JUDGMENT :- Heard argument from the parties, hearing is concluded and the judgment is as follows. 2. This criminal appeal is against the order of acquittal passed by learned Asstt. Sessions Judge, Rairangpur in S.T. Case No. 17/45 of 1989-88. After grant of leave under S. 37(4), Cr. P.C., this criminal appeal has been registered. 3. Accused persons are admittedly the staff of Excise Department. Complainant P.W. 2 Dhanu Besra is a resident of village Jarkani under Baholda P.S. in the district of Mayurbhanj. He was arrested in connection with the complaint (Police Report) lodged by the accused persons for committing overt act and attempting to murder. The Excise Staff when were preparing to conduct a raid in the house of the complainant, P.W. 2 along with his younger brother were arrested in connection with that case on 23-1-1988, and after returning from jail being released on bail, P.W. 2 filed the complaint alleging commission of offences under Ss. 307/332/ 289/324/294/34, I.P.C. After inquiry under S. 202, Cr. P.C. Learned S.D.J.M., Rairangpur took cognizance of the offence under Ss. 457/325/323/34, I.P.C. Since the complainant with his brother were facing a sessions trial for the self-same occurrence, therefore, this case was tried as a counter case by learned Asstt. Sessions Judge, Rairangpur. 4. P.W. 2 made a pure and simple complaint that in the night in between 22nd/ 23rd January, 1988 at about 3 a.m. accused persons trespassed into his house and assaulted his mother, himself and his younger brother and that he and his brother lodged a report before the Police and was examined by the Director. In proof of that contention, P.W. 2 and his brother Lal Mohan Besra (P.W. 5) were examined themselves besides other three witnesses as eye-witnesses to the occurrence. P.W. 6 is the doctor, who granted injury certificate in favour of P.W. 5. The doctor deposed that P.W. 5 was produced from jail custody for his medical examination, and on the direction of learned S.D.J.M. he submitted X-ray report and injury report. 5. Accused persons took the defence plea in the above indicated manner and also they stated that in course of the occurrence they were attacked by P.Ws. 2 and 6 and also they set their pet dog to cause injuries on their person and, therefore, they reported the matter in the Police Station and thereafter were examined by the doctor on police requisition. 2 and 6 and also they set their pet dog to cause injuries on their person and, therefore, they reported the matter in the Police Station and thereafter were examined by the doctor on police requisition. Their injury reports have been admitted on evidence as Exts. 5 to 8. The injury report of P.W. 2 has been marked as Ext. 10. 6. On assessment of evidence on record, learned Assistant Sessions Judge found the defence plea to be genuine and truthful, whereas the prosecution allegation to be a colourful one being infested with discrepancies and accordingly acquitted the accused persons. After going through the evidence of the six witnesses and the exhibited documents, this Court finds that a tale tell circumstance emerging from the evidence on record not only to prove innocence of the accused persons but also indicates falsity in the complaint. Under such circumstance, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order of acquittal and accordingly the criminal appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.