JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - The order dated 22.4.1997 passed by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Bolangir acquitting the accused persons of the cnarges under Sections 147/148/452/302/307/323/149 of I.P.C. in S.C. No. 51/18 of 1995 is assailed by the State in this appeal, 2. The prosecution was set to motion on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged at Dunguripali Police Station in the district of Bolangir on 23.8.1994. In the F.I.R. it was alleged that the accused persons forming an unlawful assembly and on being armed with deadly weapons trespassed into the house of the informant-Gandaram Sahu and accused Iswara Sahu assaulted on the head of Narayan Sahu, son of the informant by the blunt side of a tangia'. It was further alleged that accused Kartika @ Jubaraj Sahu assaulted on the head of Narayan Sahu by a bamboo lathi, consequently he fell down on the ground. Thereafter the other accused Chaturbhuj Sahu assaulted him on the back by means of a lathi. While matter stood thus Birat Sahu and Kasi Sahu assaulted on the face of Ambika Sahu, wife of the informant by means of sticks. Similarly accused Brundaban Sahu, Gandharba Padhan, Biranchi Sahu, Santanu Sahu, Nabaghan Sahu, Bipra Padhan, Mahajan Padhan, Chandramani Sahu and Dakhil Padhan assaulted Rodana Sahu, Anr. wife of the informant. 3. After receiving F.I.R. the local police took up investigation. The injured Narayan Sahu, Ambika Sahu and Rodana Sahu were sent for treatment at Community Health Centre, Dunguripali but then later on as the condition of Narayan deteriorated he was referred to V.S.S. Medical College, Burla. In course of treatment Narayan succumbed to the injuries. Consequently the case was converted to one u/s 302 I.P.C. P.W.12. The Officer-in-Charge of Dunguripali Police Station in course of investigation visited the spot, examined the witnesses, seized the weapon of offences as well as other incriminating materials. In course of investigation he handover further investigation to Anr. Officer. The second Investigating Officer carried on the investigation, obtained report from tne Neuro Surgery department, V.S.S. Medical College made inquest over the dead body, sent the same for autopsy examination and after completion of investigation submitted charge sheet against seven accused persons in the Court of learned J.M.F.C. Rampur in G.R. Case No. 69 of 1994. Officer. The second Investigating Officer carried on the investigation, obtained report from tne Neuro Surgery department, V.S.S. Medical College made inquest over the dead body, sent the same for autopsy examination and after completion of investigation submitted charge sheet against seven accused persons in the Court of learned J.M.F.C. Rampur in G.R. Case No. 69 of 1994. It is pertinent to mention here that after investigation no prima facie case could be made out so far as Brundaban Sahu, Gandharba Padhan, Biranchi Sahu, Santanu Sahu, Nabaghan Sahu, Bipra Padhan, Mahajan Padhan, Chandramani Sahu and Dakhil Padhan are concerned and no charge sheet was submitted against them. 4. After perusal of the police records and on being satisfied that a prima facie case is made out, learned J.M.F.C, Rampur took cognizance of the offence and committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial. The plea of the accused persons was one of complete denial. It was alleged that due to prior enmity a false case was foisted against them. Some of the accused persons also took the plea of alibi and stated that on the date of occurrence they were not present in the village and had gone to Bolangir. In order to substantiate defence case three witnesses were examined and three documents were marked as exhibits by the defence. 5. The prosecution on the other hand in order to establish its case got 12 witnesses examined. Out of whom P.Ws.1 to 5 were the eyewitnesses and out of them P.W.5 was the informant. P.W.7 was the doctor who conducted the autopsy, P.W.9 was the Medical Officer who had examined and treated the injured persons. P.W.10 was the doctor of V.S.S. Medical College, Burla who had treated Narayan before his death. P.Ws.6, 7, 11 and 12 were the police officers, who took part in the investigation. 6. Out of the witnesses examined by the defence D.W.1 was the Headmaster of Dunguripali Govt. upgraded U.P. School who proved the Attendance Register of the school to show that accused Dala Padhan was present in the school on the date of occurrence. D.W.2 was the Block Development Officer of Dunguripali Block who proved the relevant entry in the G.P.F. Acquaintance Roll of Primary School Teachers of the Block which reveals that accused Chaturbhuj Sahu received certain amounts out of his G.P.F. money on the date of occurrence. D.W.2 was the Block Development Officer of Dunguripali Block who proved the relevant entry in the G.P.F. Acquaintance Roll of Primary School Teachers of the Block which reveals that accused Chaturbhuj Sahu received certain amounts out of his G.P.F. money on the date of occurrence. D.W.3 was the doctor of District Head Quarters Hospital, Bolangir who proved the discharge certificate dated 23.8.1994 which reveals that the wife of accused Kartika Sahu was discharged from hospital on the date of occurrence. 7. Leamed Addl. Sessions Judge, Bolangir after vivid discussion of the evidence both oral and documentary came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to substantiate its case by adducing cogent and reliable evidence. Consequently he found the accused persons not guilty of the offences and acquitted them. 8. Learned Addl. Government Advocate in course of hearing submitted that learned Addl. Sessions Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence and the conclusions arrived at are based on mere surmises and conjectures. According him, learned Addl. Sessions Judge should have ignored minor discrepancies in the evidence of the witness inasmuch as such discrepancies are natural, specially when the witnesses are examined after a long gap. It is further submitted that in view of the evidence of three eye witnesses learned Addl. Sessions Judge should have convicted the accused persons and thus the order of acquittal invites interference. 9. All these submissions are strongly repudiated by Mr. Pattnaik, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents. According to him learned Addl. Sessions Judge have vividly discussed the evidence and on such analysis arrived at a conclusion that the witnesses produced by the prosecution should not be relied upon as their evidence suffers from material contradictions. According to him the prosecution has not come with clean hands and lots of inconsistencies appeared in the statements of different witnesses, more so, even there was inconsistency between the medical report and ocular testimonies. According to Mr. Pattnaik, the judgment does not suffer from any infirmity as no error apparent on the face of the record appears and as such the appeal should be dismissed. 10. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length. Perused the evidence meticulously. P.W.7 was the doctor who had conducted the autopsy. The statement of said witness coupled with the autopsy report clearly establishes the fact that death of Narayan was homicidal one. 10. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length. Perused the evidence meticulously. P.W.7 was the doctor who had conducted the autopsy. The statement of said witness coupled with the autopsy report clearly establishes the fact that death of Narayan was homicidal one. The findings of learned Addl.Sessions Judge to that effect thus needs no interference. The only other question, which needs to be determined in this appeal is as to whether Respondents have caused the injuries or not ? In order to substantiate it case, prosecution relied upon the evidence of P. Ws. 2 to 5 who are stated to be eyewitnesses. Perusal of the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses clearly reveals that there were material discrepancies and apparent contradictions. The evidence of the aforesaid witnesses also do not corroborate with the evidence of the doctor, injury report as well as the report of autopsy examination. Though all the eyewitnesses have stated that Narayan was assaulted indiscriminately by the accused persons, the medical report reveals that there was only one injury. That apart the evidence of D.Ws.1, 2 and 3, who are respectable Officers of the State Government, being the Headmaster of a school, Block Development Officer and a Doctor, reveals that some of the accused persons were present at Bolangir on the given date. 11. A cumulative reading of the evidence of P.Ws. 2 to 5 vis-a-vis D Ws.1, 2 and 3 leads to a conclusion that the prosecution has not come to the Court with clean hands and has tried to involve innocent persons, thus no reliance can be placed upon such evidence. 12. The discussion made above thus reveals that the prosecution case is shrouded with a cloud of suspicion inasmuch as the Investigating Officer-P.W.12 in his deposition had clearly admitted that the facts stated in Court were not disclosed before him. In the case of Harun Tirkey and Ors. v. State of Orissa reported in 1988 Cri. L.J. 125 it has been observed that in a criminal trial if a particular witness or batch of witnesses appeared to have swerved from the path of truth either by suppression or by concoction or by embellishment of facts which are not true such evidence, as a rule should be discarded, more so in the absence of any independent and reliable corroboration, and no conviction should be passed on the basis of such inconsistent evidence. 13. 13. After going through the entire evidence, this Court finds that learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bolangir has properly appreciated the evidence and the conclusions arrived at are in consonance with the materials available on record. This Court is also satisfied that the prosecution has totally failed to substantiate its case by adducing reliable evidence. This Court is therefore, not inclined to interfere with the order of acquittal, that too after lapse of 15 years of the incident and dismisses the Government Appeal. B.N. Mahapatra, J. 14. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed