JUDGMENT : Pradip Mohanty, J. - This appeal is directed against the Order Dated 25.05.1995 passed by the Learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Puri in S.T. Case No. 57/254 of 1991 acquitting the Respondents of the charge under Sections 302/34, I.P.C. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief is that on 10.04.1990 at about 9.00 A.M. the deceased along with his wife (P.W.6) and one Manguli Jena (P.W.9), whom they had engaged for plucking coconuts, were present in their coconut garden. P.W. 9 had climbed on a coconut tree. The informant (P.W.4), the son of the deceased (P.W.8) and Radhasyam Pradhan, brother of the deceased, were present near the coconut garden in, an adjacent Sari. At that time Respondent No. 2-Trinath and Respondent No. 1-Priyanath, who were holding a katari and lathi respectively, challenged the deceased as to why he was plucking coconuts. Respondent No. 2 dealt a katari blow on the head of the deceased, as a result of which he fell down, and then Respondent No. 1 dealt lathi blows on the right hand and chest of the deceased. As P. Ws. 4, 7 and 8 rushed to the spot, the accused-Respondents fled away from the spot. Thereafter, P.W. 4 and Ors. removed the deceased to the temple of Lord Mohadev in their village and from that place they carried him to Jodapadar Out Post under Srahmagiri P.S. where P.W. 4 lodged the written report regarding the incident. As the deceased had sustained injuries, police sent injury requisition to Kanas P.H.C., where the deceased was treated by the doctor (P.W.5). The condition of the deceased becoming serious, he was referred to the District headquarters Hospital, Puri, where he succumbed to the injuries at 7.40 P.M. on the same day. Thereafter, investigation was taken up and on its completion charge-sheet was filed against the accused- Respondents. 3. The plea of the accused-Respondents was complete denial of the allegations. The specific plea of Respondent No. 1 was that he was not at all present at the spot at the time of occurrence. Respondent No. 2-Trinath specifically pleaded that the deceased assaulted him by means of a Katari. 4. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses out of whom P. Ws. 5 and 10 are the doctors, P. Ws. 11 and 12 are the I. Os., P. Ws. Respondent No. 2-Trinath specifically pleaded that the deceased assaulted him by means of a Katari. 4. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses out of whom P. Ws. 5 and 10 are the doctors, P. Ws. 11 and 12 are the I. Os., P. Ws. 4 and 6 to 9 are stated to be eye-witnesses and P.W. 2 is a post occurrence witness. P.W. 1 did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. Prosecution also relied on documents marked as Exts. 1 to 17 and material objects marked as M. Os. I to III. The defence has examined none, but proved Exts. A to G. The Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Puri, who heard the case, by his judgment dated 25.5.1995 acquitted the Respondents of the charge under Sections 302/34, I.P.C. with the finding that the prosecution witnesses are unreliable, that the prosecution has deliberately suppressed the genesis of the occurrence and that there are contradictions in the prosecution evidence. 5. Mr. Mohapatra, Learned Counsel appearing for the State vehemently submitted that there is inimical relationship between the parties and civil litigations are pending between them. The evidence of P. Ws. 6, 7 and 8 is consistent to the effect that accused- Trinath Pradhan dealt a Katari blow on the head of the deceased whereas accused Priyanath dealt lathi blow on the chest and right arm of the deceased. But without appreciating the clear testimony of these witnesses, the Trial Court has erroneously acquitted the Respondents which is against the weight of evidence on record. The findings in support of the order of acquittal, both on facts and law, are not sustainable. The evidence of P.W. 2 discloses that the deceased was in possession of the coconut garden since last 15 years. This part of the evidence stood unchallenged. That apart, the injury sustained by the accused is superficial in nature and it is the settled principle of law that prosecution must not fail due to non-explaining the superficial injuries. He also submitted that the contradictions found in the oral evidence are minor in nature and they do not affect the prosecution case. The Counsel for the informant also supplemented the State and submitted that the Trial Court was erroneous in inferring that since the F.I.R. did not contain the detailed descriptions of the occurrence, the same should be viewed with suspicion. The Counsel for the informant also supplemented the State and submitted that the Trial Court was erroneous in inferring that since the F.I.R. did not contain the detailed descriptions of the occurrence, the same should be viewed with suspicion. He further submitted that the contents of the F.I.R. may vary from the statements of witnesses, particularly when they have been recorded after a lapse of three years. 6. Mr. Sahoo, Learned Counsel appearing for Respondents, on the other hand, contended that non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused in course of the occurrence is fatal to the prosecution. He also submitted that the prosecution evidence being full of contradictions, the Trial Court has rightly passed an order of acquittal. 7. Perused the record. Undisputedly there was civil litigation over the coconut garden in question between the deceased and the brother of the Respondents. There is no dispute as regards the exact spot in the garden where the occurrence took place. P.W. 1 did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. P.W. 2 is a post occurrence witness. He stated that he found the Respondents running towards their house. P.W. 4 is the informant and is stated to be an eye witness to the occurrence. The deposition of this witness is completely different from the story narrated in the F.I.R. Both P. Ws. 7 and 8 admit to have been implicated in the counter criminal case instituted by Respondent No. 2. P.W. 7 has not stated before the police regarding the lathi blows given by Respondent No. 1 on the deceased. He has also differed from his earlier statement given before the police. P.W. 8 has also given a different version in Court than the one given before police. There are contradictions noticed in the evidence of P. Ws. 7 and 8. P.W. 5, who examined the Respondent No. 2-Trinath Pradhan on the same day on police requisition, found the following injuries; (i) Sharp cutting wound 3" x 2" x 1/2'' at the vertex of the head. (ii) Irregular wound 1/2'' x 1/2" x 1/4" at the upper lip. (iii) collies fracture of the left wrist. According to him injury Nos. 1 and 3 were grievous in nature and Injury No. 2 was simple. Injury No. 1 was caused by sharp cutting weapon and injury Nos. 2 and 3 by blunt weapon. (ii) Irregular wound 1/2'' x 1/2" x 1/4" at the upper lip. (iii) collies fracture of the left wrist. According to him injury Nos. 1 and 3 were grievous in nature and Injury No. 2 was simple. Injury No. 1 was caused by sharp cutting weapon and injury Nos. 2 and 3 by blunt weapon. Since the injuries are not superficial in nature and injury Nos. 1 and 3 are grievous, it was the bounden duty of the prosecution to offer a reasonable explanation for the injuries sustained by the accused Respondent No. 2-Trinath in course of the occurrence. The omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of accused Respondent No. 2 assumes much importance, when the prosecution evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses. In the instant case, defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution. Since Respondent No. 2-Trinath had received the grievous injuries, as stated earlier, which have not been explained by the prosecution, it will be difficult for the Court to rely on the evidence of the so-called eye-witnesses. In the case of Lakshmi Singh and Others Vs. State of Bihar it has been held that in a murder case non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at the time of occurrence is a very important circumstance from which the Court can draw an adverse inference. It has been further held that the omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused assumes much greater importance where all the witnesses are interested witnesses. Such omission is a manifest defect in the prosecution case and shows that the origin and genesis of the occurrence has been deliberately suppressed which leads to the irresistible conclusion that the prosecution has not come out with a true version of the occurrence. Therefore, the observation of the Trial Court that the origin and genesis of the occurrence have been suppressed cannot be said to be perverse. 8. For the reasons stated above, this Government Appeal is devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed