the accused-respondents in Sessions Trial No.4/80 of 1987-86 is under challenge in this Government Appeal. 3. On 16.04.1988, vide order No.5, leave was granted to file appeal only against accused-respondent No.1 Ratnakar Pradhan and it was dismissed as against others. 4. According to the case of the prosecution, 28 accused persons forming an unlawful assembly, being armed with deadly weapons like lathi, bow and arrows, intentionally assaulted and caused death of Kaya Majhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘d¬eceased’) and thereby committed offence under Sections 302/149, I.P.C. Amongst them accused-respondent No.1 Ratnakar Pradhan and Ganapati Pradhan were charged specifically under Section 302, I.P.C. for committing murder of the deceased. Accused Pravakar, Barendra and Ganesh were charged under Section 323, I.P.C. for causing simple hurt to injured Malli Das, Makar Das, Ramesh Dalai, Sudarsan Khatua and Benudhar Das. It is stated by the prosecution that on 16.05.1986 at about 3.00 to 3.30 p.m. Malli Das (P.W.4) was attacked and assaulted by accused Nalu Jena. Therefore, Ghanashyam Pradhan (P.W.2), Kamal Lochan Pradhan (P.W.3), Sanatan Nayak and Krushna Chandra Khatua (not examined) escorted her (P.W.4) to her village. On the way Benudhar Das, son of P.W.4 met them and declared to take revenge against the person who caused violence on her mother. They proceeded further and at Pandatangiri Chhak found the deceased standing there. Accused persons being armed with various weapons arrived there. Then it was about 5.00 p.m. Accused persons assaulted P.W.4 and when the deceased protested, accused Ratnakar assaulted him by means of a lathi on his head followed by assault made by accused Pravakar, Barendra and Ganesh. The other persons who came to the rescue were also assaulted by them. When the deceased and the other injured persons were taken to the Headquarters Hospital, on the way the deceased succumbed to the injuries. 5. To substantiate the charge, prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses. Amongst them P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. P.W.6 is the Medical Officer, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and proved the Post-mortem Report-Ext.9. P.W.14 was the Investigating Offi¬cer. 6. 5. To substantiate the charge, prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses. Amongst them P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. P.W.6 is the Medical Officer, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and proved the Post-mortem Report-Ext.9. P.W.14 was the Investigating Offi¬cer. 6. P.W.6 submitted from the Post-mortem Report - Ext.9 that the deceased had only one external injury, i.e., a lacerated wound 2 ½” X ½” X scalp-deep surrounded by a swelling of about 4" X 3" on the volt of the scalp on the mid line. On dis¬section he found collection of clotted blood with injury of the muscles underneath the external injury, a linear fracture on both sides of temporal bone and parietal bone and extradural collection of 300 ml. of clotting blood in parietal, occipital and temporal regions. According to him, that ante mortem injury was sufficient to cause death of the deceased in ordinary course of nature. In the cross-examination he stated that, “the injury as per Ext.9 cannot be possible if the injured is in a standing position and the blow is dealt from his front side. However if the injured is in a sitting position and blow dealt from his front side with a lathi, such injury can be possible. The said injury cannot be also possible if the blow is given from the backside of the injured in a standing position by lathi.” 7. Taking into account the oral evidence of the eye-witnesses that accused Ratnakar dealt the blow from the front side while the deceased was in standing position and the discrepancy and contradictions of the evidence of the eye wit¬nesses besides their interestedness against the accused persons and pendency of huge number of cases between the parties, learned Addl. Sessions Judge extended the benefit of doubt and acquitted the accused persons. 8. In course of submission, learned Standing Counsel is unable to come over the aforesaid findings recorded by the trial Court on the basis of impartial medical evidence and the contra¬dictory evidence of the eye-witnesses. Therefore, there is nothing to interfere with the order of acquittal and accordingly the Government Appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.