JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - The judgment dated 29th June, 1996 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam-Gajapati, Berhampur, acquitting the accused persons from the charges under Sections 452/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code in S.C. No. 186/1995 is assailed by the State of Orissa in this Government Appeal. 2. According to the prosecution case in the night of 6.3.1995, Kabiraj Naik, son of the informant eloped with Namita, daughter of the brother-in-law of the informant. On the next day morning, i.e. 7.3.1995 the accused persons in a drunken state went to the house of the informant and challenged him and threatened to forcibly kidnap his daughter. At that time Bulu Naik, son of the younger sister of the informant, came and intervened, consequently, Tuna dealt a blow by means of an axe on the head of Bulu Naik (deceased) and thereafter all the accused persons tried to escape, but then they were apprehended by the neighbours and were confined in a room. 3. After receiving First Information Report, a P.S. case was registered by the Officer-in-charge of Gangpur Police Station under Sections 452/307/34 of I.P.C. and investigation commenced. In course of investigation, however, the injured succumbed to the injuries. The Investigating Officer after taking note of the said fact and after arresting the accused persons and completing other paraphernalia, submitted charge sheet against the accused persons in G.R. Case No. 46/1995 of the Court of J.M.F.C., Aska Under Sections 452/302/34 of I.P.C. Learned J.M.F.C. after due application of mind and on being satisfied that prima facie case was made out, took cognizance of the offences and committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial. 4. The plea of the accused persons is one of complete denial. The prosecution in order to substantiate their case got examined fourteen witnesses. Out of them P.W.12 was the informant, P.W.1 was the father of the deceased, P.W.2 was the doctor, who treated the injured and referred him to City Hospital, Berhampur, P.Ws. 4. The plea of the accused persons is one of complete denial. The prosecution in order to substantiate their case got examined fourteen witnesses. Out of them P.W.12 was the informant, P.W.1 was the father of the deceased, P.W.2 was the doctor, who treated the injured and referred him to City Hospital, Berhampur, P.Ws. 3, 4, 5 and 9 were the eye witnesses to the occurrence, P.W.10 was the wife of P.W.1 and mother of the deceased, P.W.11 was the step mother of P.W.1, P.W.7 was the A.S.I., who held inquest over the dead body and sent for post mortem, P.W.6 was the constable, who carried the dead body for post mortem, P.Ws.8 and 13 were the two Investigating Officers and P.W.14 was the doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body. 5. After analyzing the evidence, both oral and documentary, learned Sessions Judge relying upon the post mortem report and the evidence of the doctor P.W.14, who noticed as many as seven injuries, arrived at a conclusion that the death was homicidal in nature. After going through the evidence, the injury report as well as the post mortem report, we find no infirmity in the said conclusion arrived at by learned Sessions Judge and confirm the order. 6. The only other point which needs to be considered is as to who is responsible for causing the death of the deceased. Learned Sessions Judge on discussing the evidence noticed several discrepancies and on being satisfied that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, held that the accused persons cannot be found guilty, consequently acquitted them. 7. Assailing the said order, learned Counsel for the State forcefully submitted that learned Sessions Judge had acted erroneously inasmuch as the evidence of four witnesses clearly establishes that one of the accused had given the blow with the back side of axe. That apart, the accused persons were apprehended at the spot and weapon of offence was also seized. On the basis of such evidence, it is submitted, learned Sessions Judge should have convicted the accused and prayed to set aside the order of acquittal. 8. It is apt to mention here that though this Government Appeal is pending since 1997, no counsel appeared when the matter was taken up for hearing, consequently this Court called upon Mr. On the basis of such evidence, it is submitted, learned Sessions Judge should have convicted the accused and prayed to set aside the order of acquittal. 8. It is apt to mention here that though this Government Appeal is pending since 1997, no counsel appeared when the matter was taken up for hearing, consequently this Court called upon Mr. Prakash Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel, to assist this Court as amicus curiae and adjourned the case. Today when the matter was taken up Mr. Mishra submitted that learned Sessions Judge has rightly arrived at a conclusion basing upon the evidence which he had analyzed extensively. It is further submitted that there are several discrepancies and contradictions inasmuch as the place of occurrence has been substituted, the weapon of offence was not seized, the evidence of witnesses do not tally with each other and there are lot of omissions and additions in their evidence. It is also submitted that the eye witness being relatives are not trustworthy and though the incident took place in an open place, no independent witness was examined by the prosecution. According to Mr. Mishra, under such circumstances the conclusion arrived at by learned Sessions Judge is just and proper and needs no interference. 9. To appreciate the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the parties, this Court once again went through the evidence meticulously. In the F.I.R., the informant had clearly stated that accused Tuna came to the house, threatened and gave a blow with a Tangia, but then, this evidence do not find corroboration by any of the eye witness. According to them, the assault was on the road near Muniguda Chhak while Bulu Naik (the deceased) was returning after taking bath from the tank. Thus, there was considerable variation with regard to the place of occurrence. That apart, it appears that Bulu was assaulted on 7.3.1995. However, he was not removed to any hospital and was treated in his house and only when his condition became serious he was shifted to the hospital and he died on 9.3.1995, i.e. after lapse of about two days. It appears that the death was caused more due to the negligence on the part of the family members of Bulu than due to the injury. It appears that the death was caused more due to the negligence on the part of the family members of Bulu than due to the injury. That apart, the prosecution story varies considerably from stage to stage, Though in the F.I.R. only two accused persons being Tuna and Gola were named, Bana Naik was added as an accused on the basis of a statement made by the witnesses, this appears to be an afterthought. As stated earlier the place of occurrence as described in the F.I.R. also varies from the place of occurrence as deposed by the eye witnesses in the Court. The weapon of offence is also different inasmuch as in the F.I.R., it was stated that Tuna assaulted with a Tangia whereas P.W.1 in his deposition had stated that he was holding a stick. That apart, it appears that the accused persons were apprehended by the family members and Ors. on the spot on 6.3.1995 and were confined in a room. However, they were arrested three days after. Thus, this Court wonders as to how they could escape and were arrested three days after. That apart, the weapon of offence alleged to have been seized by the prosecution does not contain any blood station. 10. Learned Sessions Judge has elaborately dealt with the evidence and as well as the discrepancies in the prosecution case in paragraph-10 of the judgment. After going through the said paragraph, this Court finds that the appreciation of evidence as well as the conclusions arrived at by the Sessions Judge are just and proper and need no interference. This Court after analyzing the entire evidence on record also finds that the prosecution had totally failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts by adducing cogent and convincing evidence to the effect that the accused persons were the author of the crime. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this Court finds no merit and declines to interfere with the order of acquittal that too after lapse of fourteen years. 12. Accordingly, the Government Appeal stands dismissed. Before parting, we express our appreciation to the endeavour made and help rendered by Sri Prakash Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel, who was called upon to assist this Court as amicus curiae. His engagement be treated to be one under Orissa State Legal Services Authority Act. S.C. Parija, J. 13. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed