JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - State of Orissa has filed this appeal, inter alia, assailing the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Koraput in Sessions Case No. 15 of 1996. 2. Bereft of all unnecessary details short fact as would be evident from the FIR is that on 08.10.1995 at.about 6 P.M. the informant, his mother and one Ludu (P.W. 2) were present in the verandah of the house of Sabina. It is said Sabina who happens to be the mother of the informant was talking to Ludu. At that juncture, the accused started abusing his mother in filthy languages. The mother thereafter asked the accused as to why he was scolding her. It is said the accused suddenly become enraged went inside the house, picked up a knife, came out and stabbed Sabina indiscriminately thereby causing several injuries. Consequently Sabina fell flat in a pool of blood. Noticing the incident P.W. 1 rushed to his sister's house and informed the fact to his brother-in-law (P.W. 4) and both of them went to the police station and filed an F.I.R. After receiving the F.I.R., the Investigating Officer came to the spot and sent Sabina on medical requisition to Sunabeda Hospital, where she succumbed to the injuries. In course of investigation, the police seized the blood-stained earth and other materials, arrested the accused and submitted charge sheet in the court of S.D.J.M., Koraput, in G.R. Case No. 625 of 1995. 3. Learned S.D.J.M, Koraput, after perusing the police papers and on being satisfied that a prima facie case has been made out, took cognizance of offence and committed the case to the Court of Sessions. 4. The plea of the defence was complete denial. It was further contended that the accused had previous enmity with the deceased and as such a false case has been foisted against him. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution got examined 8 witnesses and exhibited 6 documents. No witnesses was examined on behalf of the defence. 5. Out of the 8 witnesses P.W. 8 is the Investigating Officer, P.W. 6 is the doctor of Sunabeda Hospital, who treated the injured Sabina and P.W. 7 is the doctor who conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Sabina. No witnesses was examined on behalf of the defence. 5. Out of the 8 witnesses P.W. 8 is the Investigating Officer, P.W. 6 is the doctor of Sunabeda Hospital, who treated the injured Sabina and P.W. 7 is the doctor who conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Sabina. In his deposition, P.W. 7 has clearly stated that he found incised wound over fore-head, on the left side abdomen, on the left side of the back and posterior auxiliary line on 8th and 9th inter-rib space and also other injuries. According to him injury Nos. 2 and 3 were grievous in nature and rest were simple. It was also further opined that injury Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 8 might have been caused by sharp cutting weapon and injury Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 by hard and pointed object. P.W. 7 also conducted the post mortem. According to him all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and injury No. 2 was sufficient to cause death. Therefore it is clear that the death of Sabina was homicidal. 6. P.W. 1 is the son of the deceased. In his evidence he stated that at about 6 P.M. his mother and Ludu were talking to each other and he was present at the spot. At that juncture, the accused came and abused his mother and when she resisted, he went inside his house got a knife and stabbed her. He has admitted that the accused had enmity with his mother prior to this occurrence. He has also stated that M.O.I the knife which was seized by the police was not the knife by which the accused assaulted his mother. In cross-examination it was suggested to him that he was never present in the house and in fact he had gone to the Cinema Hall at Sunabeda to watch Matinee show and returned back quite late. 7. P.W. 2 is Ludu who according to P.W. l was present at the spot and was talking to Sabina when the accused came and assaulted Sabina. In his evidence, he had not supported the prosecution case. On the other in cross-examination he has clearly stated that the accused took him to a distance of about 40 feet and assaulted him by giving two slaps. In his evidence, he had not supported the prosecution case. On the other in cross-examination he has clearly stated that the accused took him to a distance of about 40 feet and assaulted him by giving two slaps. On being assaulted he fled away out of fear and again returned to the spot when the deceased was lying with the injuries. On a perusal of the said evidence it reveals that he (P.W. 2) had not seen the occurrence at all. According to P.W. 2 he had not seen any of the family members present in the house when he went on the first instance to collect his dues towards firewood. But then P.W. l in his deposition has clearly stated that he was present in the house with his mother and Ludu (P.W. 2), when, the deceased abused his mother, and stabbed her. Thus material discrepancies are apparent in the evidence of the occurrence witnesses. 8. P.W. 3 is an independent witness, he has not seen the occurrence. He also did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. 9. Mr. Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate submitted that the said witness has deposed that he saw the accused running away holding a knife but then in the cross-examination he has clearly stated that he saw the accused running away, and he was not holding any knife. Even in the cross-examination, the said witnesses has stated that he had not seen the accused running away with a knife. The omissions in the evidence are very pertinent. 10. P.W. 4 who is the son-in-law of the deceased, is a post occurrence witness. According to him, before Sabina died, she had told him that the accused stabbed her but then such a statement was not made before the police and as such the same cannot be believed. The evidence of other witnesses does not throw much light on the incident. The I.O. as it appears some how or other tried to make up a case, but then a cumulative reading of the entire evidence, clearly reveals that the prosecution has totally failed to establish the charges levelled against the accused. The evidence of P.W. 1, the only eye witness is not reliable and basing upon such evidence, an order of conviction cannot be passed. 11. The evidence of P.W. 1, the only eye witness is not reliable and basing upon such evidence, an order of conviction cannot be passed. 11. The Sessions Judge has also observed in his judgment that the prosecution has failed to substantiate the case against the accused. 12. We find the Sessions Judge has taken into consideration all the evidence and analyzed the same in proper perspective of the case. We find no error apparent on the face of the judgment passed by the Sessions Judge. We are therefore not inclined to interfere with the order of the acquittal after a lapse of 14 years. 13. The Government Appeal is accordingly dismissed. S.C. Parija, J. 14. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed