JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. This Government Appeal has been filed by the State after obtaining leave from the Court on 31.8.1988 as against the order of acquittal recorded by Learned Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal in S.T. Case No. 79 D/1986. It reveals from the impugned judgment that charge was framed against all the accused-Respondents for the offence under Sections 148/302/149 and 323/149 Indian Penal Code In addition to that, charge under Sections 302 and 324 Indian Penal Code was framed against the accused-Respondents, namely, Judhistir Behera. After a full dressed Trial, Learned Sessions Judge, assesses the evidence on record and acquitted all the accused-Respondents from the charge under Sections 148/302/149 and 323/149 Indian Penal Code At the same time, Learned Sessions Judge found accused-Respondent Judhistir Behera guilty of the offence u/s 304, Part-II Indian Penal Code and also 324 Indian Penal Code For such conviction, Learned Sessions Judge imposed sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence u/s 304, Part-II Indian Penal Code and no separate sentence was awarded u/s 324 Indian Penal Code 3. It reveals from the lower Court record that boundary dispute between the prosecution and the accused party resulted in the violence. At about 8 P.M. on 10.03.1985, Bhairaba Dehury, a member of the prosecution party uprooted the fence put by the accused party though in that matter the gentlemen (Ponch) called advised the parties to demarcate the boundary with the held of Amin and put the fence on the boundary line. It is also the prosecution case that there was use of weapons by the accused and such weapons were bow, arrow and axe. It is also the admitted case of the prosecution that there was a mutual fight and the therefore members belonging both the groups sustained injuries as indicated in Injury Reports, Exts.7 to 10 and Exts. C and D series i.e. the injury certificate of P. Ws. 5, 3, 6 and 2 respectively and accused Kalandi and Gurubari. Obviously P. Ws. 2, 3, 5 and 8 appeared as witness to the occurrence. P.W. 9 as a witness to the Ponch and P.W. 4 is the Medical Officer who conducted the postmortem examination and P.W. 12 is the doctor who examined P.W. 5 and has granted injury certificates. Accused persons also examined two witnesses to prove that members of the prosecution party were the aggressors. 4. P.W. 9 as a witness to the Ponch and P.W. 4 is the Medical Officer who conducted the postmortem examination and P.W. 12 is the doctor who examined P.W. 5 and has granted injury certificates. Accused persons also examined two witnesses to prove that members of the prosecution party were the aggressors. 4. On assessment of evidence, Learned Sessions Judge held that though the deceased suffered homicidal death due to blow by the accused, Judhistir but the latter had no intention to commit murder of the deceased. Under such circumstance, keeping in view the back ground of the incident, he was guilty of the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. That accused was also found guilty u/s 324 Indian Penal Code for causing arrow shot injury to P.W. 3. So far as other injured persons from either side are concerned, Learned Sessions Judge recorded that mutual fight between the two groups is resultant in such injuries and when the occurrence took place in the night and even if a lantern was available, criminal liability can not be fasten on any other accused persons either for the death of the deceased or for the injuries on the prosecution witnesses. Accordingly, Learned Sessions Judge concluded the judgment in the above indicated manner. 5. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel while pursuing this Government Appeal, reads the judgment and the evidence but unable to point out any illegality or perversity in the discussion or findings recorded by the Learned Sessions Judge. He, however, argues that evidence on record clearly proves a case of riot with common object of all the accused persons and, therefore, all of them should have been convicted. Learned Counsel for the Respondents, on the other hand, supports the impugned judgment and argues to dismiss the Government Appeal. 6. It is established law that while sitting against the order of acquittal, it is the duty of the Appellate Court to find out from the evidence on record and the findings recorded by the Trial Court, as to whether the reasons assigned in the impugned judgment suffer from any illegality or perversity. If such factums are wanting and on the other hand a reasonable view has been taken by the Trial Court, then such finding should not be disturbed merely on the ground that the other view projected by the prosecution is also possible view of the evidence on record. If such factums are wanting and on the other hand a reasonable view has been taken by the Trial Court, then such finding should not be disturbed merely on the ground that the other view projected by the prosecution is also possible view of the evidence on record. In view of such settled position of law and failure of the Appellant to point out any illegality or perversity in the impugned order of acquittal, there is nothing to interfere and therefore we do not find any merit in the Government Appeal. 7. Accordingly the Government Appeal is dismissed. 8. Appeal dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed