JUDGMENT Heard the parties and the judgment is as follows : 2. Order of acquittal from the charge under Section 302/34 I.P.C. in favour of the Respondents in Sessions Trial No.12 of 1988 of the Court of Sessions Judge, Keonjhar is under challenge. 3. It reveals from the impugned judgment that Banamali Naik, the deceased was working as an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Excise. On 10.11.1987 while he was in duty in village Kothagarh area, he was assaulted by four to five persons by means of kick blows and hitting of stones and was done to death. Respondents have been arrayed as culprits. On the said allegation initially O.I.C., Patna P.S. (P.W.3) got the information and ultimately O.I.C., Ghatagaon P.S. (P.W.12) investigated the case and submit¬ted Charge Sheet. Respondents were charged for the offence under Section 302/34 I.P.C. 4. To substantiate the charge, prosecution relied on the evidence of 13 witnesses. Amongst them, Dr. P. K. Baral (P.W.9) is the Medical Officer, who conducted the Post-mortem examination and proved the Post-mortem report, Ext.10 and his opinion re¬ports, Exts.11 and 12. Mitu Munda (P.W.13) and Ratnakar Mohant (P.W.2) have been cited as eye-witnesses to the occurrence. 5. Peculiarly enough learned Sessions Judge did not dis¬cuss the evidence of P.W.9 nor determined if the deceased suf¬fered homicidal death. The aforesaid circumstance reflects lack of fundamentals about taking a decision in a trial of murder case. Be that as it may, on perusal of evidence of P.W.9 we noticed that amongst others, there were fracture injuries on the skull, besides abrasions, bruises and sharp cutting injuries on the head, neck and leg of the deceased. P.W.9 opined that “all the injuries are ante mortem in nature. These injuries are suffi¬cient to cause death in ordinary course.” Evidence of P.W.9 is sufficient to record a finding that deceased suffered homicidal death. 6. While deliberating on the moot point as to whether the respondents are the authors of the injuries found on the dead body of the deceased, learned Sessions Judge referred to the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 13. P.W.2 stated in his evidence that while returning from the market with buffalo, he saw a person in Khaki dress being assaulted by a group of persons who had congre¬gated there. 2 and 13. P.W.2 stated in his evidence that while returning from the market with buffalo, he saw a person in Khaki dress being assaulted by a group of persons who had congre¬gated there. He did not name any of the persons in that group, except stating that accused Kala came and told him to go away and P.W.13 asked him not to hand over the stick to the persons gath¬ered there. Therefore, evidence of P.W.2 was found to be of no assistance because he did not name any of the assailants nor stated about the manner of assault. P.W.13 in his examination-in-chief stated that four to five persons were quarreling with the deceased and bargaining for refund of Rs.5/-. P.W.4 who was with the deceased for some time at the spot narrated that several people were selling liquor at the spot and at the sight of the deceased 10 to 12 of them ran away. One old woman was caught. That old woman and 8 to 10 other persons who were selling liquor, requested the deceased not to give Prosecution Report against them and they offered him Rs.2/- each for that purpose. Taking this circumstance into consideration, if the evidence of P.W.13 is perused, then his evidence that there was an altercation between the deceased and the accused persons on refund of Rs.5/- by the deceased can be inferred in the matter of collection of money for not giving Prosecution Report. Be that as it may, P.W.13 in paragraph-8 of his deposition stated that since it was evening and semi-dark, he could not see the overt act played by each of the accused persons. Therefore, notwithstanding his specific evidence in examination-in-chief that accused Judhistir and Kala gave kick blows and accused Kala further gave stone blows on thigh of the deceased and that other accused persons threw the stones into the nearby pond, learned Sessions Judge entertained doubt on the veracity of his evidence. 7. Learned Standing Counsel criticizing the aforesaid reasoning given by the trial Court argues that evidence of P.W.13 is clear and consistent to prove the charge against the accused persons and ample corroboration is available from the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 4 to rely on the evidence of P.W.13. 7. Learned Standing Counsel criticizing the aforesaid reasoning given by the trial Court argues that evidence of P.W.13 is clear and consistent to prove the charge against the accused persons and ample corroboration is available from the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 4 to rely on the evidence of P.W.13. Learned counsel for the accused-respondents, on the other hand, argues that the doubt entertained by the trial Court was not unreasonable and accused persons enjoyed the benefit of acquittal for last about 20 years. She further argues that evidence of P.W.13 is not free from doubt on the face of his explanation in paragraph-7 of his deposition that after witnessing the occurrence on 10.11.1987 evening he did not disclose it before anybody till his examina¬tion by the police on 13.11.1987. Accordingly learned counsel for the accused-appellants argues to maintain the order of acquittal. 8. It is the settled principle of law that though the principle for appreciation of evidence shall be maintained in one standard, be it an appeal against order of conviction or acquit¬tal, but the reasoning assigned in an acquittal judgment should not be set aside in absence of illegality and perversity only on the ground another view put forth by the prosecution is also probable. The view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is one of the two reasonable views and that does not suffer from illegality or perversity. Under such circumstances, we do not interfere with the order of acquittal. Accordingly the Government Appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.