JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - The Order Dated 05.12.1995 passed by the Learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Puri acquitting the accused persons of the charges under Sections 302/34 I.P.C & Section 9 (b) of the Indian Explosive Act in S.T No. 12/340 of 1993/92 is assailed by the State in this appeal. 2. Bereft of unnecessary details the prosecution case in short is that on 27.12.1991 at about 9.30 P.M one Ramesh Mohanty was sitting on a chair inside his shop situated at Damodarpur Bazar. All of a sudden the accused persons along with others crossed the shop of the informant P.W. 11-Banambar Mohanty, went in front of the shop of Ramesh & being directed by accused Nilakantha & Bhagaban, accused Purna Chandra Naik & Rabindra Kumar Tripathy hurled two bombs at Ramesh. The bomb threw by Rabindra exploded on the chest of Ramesh, whereas the bomb hurled by accused Purna Chandra Naik exploded in front of the wall of the shop. Thereafter all the accused persons ran away towards Damodarpur Village. P.W. 11 the father of Ramesh lodged F.I.R-Ext.2 at Chandanpur Police Station. On the basis of said F.I.R investigation commenced & charge sheet was submitted in G.R Case No. 1969 of 1991. The Learned S.D.J.M., Puri on being prima facie satisfied took cognizance of offences & committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial. The plea of the defence was of complete denial. 3. To substantiate its case the prosecution got 18 witnesses examined. Out of whom P. Ws.14 to 18 are official witnesses. P.W. 11 was the informant. P.W. 9 was the son of the informant. P.W. 10 was the wife of the deceased. On behalf of the defence no witness was examined. 4. The Learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge after discussing the evidence in extenso & disbelieving most of the witnesses who were examined on behalf of the prosecution came to the conclusion that in view of the site position it is doubtful with regard to the statements made by P. Ws.9 & 11 who claimed to be the eyewitnesses, more so because from the place where they claim to be standing, it would not be possible to see the incident. The leaned 2nd Addl. The leaned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge in the absence of any independent corroboration to the prosecution version, held that the guilt of the accused persons were not established beyond all reasonable doubts & acquitted all the accused persons. The said order of acquittal is assailed by the State mainly on the ground that in view of clear & cogent evidence of P. Ws.9 & 11 who were the eyewitnesses, the Learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge acted illegally by not convicting the accused persons. It is stated that both the witnesses were standing at a distance of 40 to 45 fts. from the place of occurrence & they have described the incident vividly. Their evidence does not suffer from any infirmity & is corroborated by the evidence of Medical OfficerP.W.14. Under such circumstances the Learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge should have convicted the accused persons & it is a fit case where the order of acquittal should be set aside & converted to an order of conviction. 5. Mr. S.K. Sahoo, Learned Counsel for the Appellants took pains to lead this Court through the entire evidence once again. According to him the spot map as well as the evidence of P.W. 15 the Investigating Officer clearly reveals that though the place was situated in close vicinity but then it was not possible to see the occurrence from the place where the two witnesses claimed to have seen, & the Learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge has rightly disbelieved the evidence of the said eyewitnesses. It is further submitted that the name of Rabindra was not mentioned in the F.I.R. Similarly the prosecution from the day one tried to exaggerate the incident by falsely adding several persons so as to take revenge upon them. The subtotal of the prosecution case becomes unbelievable inasmuch as the prosecution taking advantage of the situation was trying to involve innocent persons with the alleged crime. According to Mr. Sahoo there was inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R which itself reveals that before lodging the F.I.R there was discussions & names of innocent persons have been mentioned in the F.I.R with an ulterior motive. 6. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties at length. Being the final Court of facts, this Court once again went through the evidence meticulously. Sahoo there was inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R which itself reveals that before lodging the F.I.R there was discussions & names of innocent persons have been mentioned in the F.I.R with an ulterior motive. 6. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties at length. Being the final Court of facts, this Court once again went through the evidence meticulously. After perusal of the F.I.R as well as evidence of the witnesses this Court is satisfied that some exaggerations have been made in the F.I.R as well as in the depositions made by different P. Ws. before the Court below. But then law is well settled that while appreciating the evidence, a Court must make an attempt to separate grain from the chaff, the truth from the falsehood & in the case where the grain cannot be separated from the chaff because the grain & the chaff are so inextricably mixed up, then in the process of separation the Court will have to reconstruct an absolutely new case for the prosecution.(See Balaka Singh and Others Vs. The State of Punjab, ). 7. The evidence of the doctor-P.W.14 who conducted postmortem reveals that the deceased sustained six injuries. It is opined that all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature & were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. The doctor further opined that the injuries were possible by the impact of bomb explosion within three feet from the deceased. Presence of burn injuries, tattooing & half impregnated unexploded gunpowder were found on the dead body. In his report Ext. 8 the Doctor-P.W.14 has given a vivid description with regard to the external injuries & injuries found after dissection. The cause of death is opined to be due to severe bleeding. After going through the same, this Court has no doubt in its mind that Ramesh died out of bomb explosion & his death was homicidal in nature. The findings to the said effect arrived at by the Learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge is therefore confirmed. 8. The only other thing which requires to be examined is as to whether the prosecution was able to establish the case beyond all reasonable doubts, as to who was the author of such crime. In the case at hand out of non-official witnesses, P. Ws.1 to 13 including the seizure witnesses P. Ws.8 & 12 turned hostile & did not support the prosecution case. In the case at hand out of non-official witnesses, P. Ws.1 to 13 including the seizure witnesses P. Ws.8 & 12 turned hostile & did not support the prosecution case. The seizure witnesses denied with regard to any seizure said to have been made in their presence. Though leading questions were put to the witnesses who were declared hostile, by the prosecution, nothing much could be elicited from them. Peculiarly P.W. 13 whose statement was recorded u/s 164 Code of Criminal Procedure by the Magistrate also backed out in Court. After going through the entire evidence this Court finds that the prosecution based only upon the evidence of P. Ws.2, 9 to 11 apart from the official witness. The evidence of P. Ws. 9 & 11 who claimed to be the eyewitnesses is very important to the prosecution case. Both these witnesses are closely related to the deceased but then that cannot be a ground to disbelieve their statements. On the other hand they being relatives their sole aim would b to see that the assailant do not escape from the gallows. In other words only because the witnesses are closely related with the deceased their evidence cannot be discarded, of course, if the same is found to be reliable & trustworthy. However, the possibility that they may also implicate some innocent persons along with the real assailant cannot be ruled out & therefore, it would not be safe to accept the evidence without some independent corroboration direct or circumstantial. 1993 SC 1462 Anil Phukan v. State of Assam). Thus the evidence of related or interested witnesses should be relied upon if the same passes the test of close & severe scrutiny but then evidence of such witnesses would be hazardous to accept, if the same suffers from improbabilities, material infirmities & absence of material corroboration. 9. In the touchstone of aforesaid principles of law this Court once again went through the evidence of P. Ws. 9 & 11 vis-a-vis P.W. 15 as well as the spot map. The spot map Ext. 10 reveals that there was a row of shop rooms with a verandah in front. The shop of the informant P.W. 9 is situated in one end & is intervened by three other shops & a passage where the shop of Ramesh was situated. 9 & 11 vis-a-vis P.W. 15 as well as the spot map. The spot map Ext. 10 reveals that there was a row of shop rooms with a verandah in front. The shop of the informant P.W. 9 is situated in one end & is intervened by three other shops & a passage where the shop of Ramesh was situated. The occurrence took place in a winter night in the month of December & according to P.W. 11 other shops in the market were closed. According to the prosecution the assailants who approached from the side of shop of P.W. 9 crossed other three shops & approached the shop of Ramesh, where being coaxed by Nilakantha & Bhagaban, accused Puma & Rabindra threw two bombs one after the other, into the shop where Rabindra was sitting. According to the eyewitnesses one of the bombs hit the body of Ramesh & exploded whereas the other hit the front wall. To appreciate such evidence it would be prudent to refer to the evidence of Investigating Officer-P.W.15. In paragraph-23 of his evidence he has stated as follows: P. Ws.9 & 11 showed me the spot from where they witnessed the occurrence. That spot is the verandah in front the extreme northern end of the row of rooms consisting of the spot room at its southern end. Three other shop rooms & a passage intervenes the northern end room & the spot room. All the shop rooms were under occupation by different persons. The window of the spot room is not visible from the spot from where P. Ws. 9 & 11 claimed to seen the occurrence. 10. In view of the evidence of P.W. 15 who had categorically stated that P. Ws.9 & 11 could not have seen the occurrence from the place where they were standing, the entire evidence of the said witnesses falls like a pack of cards. The Learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge has rightly disbelieved the said eyewitnesses. That apart it appears that the prosecution has tried to improve its case from stage to stage by exaggerating facts consequently adding persons whose names do not appear in the F.I.R. The depositions given in the Court by different witnesses varied with the statement recorded u/s 161 Code of Criminal Procedure by the police & even with the statement by the Learned Magistrate u/s 164 Code of Criminal Procedure. There is also delay in filing the F.I.R which has not been explained. The incident in question took place in the year 1991. 18 years have passed in the meanwhile. All the accused persons have been acquitted by the Learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge. The order of acquittal also does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of acquittal, that too after lapse of so many years & dismisses the Government Appeal. S.C. Parija, J. 11. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed