JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the argument and the judgment is as follows: 2. Order of acquittal recorded by learned Sessions Judge, Puri on 16.03.1988 in S.T. No. 116 of 1987 is under challenge by the State as well as by the Appellant, respectively, in the above noted Government Appeal and the Criminal Revision. Thus, this common judgment shall abide the result in the aforesaid appeal and revision. 3. The fact noted in the impugned judgment and not disputed by the parties to the proceeding goes to indicate that a dispute relating to putting a ridge between the land of the prosecution party and the accused party lead to an unfortunate incident of violence in which one member of each from both the parties sustained injuries. So far as the prosecution party is concerned, as a result of the single blow to head, deceased died in the hospital. That occurrence took place on 28.01.1985. Rajiv is the injured from the accused party. It was also revealed from the lower court records that the incident of assault on accused Rajiv was also reported in the police station and the said Respondent was examined by the doctor on police requisition. According to the case of the prosecution on 28.01.1985, when deceased together with the eye-witnesses to the occurrence viz, P. Ws. 2, 3 and 4 were engaged in putting the ridge, mother of the Respondent -Rajiv being present nearby in the field, protested and thereafter assaulted by the deceased. Thus, Rajiv came upon the disputed plot and asked not to put a ridge and then being assaulted by the prosecution party he snatched away the spade and dealt blow to the deceased. In the meantime, the other co-accused has already arrived at the spot. On the basis of such allegation, charge were framed for the offence under Sections 147/148/302/149 I.P.C. and also under Sections 323/149 I.P.C. Separate charge was framed for the offence under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. against Respondents Rajiv and Baraju and similarly separate charge u/s 323 I.P.C. was framed against the Respondent Surendra Parida alias Sridhara. 4. To substantiate the charge, prosecution relied on the evidence of nine witnesses and documents marked Exts. 1 to 10. Accused persons did not adduce any oral evidence but relied on the documents marked Exts. 4. To substantiate the charge, prosecution relied on the evidence of nine witnesses and documents marked Exts. 1 to 10. Accused persons did not adduce any oral evidence but relied on the documents marked Exts. A and B series, i.e. the injury certificates and also F.I.R. in the counter case i.e. G.R. No. 134 of 1985. 5. On appreciation of evidence of Dr. Subarna Manjari Kar, P.W.5, learned Sessions Judge held that deceased died due to head injury and therefore the death is homicidal. There is no dispute on that aspect. So far as accused Respondents are concerned, learned Sessions Judge assessed the oral evidence of the eye-witnesses to the occurrence, vis-a vis documents relied on both the parties and held that a case of unlawful assembly with an unlawful object is not made out by the prosecution and therefore the charge under Sections 147/148/302/149/ and 323/34 failed. In course of submission, learned Additional Government Advocate finds no fault on the factual findings recorded by the trial court on that score. On perusal of the evidence on record as well as the findings recorded by the trial court we also find no illegal or perversity or biased views taken by the trial court in granting the benefit of acquittal to the accused from the aforesaid charge. 6. Learned Sessions Judge found the evidence of the eye-witnesses to be contrary so as to grant benefit to accused Sridhara as well as Surendra from the charge u/s 323 I.P.C. Learned Addl. Government Advocate does not press much against that order of acquittal. On perusal of relevant evidence we find that the contradictions, which has been taken note by the trial court, is a reasonable one. Though a contrary view can be taken on the self same set of evidence, but that would be against the principle inasmuch as view of the trial court is neither illegal nor improper. Apart from that, when two views are possible and the view taken by the tril court in favour of the accused is not illegal or irrational, the appellate authority should not interfere with the same. We adhere to that principle. Apart from that, when two views are possible and the view taken by the tril court in favour of the accused is not illegal or irrational, the appellate authority should not interfere with the same. We adhere to that principle. So far as order of acquittal granted for the offence under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. learned Sessions Judge noted the contradictions amongst the eye-witnesses to the occurrence relating to the participation of Baraju, inasmuch as, when all eyewitnesses said that Rajiv embrassed the deceased and Baraju snatched the spade, the other eye-witnesses made a reverse statement by assigning the act reversely. Taking note such contradiction learned Sessions Judge granted benefit in favour of accused Baraju. Learned Addl. Government Advocate even does not accept to that finding provided Rajiv is for the offence u/s 302, I.P.C. 7. Learned Sessions Judge while taking note of the aforesaid contradictions and formulating his view against the truthfulness of eye-witnesses to the occurrence to grant appropriate benefit to accused Rajiv also considered the defence plea of the said accused to right of private defence and held that such a right was available to the accused Rajiv. Apart from that, he held that prosecution is guilty of suppression of the injury suffered by accused Rajiv and therefore on that account evidence of the interested eye-witnesses like P. Ws. 2, 3 and 4 is not credible. Learned Additional Government Advocate argues that notwithstanding the silence of P. Ws. 2, 3 and 4 in not narrating about the injury sustained by accused Rajiv, the fact of said accused being examined by the doctor on police requisition is an established fact. Under such circumstance, presence of Rajiv at the spot and the allegation of dealing of spade blow is made out. He further argues that there is nothing on record to indicate that accused Rajiv could have dealt a spade blow in his self defence. Aforesaid contention is well taken. But the circumstance, which was existing at the spot of occurrence that accused Rajiv had gone to the spot unarmed should be borne in mind. Therefore, he had no intention to kill. It is also proved on record that he sustained injuries and thereafter snatched the spade. Above all, accused Rajiv is a handicapped man because of chopping of fingers due to train accident about two decades before the date of occurrence. Therefore, he had no intention to kill. It is also proved on record that he sustained injuries and thereafter snatched the spade. Above all, accused Rajiv is a handicapped man because of chopping of fingers due to train accident about two decades before the date of occurrence. If all those factors are taken into conjoint consideration, then the benefit which the trial court has granted in his favour cannot be turned illegal or unreasonable. Under such circumstance, we find no fault with the order of acquittal and accordingly dismiss the Government Appeal and Criminal revision. Final Result : Dismissed