JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - The judgment and order of acquittal dated 22.09.1997 passed by the learned 1st Addl.Sessions Judge, Puri in Sessions Trial No. 17/89 of 1996, acquitting the Respondent of the charge u/s 302 I.P.C. is assailed by the State in this appeal. 2. The prosecution case was set to motion on the basis of an F.I.R. said to have been lodged by Bharat Maharana (P.W.6) before Delang Police Station. The said F.I.R. was lodged on 19th June, 1995 alleging therein that on the very day deceased Rama Chandra Maharana after getting down from the train was going to his village in a cycle, after finishing marking at Delanga Bazar. On the wayleading from Delang Station to Gualipada near Panchupali burial ground, the Respondent dealt a blow on the head of the deceased as a result of which he fell down from the cycle. Thereafter, the Respondent again assaulted him mercilessly on different parts of his body by means of a bamboo 'Muli Thenga'. Consequently, he lost his sense. Thereafter, the Respondent fled away throwing the weapon of offence on the spot. It is further alleged in the F.I.R. that prior to the incident the accused-Respondent was found moving in the locality holding the bamboo (Muli Thenga) in a suspicious manner. PWs 1, 2 and 6 have seen the accused fleeing away after causing assault on the deceased. Noticing the said fact, the aforesaid witnesses went to the spot and carried the deceased to Delang hospital and from there to District Head Quarters Hospital, Puri for treatment. The condition of deceased Rama Chandra having become serious he was shifted to S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack for further treatment. 3. On the basis of the said F.I.R., which was marked as Ext.2/ 2, the Officer-in-Charge, Delang Police Station initiated the investigation. He visited the spot, seized the blood stained earth, the 'thenga' said to be the weapon of offence, recorded the statements of different witnesses and sent the dead-body for post mortem examination. After completion of the investigation, submitted chargesheet in G.R. Case No. 799 of 1995. Learned S.D.J.M., Puri on being satisfied took cognizance of the offence and committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions. The plea of defence was complete denial to the prosecution allegation. 4. After completion of the investigation, submitted chargesheet in G.R. Case No. 799 of 1995. Learned S.D.J.M., Puri on being satisfied took cognizance of the offence and committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions. The plea of defence was complete denial to the prosecution allegation. 4. To bring home the charge, prosecution got examined as many as nine witnesses and exhibited ten documents. The defence examined no witness but exhibited three documents. Prosecution also produced three material objects, which were seized from the spot. Out of the witnesses examined, PW-1 and PW-2 were said to be eyewitnesses to the occurrence. PW-6, the informant is the brother of the deceased and he claims to have seen the accused running away after causing assault on the deceased. PWs. 3, and 4 and 5 are post-occurrence witnesses. PW-7 is the A.S.I., who held the inquest over the dead-body and despatched the same for post mortem examination. PW-8 is an Associate Professor of F.M.T. Department of S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack, who conducted post mortem over the dead-body. PW-9 is the S.I. of Police attached to Delang Police Station who was involved in the investigation. 5. Learned Sessions Judge, after vivid discussion of the evidence both oral and documentary arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution failed 10 establish the charges leveled against the accused-Respondent beyond all reasonable doubt, and held that the accused, not to be guilty and acquitted him u/s 235(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure The said order, as stated earlier, is assailed before this Court, mainly on the grounds that the conclusion arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge is contrary to the evidence available in the case. It is submitted that the trial Judge has proceeded on the basis of suimises and conjectures and illegally disbelieved the evidence on the ground of minor discrepancies appearing in the evidence of the eyewitnesses. It is stated that PWs 1 and 2 had seen the occurrence and PW-6 is the post-occurrence witness, who has seen the accused running away after committing the crime. On the basis of the said evidence, the trial Judge should have convicted the accused. According to Mr. Mishra, learned Addl.Standing Counsel, it is a fit case where the order of acquittal should be varied and the Respondent may be convicted. Mr. On the basis of the said evidence, the trial Judge should have convicted the accused. According to Mr. Mishra, learned Addl.Standing Counsel, it is a fit case where the order of acquittal should be varied and the Respondent may be convicted. Mr. Sarangi, learned Counsel for the Respondent on the other hand strongly repudiated the submissions made by learned Counsel appearing for the State. According to Mr. Sarangi, prosecution case has developed from stage to stage. It is stated that the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 6 are full of contradictions. Further, according to Mr. Sarangi, learned Sessions Judge has meticulously examined the evidence and the conclusions arrived at do not suffers from any apparent error. Moreover, the order of acquittal neither suffers from perversity nor there is any material irregularity on the face of the record. Hence, the impugned order may not be interfered with, that too after a lapse of fourteen years. 6. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the materials on record diligently. Before proceeding further, it would be prudent to note that the application to grant leave to file Appeal was filed after lapse of 124 days, and by the time the said application registered as Criminal Misc. Case No. 829 of 1998, came up for admission, leave was granted and the records were called for, the LCR was destroyed in the office of District Judge, Pun. This appeal is therefore heard on the ba;is or rocorus made available to us by learned Counsel. Be that as it may, in course of hearing, learned Counsel for the parties made available the copies of the deposition for perusal and we have gone through the same. Admittedly, deceased-Ramachandra Maharana sustained grievous injuries on his head and other portions of his body. PW-8 is-the doctor who conducted the post mortem examination. The evidence of PW-8 coupled with the post mortem report Ext.5, clearly reveals that the deceased sustained number of injuries on his person. According to the doctor, all the injuries were ante mortem in nature and might have been caused by hard and blunt weapon that too by applying force. The cause of death was due to Cranio Cerebral injuries. After going through the evidence of doctor, we are satisfied that the death was homicidal in nature and the trial Court has rightly arrived at such conclusion. The cause of death was due to Cranio Cerebral injuries. After going through the evidence of doctor, we are satisfied that the death was homicidal in nature and the trial Court has rightly arrived at such conclusion. The only question left for determination s as to who was the author of the injuries. To establish the said fact, prosecution has mainly relied upon the evidence of three witnesses, i.e., PWs 1, 2 and 6. PW-6 was the informant of the case and had lodged the F.I.R. Comparison of statements and the facts stated by PW-6 in the F.I.R. and the facts stated by him in his deposition before the Court reveals that there are lots of variations. His statement recorded in course of investigation u/s 161 Code of Criminal Procedure was confronted to the I.O. and it clearly appears that PW-6 has changed his statement from stage to stage. The most important fact is that PW-6 neither in the F.I.R. nor before the Police has stated that he had seen PWs 1 and 2, who are said to be the eyewitnesses at the spot. Similarly, PWs 1 and 2 have not named PW-6. Comparison of statements of PWs 1 and 2 also leads to a conclusion that there are material contradictions, which touch trje merits of the case. That apart, F.I.R. was filed on 19th June, 1995 but then same was forwarded to Court on 21st June, 1995, there is no explanation about the delay. It father appears that the incident occurred in a dark night and there were no light in the vicinity.The plea taken by all the witnesses that they have seen the occurrence by throwing torch light focus seems to be unbelievable. Surprisingly, none of the torches have been seized by the I.O.. 7. Cumulative reading of the entire evidence reveals that other independent witnesses who were present at the spot have been omitted from the examination by the I.O. On perusal of the judgment, reveals that the learned Sessions Judge has discussed the evidence in extenso and the conclusions arrived at are in consonance with the materials (evidence) available on record. After going through the same, we also find that there is no infirmity in the finding of the trial Court and the same do not suffer from any perversity. After going through the same, we also find that there is no infirmity in the finding of the trial Court and the same do not suffer from any perversity. Law is well settled that the appellate Court should interfere with an order of acquittal passed by a trial Court only when it is satisfied that the conclusions arrived at by the trial Court are absurd and shocking to the common sense. A scrutiny of the evidence reveals that the Sessions Court has properly appreciated the evidence and there is no apparent error on the face of the judgment. 8. Considering the entire facts, we find that the order of acquittal needs no interference, that too after a lapse of fourteen years. Accordingly, the Government Appeal is dismissed. B.N. Mahapatra, J. 9. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed