JUDGMENT U.B. Saha, J. 1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal, dated 5.9.2008, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Kamalpur in S.T. 45(NT/KMP)/2004 whereby and where under the accused Respondents, four in numbers, were acquitted from the charges leveled against them under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and Section364 read with 34 IPC. 2. Heard Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Additional P.P appearing for the State Appellant and Mr. S. Talapatra, learned senior Counsel assisted by Mr. B. Banerjee, learned Counsel appearing for the accused Respondents. 3. The prosecution case, in short, is as follows: P.W 1 Smt. Rita Debroy lodged a written complaint before the O.C. Kamalpur Police Station at about 9.15 hours alleging, inter alia, that on 3.9.2003 at about 8 p.m. while her husband was returning to home from market and reached near the house of accused Narayan Das, the said accused along with his driver Pradip Das, assistant driver Biswa Das and one Hira Teli had attacked her husband and mercilessly beaten him and ultimately thrown her husband in a well to commit murder. Hearing the cry of her husband, she then rushed to the spot when the accused persons fled away. It is also stated in her complaint that there was a dispute between the accused Narayan Das and her husband on the issue of breaking of fencing of the homestead. She further stated that there was delay in lodging the FIR as she was busy with the treatment of her husband when her injured husband was lying at Kamalpur hospital. 4. On receipt of the complaint from P.W. 1, Kamalpur P.S case No. 56 of 2003 was registered under Sections 325 and 307 read with 34 IPC. Later, as the husband of P.W 1 succumbed to the injuries, Section 302 was added to the case. 5. As the offences mentioned in the Charge Sheet are triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kamalpur, North Tripura. 6. Upon receipt of the case records, the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges against all the four accused Respondents under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 364read with Section 34 IPC. 7. To establish the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses including the official witnesses and exhibited some documents. 8. 6. Upon receipt of the case records, the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges against all the four accused Respondents under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 364read with Section 34 IPC. 7. To establish the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses including the official witnesses and exhibited some documents. 8. After hearing the learned Counsel of the parties and marshalling the evidences on record, the learned Trial Court acquitted all the four accused Respondents from the charges leveled against them. 9. The State has preferred the instant appeal against the order of acquittal. 10. Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Addl. P.P submits that the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused Respondents mainly on the ground of delay in lodging the complaint which is wholly unwarranted. He also contended that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence of P.W. 1, 2 and 3 stating, inter alia, that there are basic contradictions in the evidence of those witnesses, though according to the Mr. Ghosh, there is no contradiction, rather, at best, it can be said that there is some omissions. 11. Mr. Talapatra, learned Senior Counsel, while resisting the submission of Mr. Ghosh, would contend that this is an appeal against the order of acquittal and an Appellate Court should not interfere with the order of the Trial Court in the matter of acquittal unless the findings of the Trial Court is wholly perverse and illegal and contrary to the evidence on record. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that the learned Trial Court in paragraph-32 and 33 of the judgment discussed the reasons for non-believing the evidences of P.W 1, 2 and 3 and also the reasons for passing an order of acquittal. 12. We have gone through the impugned judgment. For better appreciation, the paragraph-32 and 33 of the judgment are reproduced below: 32. In the instant case, the P.W. 11 stated that the death was caused because of septicemic shock out of injury on the small intestine. As already noted above, there is no evidence on record to establish that such injury was caused by any act of any of the accused. In that scenario of evidence it is difficult to say that it was a case of culpable homicide. As already noted above, there is no evidence on record to establish that such injury was caused by any act of any of the accused. In that scenario of evidence it is difficult to say that it was a case of culpable homicide. The fact that the victim made declaration to the witnesses after regaining sense cannot be accepted inasmuch as such a vital statement was omitted both in the FIR or in the 161 Cr.P.C. , statement. Such omission strengthens the conclusion of a case not being covered as a culpable homicide. 33. Smt. Bisakha Malakar in her deposition does not say that she saw the accused persons assaulting or kicking the victim. This P.W is only but solitary eye witness of a part of the prosecution story. She simply stated that she found the accused persons forcibly dragging Ashim Debroy. But the P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 told that P.W. 4 told them about beating and assaulting of the victim by the accused persons. As already pointed out that P.W 4 nowhere stated in her deposition that she divulged such fact of bearing and assaulting to P.W.1, P.W. 2 and P.W.3. This major contradiction also seriously dis-credited the trustworthiness of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W 3 who are closely related to the victim and naturally interested. The evidence of such interested witnesses are to be scrutinized with great judicial care. It seems to this Court that said P.W 1, P.W 2 and P.W 3 being interested witnesses made developed story in the court and, therefore, cannot be fully relied upon. The question as to how far the P.W 4 can be relied upon who claimed to have seen the part of occurrence. In the cross examination, she further told that she raised no alarm out of fear. She also deposed in the cross that wife, mother and sister of the victim went out for searching after 20 minutes of the occurrence whereas the said 3 P.Ws contended that immediately after hearing of the cry they came out of the hut and conducted search. Thereby the presence of P.W. 4 seems to be doubtful. If the evidence of P.W 4 is kept aside, the only witness P.W 5 who claimed to have seen the four accused persons moving suspiciously. Thereby the presence of P.W. 4 seems to be doubtful. If the evidence of P.W 4 is kept aside, the only witness P.W 5 who claimed to have seen the four accused persons moving suspiciously. But in the cross examination, it is brought to light that he made no such statement during the course of investigation to police. It seems that this portion of evidence is also a subsequent development. The other P.Ws examined for the prosecution practically deposed nothing incriminating against the accused persons. 13. According to Dr. Ranjit Kumar Das, (P.W 11), the death of the husband of P.W 1 was caused due to septicemic shock out of injury on the small intestine of the deceased and none of those injuries were caused by any act of the accused persons. In that scenario of evidence, it is difficult to say that it was a case of culpable homicide. 14. In an appeal preferred against an order of acquittal, normally, the appellate Court should not interfere with the said order of acquittal unless the same is perverse and wholly contradictory to the evidence on record as rightly stated by Mr. Talapatra. More so, when two views are plausible on perusal of evidences on record, the view which favours the accused that has to be accepted by the Court. 15. In the instant case, the learned Trial Court rightly disbelieved the P.W. 1, 2 and 3 and came to a conclusion that the accused Respondents are in no way liable for the charges leveled against them. 16. The learned Trial Court though has given some importance on the question of delay in preferring the complaint, but according to us, that was not the only ground for acquitting the accused persons, rather the learned Trial Court while considered the evidences of P.W 1, 2 and 3, specifically stated that P.W 4 nowhere stated in her deposition that she divulged such fact of bearing and assaulting to P.W 1, P.W 2 and P.W 3 who are closely related to the victim and naturally interested. The learned Trial Court also noted, inter alia, that if the evidence of P.W 4 is kept aside, the only witness P.W 5, who claimed to have seen the four accused persons moving suspiciously, made no such statement during the course of investigation to police. Thus, this portion of evidence is also a subsequent development. 17. The learned Trial Court also noted, inter alia, that if the evidence of P.W 4 is kept aside, the only witness P.W 5, who claimed to have seen the four accused persons moving suspiciously, made no such statement during the course of investigation to police. Thus, this portion of evidence is also a subsequent development. 17. The prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of the accused Respondents beyond doubt. The trial Court has critically analyzed the statements of the prosecution witnesses and properly appreciated the whole evidences on record. According to us, the judgment of the Trial Court is found to be well reasoned. The learned trial Court did not commit any error acquitting the accused persons from the charges leveled against them. 18. We do not find any infirmity or perversity in the judgment of the learned Trial Court, therefore, find no reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 5.9.2008, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, North Tripura, in ST 45(NT/KMP)/2004 in this appeal. In our view, the criminal appeal filed by the State is fully devoid of merit and the same deserves to be dismissed. 19. In view of above, the State appeal stands dismissed. Registry is directed to send the L.C. records to the trial Court concerned. Appeal dismissed