JUDGMENT : P.K. Tripathy, J. - Heard. Judgment is as follows: Order of acquittal passed in favour of the Respondents by the Learned Sessions Judge, Kalahandi-Nuapada at Dharmagarh Circuit in Sessions Case No. 5 of 1994 is under challenge by the State. 2. According to the case of the prosecution, on 3.10.1993 at about 6.30 P.M. Tirtha Majhi, the deceased was killed by inflicting lathi blows by each of the accused Respondents. P.W. 1-Jira Majhi and P.W. 2- Daulash Majhi are the wife and daughter of the deceased. They were figured as eye-witnesses to the occurrence. P.W. 3-Dr.Umakanta Panda conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and proved the post mortem report, Ext. 1. P.W. 4 is the co-villager and witness to the inquest. P.W. 6 was the Ward Member of the village and an after-occurrence witness. P.W. 5 is the Police Constable and P.W. 7 is the I.O. Learned Sessions Judge while considering the charge u/s 302/34 Indian Penal Code framed against the accused persons did not wisely consider if the deceased suffered homicidal death. On a reference to the evidence of P.W. 3, we notice that the doctor found four external injuries, namely, two lacerated wounds; one on the left occipital region and the other on the left mandibular region and two bruises on chest and lumbar region. The doctor opined that the head injury was fatal and resulted in haemorrhage and shock to cause the homicidal death of the deceased. In course of cross-examination, nothing could be elicited from the mouth of P.W. 3 so as to discredit his version. Thus, we find that evidence of P.W. 3 is sufficient to hold that the deceased suffered homicidal death. 3. While assessing the evidence of eye-witness such as P. Ws.1 and 2, Learned Sessions Judge found the occurrence to have taken place by around 9 P.M. and not 6.30 P.M. In that respect, we find sufficient support from the evidence of P.W. 1 in cross-examination and the corroborating evidence of P.W. 3 in course of cross-examination that semi-digested food taken by around 6 P.M. was there in the stomach of the deceased. Learned Sessions Judge also recorded the finding that P.W. 1 has categorically admitted in her cross-examination that because of the darkness and non-availability of electricity or any other artificial light, P. Ws.1 and 2 could not identify the assailants. Learned Sessions Judge also recorded the finding that P.W. 1 has categorically admitted in her cross-examination that because of the darkness and non-availability of electricity or any other artificial light, P. Ws.1 and 2 could not identify the assailants. That was the principal reason for granting the benefit and acquitting the accused persons. 4. Learned Standing Counsel argues that the time of occurrence could be 6.30 P.M. and in that event, there would not have been any difficulty in identifying the accused in the late evening/early part of the night. The occurrence having taken place in the month of October, the darkness must have set in before 6.30 P.M. and therefore on the aforesaid grounds advanced by the State, we do not find any merit to interfere with the order of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court taking a reasonable view on appreciation of evidence of P.W. 1. 5. Under such circumstance, we do not interfere with the impugned order of acquittal and accordingly the Government Appeal is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed