JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - The judgment dated 10th May,1996 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Phulbani, acquitting the accused persons from the charges under Sections 302/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code in S.T. Case No. 112/1994 is assailed by the State in this Government Appeal. 2. The prosecution was set to motion on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged by one Lukapati Pradhan (P.W. 1) alleging that on 23.4.1994 when Mitha Pradhan, Gagan Naik, Nabendra Pradhan and Prasanta Pradhan were returning from Daringibadi to Budukeju, at Jadakadu Hillock, the accused persons, with an intention to murder Mitha Pradhan, fired pellets from S. B. H. L. country made gun, consequently Mitha Pradhan sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. Other persons, who were accompanying Mitha Pradhan, i.e. P.Ws. 3 and 4 also sustained injuries, but then they recovered after adequate treatment. 3. On the basis of the F.I.R., the O.I.C., Daringibadi P.S. took up the investigation, sent the dead body for post mortem, got the injured persons (P.Ws. 3 and 4) examined by Doctor, seized the wearing apparels and other material objects and on the basis of a confession made u/s 27 of the Evidence Act, seized the weapon of offence (gun), sent the gun for ballistic examination and after completion of investigation submitted charge sheet in G. R. Case No. 151/1994. Learned S. D. J. M., Balliguda, after perusing the police papers and on being satisfied that prima facie case was made out, took cognizance of the offences and committed the case to the Court of Session for trial. 4. The plea of the defence was of complete denial. No witness was examined on behalf of the defence. In order to establish their case, the prosecution got examined twelve witnesses and exhibited several documents. Out of the witnesses examined, P.W. 1 was the informant, P.W. 2 was the wife of the deceased, P.Ws. 3 and 4 were the companions of the deceased and sustain injuries, P.W. 5 was the scribe of the F.I.R., P.W. 6 was the Sarpanch of Badabaga G. P. and a witness to the seizure of Exts. 5, 6 and 7, P.Ws. 7 and 8 were witnesses to the seizure of S. B. M. L country made gun. P.W. 9 was one of the companion of the deceased, P.W. 10 was the doctor, who conducted post mortem, also examined P.Ws. 5, 6 and 7, P.Ws. 7 and 8 were witnesses to the seizure of S. B. M. L country made gun. P.W. 9 was one of the companion of the deceased, P.W. 10 was the doctor, who conducted post mortem, also examined P.Ws. 3 and 4, P.W. 11 was Anr. doctor who treated P.Ws. 3 and 4 at District Headquarters Hospital and P.W. 12 was the I.O. 5. Learned Sessions Judge after vivid discussion of the evidence, both oral and documentary, came to the conclusion that the prosecution was not able to bring home any of the offences. Consequently, both the accused persons were found not guilty and were acquitted u/s 235(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure The said judgment is assailed by the State, mainly on the ground that the order of acquittal is contrary to law and against the weight of evidence on record, the Sessions Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence and the conclusions arrived at are on the basis of surmises and conjectures. 6. According to Mr. Panda, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State, the Sessions Judge has disbelieved the prosecution witnesses on flimsy grounds and that it is a fit case where the order of acquittal needs interference. 7. Mr. Rath, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2, on the other hand, submitted that the Sessions Judge has discussed the evidence in exfensoand the conclusions arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge are based on cogent evidence and no error on record is apparent on the face of it. That apart, according to Mr. Rath the entire evidence suffers from several discrepancies and the Sessions Judge has rightly disbelieved the prosecution story. Further according to Mr. Rath, the order of acquittal passed by way back in the year 1996 needs no interference after lapse of so many years. 8. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced by both the parties this Court, being the final Court of facts, went through the evidence, heard learned Counsel for the parties and considered the materials available on records. P.Ws. 1 and 2 were the witnesses to the inquest. They have proved Ext.2, the inquest report. P.W. 10 was the doctor, who conducted autopsy. P.Ws. 1 and 2 were the witnesses to the inquest. They have proved Ext.2, the inquest report. P.W. 10 was the doctor, who conducted autopsy. The evidence of P.W. 10 coupled with the post mortem report reveals that Mitha Pradhan sustained following injuries: (i) a gun shot wound on left illiaccrest, (ii) One gun shot wound 3 inches right to back bone and 5 inches above the illiacrest, (iii) One gun shot wound over right buttock, (iv) Three gun shot wounds on left buttock, (v) One gun shot wound 4 1/2" left to backbone and 3 inches above the illiacrest. In course of post mortem P.W. 10 also recovered two metal pieces from the body of the deceased. On overall reading of the evidence of P.W. 10 coupled with the post mortem report and other materials seized, it reveals that the death of Mitha Pradhan was a homicidal one. The only other point which needs to be determined in this case is, who was the author of such crime. P.W. 1 is not an eye witness, but he was the informant. In his evidence he stated that P.W. 5 was the scribe of the F.I.R. (Ext.1). Perusal of the evidence of both the aforesaid P.Ws. reveals that F.I.R. was lodged at Jadakadu Hillock site. But then such evidence is not supported by P.W. 12. After going through the entire evidence, learned Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 with regard to scribing of the F.I.R. has not received corroboration with the evidence of P.W. 12 as well as with regard to the place of lodging of the F.I.R. (Ext.1). The said evidence gives an impression that F.I.R. was lodged after considerable time and the spot of occurrence was suppressed, 9. After going through the evidence, this Court also finds that there was some discrepancy with regard to the place where the F.I.R. was scribed and the place of lodging the same. Law is well settled that the F.I.R. is not an encyclopedia, but then omission of important facts in the F.I.R. the probabilities of the case are very much relevant u/s 11 of the Evidence Act, more particularly with regard to judging the veracity of the prosecution case. There was also lot of discrepancy in the evidence of P.W. 2 and the same suffers from the vice of inconsistency. P.Ws. There was also lot of discrepancy in the evidence of P.W. 2 and the same suffers from the vice of inconsistency. P.Ws. 3 and 4 are the injured persons. In the F.I.R. it was not mentioned that they were travelling along with Mitha Pradhan and Ors. . According to the F.I.R. unidentified persons had fired at deceased and P.Ws. 3 and 4. On the other hand, the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 clearly indicates that they had identified the accused persons in the night of the occurrence. Other evidence is also contradictory to each other. 10. Reading of the entire evidence also reveals that no motive could be attributed to the accused persons. Thus, the prosecution has totally failed to establish that the accused persons had any intention to kill Mitha Pradhan. Learned Sessions Judge has vividly discussed the evidence and the conclusions arrived at suffer from no infirmity. It is well settled that the appellate Court should be slow in reversing an order of acquittal and unless there are good and strong grounds the order of acquittal should not be interfered with. (See Bahal Singh v. State of Hariyana reported in AIR 1994 SC 606). It is now well settled that only when the appellate Court after going through the evidence arrives at a conclusion that the view taken by the trial Court in acquitting the accused is extremely perverse and is not reasonably sustainable then it can interfere with such an order of acquittal. It is also no more res Integra that if the reasons given and conclusions arrived at by the trial Court are found to be just, the appellate Court may not interfere with the findings and order of acquittal, even if on perusal of the evidence the appellate Court feels that Anr. view is possible. Accordingly, the Government Appeal stands dismissed. B.K. Nayak, J. 11. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed