JUDGMENT Heard argument from the parties, hearing is concluded and the judgment is as follows. 2. Order of acquittal in S.T. No.129 of 1987 of the Court of Sessions Judge, Puri is under challenge. Twenty-five accused persons in total faced the trial for the charges framed under Sections 148/302/323/286/324/336/149 & 302/34, I.P.C. On 25.01.1989 while considering the application for leave to appeal, leave was granted to proceed against accused-respondent Nos.18 to 22, 24 and 25. 3. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 3.10.1986 at about 5 a.m. when Dibyasingha Naik (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) was proceeding towards the river in village Badaband¬hakera, all the accused persons named in the F.I.R. being armed with various weapons surrounded him and accused-respondent Nos.18 to 22, 24 and 25 besides on Arakhit Lenka @ Gadadhar and Arjun Behera assaulted him indiscriminately. The deceased succumbed to the injuries. It was stated by the prosecution that Laxmidhar Pani (P.W.6), Bhagirathi Naik (P.W.1), Gangadhar Pani (P.W.2), Karunakar Bhol (P.W.3), Narasingha Naik (P.W.4) and Bairagi Naik (P.W.5) were amongst the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. Amongst them, P.W.1 is the son of the deceased, P.W.4 is the brother of the deceased and P.W.5 is the agnatic cousin of the deceased. On assessment of the evidence on record, learned Sessions Judge, Puri though recorded that the deceased suffered homicidal death, but he found contradictions in the evidence of the above named eye-witnesses about the manner in which the assault took place and injuries caused. In that respect learned Sessions Judge did not think it wise to accept the statement of the deceased (Ext.13) regarded as the Dying Declaration for the selfsame reason. 4. After arguing for sometimes, learned counsel for the State finds that the finding recorded by the trial Court enter¬taining doubt on the veracity of the eye-witnesses on the accusa¬tion against the seven accused persons is not only contradictory to each other but also contradictory to the statement of the deceased, Ext.13. None-the less, he argues that such contradic¬tions are minor or trifle in nature. When the trial Court on due application of mind and assessment of the evidence on record, has taken a reasonable view and the finding recorded by the trial Court does not suffer from illegality or perversity, it is not proper for us to accept another set of reasoning so as to up set that order of acquittal. When the trial Court on due application of mind and assessment of the evidence on record, has taken a reasonable view and the finding recorded by the trial Court does not suffer from illegality or perversity, it is not proper for us to accept another set of reasoning so as to up set that order of acquittal. Accordingly, we do not disturb the order of acquittal. The Government Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.