JUDGMENT : D. Dash, J. - The State has called in question the order of acquittal dated 04.05.1996 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Rairangpur in ST. Case No. 25/126 of 1995 acquitting the respondents of the charges under sections 341/323/294/307/34, I.P.C. Prosecution case, in short, is that on 26.05.1995 around 5 P.M., the informant Raghubir Nanda was teaching his son in his house when his wife was also present there. It is stated that during that time, their maid servant, Kandi was in the courtyard of the house, when respondent No. 1 arrived holding a thenga and his mother respondent No. 2 also came with him holding another thenga. It is alleged that they assaulted the maid servant Kandi resulting her fall on the ground when she shouted for help. Hearing the cry, Raghubir went there and then it is stated that respondent No. 3 caught hold of him, whereafter respondent Nos. 1 and 2 assaulted him with thengas causing bleeding injuries on his person. It is further alleged that when Jashobanta's wife arrived and protested, respondent No. 1 abused her in filthy language and when was approaching her, she out of fear went inside the house and closed the door. On 28.05.1995 around 11.30 A.M., F.I.R. was lodged at Badampahad Police Station and that led to the registration of the case and commencement of investigation. On completion of investigation, the respondents placed for trial for the above offences. 2. During the trial, prosecution examined as many as six witnesses, out of whom, P.W.1 is the informant injured, P.W.2 is his wife, P.Ws.3 and 6 are two co-villagers and witnesses to the seizure, P.W.5 is the doctor, who had examined the injured persons, namely, Raghubir-P.W.1 and Kandi, the maid servant of Raghubir (since not examined), P.W.4 is the investigating officer. Defence has examined none. Besides the examination of above witnesses from the side of the prosecution, the F.I.R. has been admitted in the evidence and marked as Exts.1. Exts.4/1 and 5/1 are the injury reports, whereas Ext.2 is the seizure list relating to seizure of thenga. The trial court on assessment of evidence and upon their analysis has held the prosecution to have not been able to establish the charges against the accused persons. 3. Exts.4/1 and 5/1 are the injury reports, whereas Ext.2 is the seizure list relating to seizure of thenga. The trial court on assessment of evidence and upon their analysis has held the prosecution to have not been able to establish the charges against the accused persons. 3. Learned counsel for the State submits that the trial court was not within its rights to discard evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 merely on the ground of enmity and interestedness when there remains no basic infirmity in their evidence and when, in the facts and circumstances of the case, no such independent corroboration ought to have been insisted upon nor for that reason evidence of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 ought to have been doubted. It is also his submission that taking the factum of admitted enmity into consideration, as per the settled position of law, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 certainly require careful examination and close analysis and in this case those stand for acceptance even after such examination and analysis. It is his next submission that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 smoothly pass through the acid tests so as to be relied upon for the purpose of fastening the guilt upon the respondents. Therefore, he contends that this is fit case for interference with the order of acquittal so as to prevent miscarriage of justice. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the contrary, supports the appreciation of evidence as made by the trial court. It is his contention that the trial court has rightly taken note of the fact that one injured, i.e., the maid servant of P.W.1 having not been examined and the prosecution has rightly been blamed for withholding such evidence. That, according to him, has got adverse impact on the case as that could have provided corroboration to the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. So according to him, for her non-examination it has to be held that the prosecution if would have brought her to the witness box, the correct picture as regards the incident would have been unfolded and that is sought to be suppressed. It is also his submission that the trial court has rightly taken note of the material discrepancies appearing in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 together with their exaggerated version in ultimately concluding that they are not wholly reliable. Therefore, he urges that the appeal appears no merit. 5. It is also his submission that the trial court has rightly taken note of the material discrepancies appearing in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 together with their exaggerated version in ultimately concluding that they are not wholly reliable. Therefore, he urges that the appeal appears no merit. 5. The settled position of law regarding the powers to be exercised by High Court in an appeal against the order of acquittal is that while High Court has full powers to appreciate the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based and to act on its own thereof, it will not do so lightly and will be slow to reverse an acquittal, except for strong and compelling reasons when it differs from that of the trial court. The paramount consideration in the matter is to avoid miscarriage of justice. Of course where two views are possible and the trial court has taken a reasonable view and acquitted the accused, the High Court in appeal cannot interfere with such finding but when there is perverse finding based on erroneous appreciation of evidence and a serious miscarriage of justice has been caused, the High Court has ample power to reverse that finding. 6. Keeping the aforesaid submission in mind and also the settled position of law, as stated, it is now necessary to examine the evidence let in by the prosecution to test the sustainability of the finding as rendered by the trial court. It may be stated here that the defence has taken the plea of complete denial and false implication projecting specific case that the case has been foisted by the informant being aggrieved by the filing of the maintenance case by his mother against him entertaining the suspicion that the husband of the respondent No. 2 was instrumental in getting this case filed with a view to harass these respondents in such a way so that the informant would have a smooth sail in grabbing the ancestral properties of the father of respondent No. 1. 7. It has been stated by P.W.1, the informant, that when on the relevant date and time, their maid servant, Kandi was in the courtyard, all the respondents went together holding thengas and first respondent No. 1 assaulted on her waist and then putting thenga on her chest pushed her. 7. It has been stated by P.W.1, the informant, that when on the relevant date and time, their maid servant, Kandi was in the courtyard, all the respondents went together holding thengas and first respondent No. 1 assaulted on her waist and then putting thenga on her chest pushed her. He although states that at the relevant time, he was teaching his son, he appears to have developed his version in that regard by saying that the place was visible from the place when he was teaching which is not believable first for the reason that P.W.2 is not stating so although she says to be there in that very room and secondly when P.W.1 says that Kandi raised cry after that, it is not so stated by P.W.2 and lastly in the F.I.R. also the said fact is conspicuously missing. Next, he states to have come out of the room, protested and her wife to have followed. It is further stated that respondent No. 1 then gave threats, abused him and assaulted on his hand by that thenga causing swelling and slight bleeding and then again assaulted on his head which being warded off hit on his left palm. It is stated that during then respondent No. 3 arrived there and had held him although, when respondent No. 2 had attempted to assault him, he caught hold of the thenga whereafter she went on instigating the other respondents to assault. Next P.W.2 states that when she was in the room she found the respondents entering into the courtyard holding Thengas and respondent No. 1 to have assaulted their maid servant-Kandi. Even accepting this, in such a situation the conduct on her part or on the part of her husband do not appear to be normal that they would immediately have even no reaction seeing their enemies coming to the courtyard holding Thengas and would watch and see further happening. This also creates doubt in the mind as regards their seeing Kandi being assaulted. It is stated that when her husband P.W.1 went there, he was abused and respondent No. 1 assaulted on his head and then on his left hand. The sequence significantly differs from the evidence of P.W.1. 8. This also creates doubt in the mind as regards their seeing Kandi being assaulted. It is stated that when her husband P.W.1 went there, he was abused and respondent No. 1 assaulted on his head and then on his left hand. The sequence significantly differs from the evidence of P.W.1. 8. On going through the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, it is found that there remains material contradiction with regard to the happening of the said incident that when P.W.1 stated to have been assaulted first by the respondent No. 1 on his head, the same is not stated by P.W.2 and rather she has stated it in a different way. Both these witnesses have admitted that there was long standing dispute between them and the respondents and it was to such an extent that they were not in visiting and talking terms. In such state of affair, in the evidence non-examination of that maid servant-Kandi, cannot be so lightly brushed aside and the facts and circumstances of the case being cumulatively viewed with the factum of enmity, it calls for drawal of adverse inference to the effect that upon her examination the truth as regards the incident would have been unfurled when as discussed above, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 cannot be said to be above board. The explanation given from the side of the prosecution that the maid servant was a deaf and dumb and so withheld is not acceptable for the reason that she had been cited as a charge-sheet witness and the prosecution was not precluded from getting her examined through an expert. The injuries upon the P.Ws.1 and 2 are simple in nature, one on the parietal region and the other one on the dorsum of left hand, whereas the injuries upon P.W.2 are simply one scratch and abrasion when it has been deposed by the P.W.4 the doctor that those are possible in normal course of work. In view of the above discussion of evidence, this Court finds no such strong and compelling reason to take a different view from that of the trial court and thus accords approval to the finding that the prosecution has not been able to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt against the respondents. Consequently, it is held that the order of acquittal is not liable to be interfered with. Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed. Consequently, it is held that the order of acquittal is not liable to be interfered with. Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed