JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - All the Respondents faced trial for commission of offences u/s 436, 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, in short, "IPC", for having committed mischief of setting fire to the dwelling house of Lukapati Naik (P.W.2) situated in village Alimaha under Balliguda Police Station in the district of Kandhamal and for committing murder of his son and daughter, namely, Sanatan Naik and Arati Naik respectively and for causing disappearance of the evidence by cremating the dead bodies with the intention to screen themselves from legal liability. It is alleged that the said offence was committed in furtherance of their common intention. Respondent No. 1 Kumuda Chandra Naik further faced charges for commission of offence u/s 203 IPC for giving false information at Balliguda Police Station relating to the offence of committing mischief of setting fire by deceased Santosh Naik on 20.10.1994. It appears, on the basis of such information, Balliguda P.S. Case No. 112 of 1994 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 328 of 1994 was registered. 2. The prosecution was set to motion on the basis of an F.I.R. filed by Padmini Naik (P.W. 1), wife of Lukapati (P.W. 2) alleging therein that there was long standing land disputes and dissentions between Lukapati (P.W. 2) on one hand and his brother accused Kumuda Chandra Naik on the other. Accused Kumuda being inimical to Lukapati was waiting for an opportunity to take revenge and on the basis of a conspiracy hatched up between the accused persons, they committed mischief by setting fire to the dwelling house of Lukapati during'his absence in furtherance of their aforesaid common intention. Sanatan and Arati, son and daughter of Lukapati respectively unfortunately were present inside the house. They tried to escape, but then it is alleged that the accused persons chased them and killed them and thereafter in order to cause disappearance of evidence crematedthe dead bodies of the deceased persons. Lukapati (P.W. 2) and his wife (P.W. 1) who were absent from the village came to know about the said fact on the following day, i.e., on 20.10.1994 and lodged an F.I.R. in Balliguda Police Station on 23.10.1994. According to the said witness, the police did not take any steps. Being aggrieved by such inaction of the police, P.W. 1 again lodged an F.I.R., which was registered and investigation commenced. 3. According to the said witness, the police did not take any steps. Being aggrieved by such inaction of the police, P.W. 1 again lodged an F.I.R., which was registered and investigation commenced. 3. The Investigating Officer interrogated persons, visited the spot, seized certain materials and after completion of investigation, submitted charge-sheet against 28 accused persons in G. R. Case No. 387 of 1994. Learned SDJM, Balliguda on being satisfied that a prima facie case was made out, took cognizanpe of the offences and committed the same to the Court of Session and ST. Case No. 6 of 1996 and S.T. Case No. 28 of 1997 were registered. 4. The plea of the defence was of complete denial. The case of the accused-Respondents as would appear from the statements recorded u/s 313, Code of Criminal Procedure and the tenor of cross-examination was that a false case had been foisted in order to put the accused persons into unnecessary harassment. The prosecution in order to substantiate their case got examined 12 witnesses. P.Ws. 1 and 2 spoke about prior enmity between Kumuda and other accused persons with P.W. 2. They had not witnessed the occurrence.P Ws. 3, 4 and 11 came to be the eye witnesses to the occurrence, P.W. 5 is a Gramarakhi. He also had no direct knowledge, but then according to him, accused Kapila while in custody led the police personnel to the place where the dead bodies were cremated and gave recovery of bones. He is also a witness to the seizure of stone and lathi. P.Ws. 6 and 7 were cited as eye witnesses, but then they did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile, P.W. 8 implicated one of the accused Shayamaghana Mohanty to be a party to the conspiracy, P.W. 9 did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile and P.Ws. 10 and 12 were investigating officers, who investigated the case. 5. Learned Sessions Judge after discussing the evidence threadbare arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution case with regard to prior enmity, motive and conspiracy cannot be established by independent corroboration. Learned Sessions Judge also made caustic remarks with regard to the perfunctory manner in which the case was investigated by the Investigating Officer. 5. Learned Sessions Judge after discussing the evidence threadbare arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution case with regard to prior enmity, motive and conspiracy cannot be established by independent corroboration. Learned Sessions Judge also made caustic remarks with regard to the perfunctory manner in which the case was investigated by the Investigating Officer. It appears that P.W. 10, who was initially the Investigating Officer was placed under suspension and a departmental proceeding was drawn against him on the ground that he has failed to investigate the case in proper manner. Learned Sessions Judge after careful consideration of the entire evidence and discussing the same from different angles, came to hold that the prosecution had totally failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt and acquitted them u/s 235(1), Code of Criminal Procedure the said order, as stated earlier, is assailed by the State Government. This Court after considering all the materials granted leave to the State to file an appeal so far as Respondents No. 1 to 5 are concerned. In other words, the application for leave to file appeal so far as Respondent Nos. 6 to 28 are concerned, was rejected. Thus, this appeal is only confined to the first five accused persons. 6. The order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is criticized mainly on the ground that the said Court has exaggerated the minor discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses. It is further averred that the trial court should not have drawn adverse inference for the delay in filing the F.I.R. 7. In course of hearing, Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the State took pains to place the entire evidence and submitted that learned Sessions Judge lost sight of the fact that the witnesses were examined after lapse of considerable time and as such, the minor discrepancies are bound to appear. It is further stated that due to the lapses of the first Investigating Officer (P.W. 10), certain technical defects crept in to the investigation and learned Sessions Judge should have ignored the same. In short, according to Mr. Panda, the order of acquittal is based on surmises and conjectures and the same should be interfered with. 8. M r. Dhal, learned Counsel appearing for the accused-Respondents, on the other hand, strongly refuted the submissions made by Mr. Panda. According to Mr. In short, according to Mr. Panda, the order of acquittal is based on surmises and conjectures and the same should be interfered with. 8. M r. Dhal, learned Counsel appearing for the accused-Respondents, on the other hand, strongly refuted the submissions made by Mr. Panda. According to Mr. Dhal, learned Sessions Judge has considered the evidence both oral and documentary meticulously and the conclusions arrived at are just and proper. It is stated that the prosecution had totally failed to establish the involvement of any of the accused in the alleged occurrence. They have failed to prove prior enmity. They have also miserably failed to prove any conspiracy. Added to that, no reliable evidence has been produced to connect the accused persons with the alleged crime. The last submission of Mr. Dhal is that this Court after perusal of the judgment and other materials having been pleased to refuse grant of leave so far as Respondent Nos. 6 to 28 on the same set of evidence, the present Respondents cannot be convicted and it is a fit case where the order of acquittal passed about eleven years back, may not be interfered with. 9. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length. Perused the evidence meticulously. This is a peculiar case where three F. I. Rs. are available. It appears that the first F.I.R. was filed by none else than Respondent No. 1 alleging that one of the inmates set fire to the house. On the basis of the said F.I.R., a P.S. Case was registered, which was subsequently converted to G. R. Case and investigation commenced. Admittedly, the occurrence took place on 19th October,1994. On coming to know about the incident after returning to her village, P.W. 1 lodged an F.I.R. on 23rd October,1994. The Investigating Officer, P.Ws. 10 and 12 admitted the said fact, but then surprisingly the said F.I.R. has not seen the light of the day as the same was neither produced nor marked as an exhibit. Subsequently a third F.I.R. was filed, which was marked as Ext.11. The entire prosecution case rests upon the allegations made in the said F.I.R. It also appears that the witnesses were examined at a much later date, i.e., about one month after lodging of the third F.I.R. Delay in examining the witnesses by the police has not been explained any where. The entire prosecution case rests upon the allegations made in the said F.I.R. It also appears that the witnesses were examined at a much later date, i.e., about one month after lodging of the third F.I.R. Delay in examining the witnesses by the police has not been explained any where. All these throw a cloud of suspicion with regard to the truthfulness of the prosecution case. In course of examination, some of the witnesses have exaggerated the story and deposed that the accused persons sprinkled kerosene and accused Kumuda set fire. Though the said fact was not narrated in the F.I.R., the same was also not corroborated by other witnesses. A perusal of the depositions of P.Ws. 3, 4 and 11 reveals that the same suffers from infirmities and improbabilities inasmuch as the depositions of some witnesses contradict to each other in material particulars and vital aspects. P.W. 1 is the informant. She has categorically stated that she had lodged the F.I.R. on 25.12.1994, i.e., more than two months after the occurrence. On the basis of the said F.I.R. a P.S. Case was registered and investigation commenced. P.W. 12, who was initially entrusted with the investigation was placed under suspension due to his lapses and a departmental proceeding was initiated against him for negligence in the investigation. Thereafter, P.W. 10 took over the investigation. Lodging of the F.I.R. after two months gives a chance to the prosecution for concoction and fabrication. This aspect gets corroborated from the discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses, which was developed from stage to stage. Added to it, the witnesses were examined by the police after considerable delay, i.e., about two and half months after the unfortunate incident though they were all along available in the village. Belated examination of material witnesses undoubtedly creates a dent in the evidentiary value of the said witness. This Court feels that no credence can be given to the said witness. A perusal of the entire judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge leaves no room for doubt in our mind that learned Sessions Judge has vividly discussed the evidence from all angles and the conclusions arrived at suffer from no infirmities. This Court feels that no credence can be given to the said witness. A perusal of the entire judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge leaves no room for doubt in our mind that learned Sessions Judge has vividly discussed the evidence from all angles and the conclusions arrived at suffer from no infirmities. Law is well settled that the appellate court should not interfere with the order of acquittal unless it is satisfied that the trial court has committed error apparent on the face of the records and the conclusions arrived at are perfunctory in nature. The appellate court should not interfere with the findings even if Anr. view is possible or if it is not satisfied that the view arrived at by the trial court is not shocking to common sense. That apart, the incident in the case in hand took place in the year 1994. Fifteen years have passed in the meanwhile. The order of acquittal was also passed about eleven years back. 10. After going through the entire evidence and on being satisfied that the conclusions arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge needs no interference, this Court is not inclined to set aside the order of acquittal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. B.K. Nayak, J. 11. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed