JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. The judgment is as follows: The order of acquittal of accused-Respondent Ghasiram Naik recorded by the Learned Sessions Judge, Sundargarh on 5.10.1994 in Sessions Trial No. 57 of 1994 is under challenge. 2. Accused-Respondent was prosecuted u/s 302, Indian Penal Code on the allegations that on 9: 10.1993 in the morning hours he inflicted axe blows on his wife namely Jayakumari (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") by means of the axe M.O.I. Father of the deceased came upon the spot and took the deceased to the hospital where she was declared dead. Dhruba Tajan, P.W. 2 was the master (employer) of the accused. The latter was working under him (P.W. 2) on daily wage basis, so also the deceased. The occurrence took place on the backyard of the house of P.W. 2. 3. As per the narration of events by the prosecution, one Dhruba Patel, a friend of P.W. 2 came to the front Pinda (verandah) of the house of P.W. 2, where the latter was sitting, and requested to lend his bullock-cart. P.W. 2 thus asked the accused to make ready the bullock-cart to be delivered to Dhruba Patel. Then the deceased was with the accused. Accused went to the backyard of the house to carry out the order of P.W. 2. The deceased also went with him. Sometimes after hearing a commotion, P.W. 2 went to we backyard of his house and found that the accused was carrying some water to be administered to his injured wife who was lying there with profuse bleeding injuries on neck and back. On reaching the spot, P.W. 2 and Ors. found that the deceased was dead. On being asked by P.W. 2 accused, who was then in possession of the blood stained axe M.O.I, stated that out of annoyance be inflicted the injuries to his wife (the deceased) because the latter declared to get him (accused) killed after refusing to go to the nearby forest to collect fuel wood. In the hospital, as noted above the deceased was declared dead. P.W. 2 lodged the written report Ext.l. P.W. 10, the police officer took up the investigation. In the hospital, as noted above the deceased was declared dead. P.W. 2 lodged the written report Ext.l. P.W. 10, the police officer took up the investigation. In course of the investigation, inter alia, he visited the spot, seized the weapon of offence and the other incriminating materials under seizure lists Exts.2, 3 and 5, held inquest over the dead body and forwarded the dead body for post-mortem examination and also forwarded the incriminating materials like the wearing apparels of the accused and the deceased, weapon of offence and the blood stained sample earth, etc., to of Regional Forensic science a oratory at Sambalpur and on completion investigation submitted charge sheet. 4. Accused denied to the charge and claimed for trial. 5. To substantiate the charge, prosecution examined ten witnesses and relied on documents marked Exts.1 to 13 besides the axe as M.O.I. Accused did not adduce any defence evidence. 6. In the absence of eye-witnesses to the occurrence, prosecution depended on the circumstantial evidence of extra-judicial confession, discovery of the weapon of offence, i.e. the axe, and the seizure thereof, post-mortem report Ext.6, the opinion report Ext.7 and the report from the R.F.S.L. Ext. 13. 7. Learned Sessions Judge assessed the evidence on record and stated that in view of the evidence of Dr. D.P. Mishra (P.W. 8) and the postmortem report Ext.6, prosecution has been able to prove that the deceased suffered homicidal death due to the injuries inflicted on her body. In course of hearing arguments in this appeal, the accused-Respondent does not oppose to that finding of the Trial Court. We also see no reason to disturb that finding. 8. Learned Sessions Judge found the evidence of P. Ws 1 and 2 to be not credible in proving the extra-judicial confession and accordingly discarded the prosecution allegations against the accused and acquitted him. Challenging that finding of the Trial Court, Mr Nanda, Learned Additional Government Advocate argues that not only the extra-judicial confession of the accused has been proved by the prosecution but also Ext.13 proves the case against the accused and each of those evidence is complementary and supplementary to one another besides the seizure list Ext.2 relating to the seizure of the weapon of offence, i.e. M.O.I and the opinion report of the doctor Ext.7. Mr Gupta, Learned Counsel for the accused-Respondent on the other hand argues that the evidence of P. Ws 1 and 2 has rightly been rejected by the Trial Court in relation to the evidence on extra-judicial confession and in the absence of that evidence, the other evidence on record do not complete the chain of circumstances so as to unfailingly point out that the accused is the author of the crime. The benefit arising out of the circumstance should go in favour of the accused inasmuch as it is P.W. 2 who has stated that accused was administering water to the deceased and therefore in that process he must have got his clothes blood stained. Accordingly, he argues to maintain the order of acquittal. 9. Indeed, the evidence of P. Ws 1 and 2 is cryptic and it does not inspire confidence to prove the extra-judicial confession. Apart from that, according to P.W. 1, the accused made the extra-judicial confession in the hospital. He does not state at what time that confession was made by the accused in the hospital because the case diary indicates that the accused was with the police officer at the spot when he came for investigation and it is stated by P.W. 2 that the father of the deceased took the deceased to the hospital. Apart from that, if the accused was present at the hospital together with the police persons guarding the dead body, the reasons assigned by the Trial Court by keeping in view the provisions of Section 25 of the Evidence Act it cannot be said that he is unreasonable. So far as the evidence of P.W. 2 is concerned, he has contradicted himself on the sequence of events as narrated in the F.I.R. about acquiring the knowledge about the incident. In the F.I.R. when he states that when he heard the commotion, i.e. the shout raised by the villagers, he came to know about the occurrence and then proceeded to the backyard of his house, on the other hand in his evidence he stated that the accused came and asked him for water and then he followed and could know about the occurrence. In such circumstance, since P.W. 2 was not truthful in accounting for the sequence of events, the doubt entertained by the Trial Court cannot be said to be unreasonable or perverse. In such circumstance, since P.W. 2 was not truthful in accounting for the sequence of events, the doubt entertained by the Trial Court cannot be said to be unreasonable or perverse. In such circumstance, we adhere to the principle that the view taken by the Trial Court being a possible view though the view advocated by the Learned Additional Government Advocate is the other possible view, we do not disturb the finding recorded by the Trial Court. 10. So far as Ext.13 is concerned, as rightly argued by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent, when accused administered water the chance of his clothing got blood stained is more probable than the other way and under such circumstances that circumstance though not considered by the Trial Court, even if considered here, we do not find that an order of conviction can be recorded solely on the basis of that evidence. 11. No other point is canvassed in assailing the order of acquittal. 12. For the reasons recorded above, we do not interfere with the order of acquittal and accordingly the Government Appeal is dismissed. 13. Appeal dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed