JUDGMENT The State in this appeal has called in question the order of acquittal passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Bargarh in Sessions Case Nos. 237/15 of 1994 acquitting the Respondent of the charges under Sections 307/427/149 I.P.C. 2. Facts necessary for disposal of the above appeal run as under: On 07.11.1993 at 9.00 am Barik Bhoi (P. W.1) with his son, Motilal (P.W.4) & the daughter-in-law, Gurubari, (P.W.2) were working on a plot of land standing in Government Khata, locally known as 'Chimergher land'. It is stated that they had grown groundnut crop over it. The Respondents with 40 to 50 others of village Banjipali arrived there being armed with tangia & sticks. It is alleged that first of all they allowed three herds of cattle to trespass over the land causing damage to the groundnut crop & then the Respondents & others uprooted the plants causing further damage. So, Motilal first protested when Respondent Subash assaulted him with a spade being joined by other Respondents causing bleeding injuries or his person. Next when Gurubari protested, the Respondents namely, Bipin & Iswar assaulted her by means of stick causing bleeding injuries on her person. It is said that Respondent Laxman was instigating other Respondents to take away the life of Motilal & Gurubari, It is stated that when Barik protested, Respondent Pabitra assaulted him by means of an umbrella on his back. On hearing above incident, Amar Bhoi (P.W.3) another son of the complainant arrived there at the scene of occurrence & protested; so the Respondents Iswar & Bipin tied him with a rope. It is further alleged that Respondents, namely, Ananda, Kumbhapani, Pabitra, Narsingha, Tichu & Bishnu assaulted him by means of stick causing injury on his person. Barik Bhoi then lodged the F.I.R. marked Ext.1 at Barpali P.S. on the very day of the occurrence. So, the case was registered & investigation commenced. On completion of investigation, the Respondents were placed for the trial for the above noted offences by way of submission of charge-sheet & they having been acquitted of all those charges, the present appeal has come to be filed at the behest of the State. 3. During trial, prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses when the defence examined none despite of the opportunity. 3. During trial, prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses when the defence examined none despite of the opportunity. Besides the above, the prosecution proved the F.I.R. as Ext.1, medical examination reports of those injured persons besides proving other, documents. The Trial Court upon evaluation of evidence & on appreciation of the same has first come to conclusion that the evidence is not there on record to establish the fact that on the relevant date & time, the Respondents are in anywhere responsible for causing damage to the crops on the land in question by engaging cattle etc. Next, it has concluded that the prosecution case that the Respondents damaged the property of P.W.1 has also not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. So, genesis of the occurrence has been doubted by the Trial Court. Then coming to the question of assault upon the members of the prosecution party, the Trial Court has first held. that the Respondents have not caused injury to P.W. 3 as the same has not been established beyond reasonable doubt through clear, cogent & acceptable evidence & also their roles causing injury upon others as alleged by the prosecution. With such findings, the order of acquittal has been recorded. 4. Learned Counsel for the State submits that the evidence of the prosecution on record are overwhelming in establishing the fact that the Respondents being the aggressors, had damaged the crops on the land in question & then on being protested have assaulted the members of the prosecution party such as P.W. 1 to P.W. 4. It is his further submission that some flimsy reasons have been assigned by the Trial Court & picking up some minor discrepancies from the evidence of prosecution witnesses the Trial Court has doubted their version raised suspicion & next doubt having been entertained as regards the case of the prosecution about the incident which had taken place in different phases, the order of acquittal has been recorded. So, he submits that the appreciation of evidence as done by the Trial Court is unjust & improper & consequently the finding against the case of the prosecution is perverse which calls for interference in this appeal in order to prevent miscarriage of justice. So, he submits that the appreciation of evidence as done by the Trial Court is unjust & improper & consequently the finding against the case of the prosecution is perverse which calls for interference in this appeal in order to prevent miscarriage of justice. Learned Counsel for the Respondents on the contrary, supports the approach of the Trial Court & its appreciation of evidence as also the final finding rendered against the case of the prosecution. According to him, as the parties were having enmity, the Trial Court has rightly put itself on 'guard in cautiously approaching the evidence for due appreciation. It is also his submission that the discrepancies pointed out by the Trial Court can never be stated to be minor in the facts & circumstances & those being on material aspects, the Trial Court could not have sidelined. In view of all these, he contends that the appeal bears no merit & is liable to be dismissed. 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 & to act on its own thereof, it will not do so lightly & will be slow to reverse an acquittal, except for strong & 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 & the Trial Court has taken a reasonable view & 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 & a serious miscarriage of justice has been caused, the High Court has ample power to reverse that finding. 6. Keeping the aforesaid settled position of law in mind also the rival submission of the Learned Counsel for the parties, let us approach the evidence of the prosecution with regard to different phases of the incident in order to judge the sustainability of the finding of the Trial Court. 6. Keeping the aforesaid settled position of law in mind also the rival submission of the Learned Counsel for the parties, let us approach the evidence of the prosecution with regard to different phases of the incident in order to judge the sustainability of the finding of the Trial Court. The prosecution in the case has proved that Motilal (P.W.4) has sustained the injury on his person although it has not been proved to be grievous in nature, but that has been proved to have been caused by sharp cutting weapon as per the evidence of the medical officer P.W.9 who had examined him. It has also been proved that Gurubari. (P.W. 2) had sustained one lacerated wound on right parietal area of the scalp being simple in nature. The medical evidence & the injury reports on the above score, Exts. 3 & 5 have not been challenged. P.W. 3 being examined by the medical officer, the injury report in respect of him has been proved as Ext. 4 to the effect that he had sustained bruises which is also not challenged. So the fact that P.W. 2 to 4 had sustained the above injuries stands established. This is now takes us to find out the complicity of the Respondents, if any in causing such injuries upon P. W. 2 to 4. 7. The occurrence as projected by the side of the prosecution has taken place in three phases, one after another. Firstly it is stated that the Respondent & others having arrived, put those cattle for damaging the crop grown by the members of the prosecution party in causing the damage; secondly the Respondents themselves up-rooted those plants in causing further damage & lastly that when one member of the prosecution party after the other, raised protest, they were assaulted by one Respondent or the other. In such state of affair, as it appears, the Trial Court has rightly approached the evidence for appreciation with regard to each phase in order to take a cumulative view at last. 8. The F.I.R. Ext. 1 from the very beginning does not implicate the Respondent Laxman as having played any part therein. It has been stated in the F.I.R. that the Respondents with 50 others had allowed cattle to the field to cause damage to the crop raised therein. 8. The F.I.R. Ext. 1 from the very beginning does not implicate the Respondent Laxman as having played any part therein. It has been stated in the F.I.R. that the Respondents with 50 others had allowed cattle to the field to cause damage to the crop raised therein. However, it has been stated by P.W.1, that twelve to thirteen boys were with the three herds of cattle on the case land for about three hours & when the cattle were there, the villagers entered over the land. Further evidence is that these three herds of cattie were being followed by thirteen to fourteen boys & the numbers of cattle were about fifteen to sixteen, when about sixty one persons were on the land. Now P.W.4, the son of P.W. 1 has deposed that the Respondents were .not diverting the cattle into the case land, but then some boys of the age group of ten to twelve numbering around twenty were tending cattle on the land. So, the prosecution case that it is the Respondents who firstly allowed those cattle into the field with intent to cause damage to the crop raised by the P.W. 1 & others & damages were caused thereby is not acceptable & thus not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Now comes next factual aspect in the direction of complicity of the Respondents as to if they had personally damaged the crop by entering into the land. Adverting to the F.I.R. version, it is seen that it finds mention therein that the Respondents & 50 others forcibly up-rooted the plants & caused damage to the crop thereby. P.W.1 has stated that this was being done by forty to fifty persons by using spade. He has not able to name any of them. This shows that he is not implicating any of these Respondents to be there among those forty to fifty persons. In cross-examination, he stated that all of them were aggressors including the Respondents & they started up-rooting the plants for about one minute soon after their entry to the land. P.W.2 when States that the Respondents with others uprooted the plants, the same is also the version of P.W.4 that all the aggressors including the Respondents started up-rooting within one minute of their entry. P.W.2 when States that the Respondents with others uprooted the plants, the same is also the version of P.W.4 that all the aggressors including the Respondents started up-rooting within one minute of their entry. But interestingly, another eyewitness P.W.5's version is to the effect that when P.W.4 was assaulted by the Respondents, other aggressors membering about thirty to forty were uprooting the plants. From his version it appears that the Respondents were not amongst those who were damaging the crop. Another eye witnesses Rama Chandra Salma (P.W.6) stated in a generalized manner that the aggressors were uprooting the plants. But he also straightway excludes these Respondents from said role by deposing that they were not among those & such uprooting was not by them. In such state of affair in the evidence, the second phase of the incident has been held to have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the Trial Court. This Court in view of above discussion of evidence, is also not in a position to take a view contrary to the one taken by the Trial Court. 9. The last phase of the incident is that P.W. 3, Amar has been assaulted when he arrived at last & it is said that he was assaulted by the Respondents. In F.I.R. Ext. 1, it is stated that Amar's assault was known to P.W. 1 later & when Amar was tied & then he was being assaulted it was seen by Kathu Mehera & Pawan Meher. However, neither P.W. 2 nor P.W. 4 have breathed a word about the assault upon P.W. 3. P.W. 3 has stated that on his arrival, he found thirty to forty persons along with the Respondents were engaged in uprooting the plants. When he raised protest, Respondents Iswar & Bipin caught hold of him, tied him by means of rope when Respondents namely, Ananda, Kumbhapani, Pabitra, Narsingha, Pichu & Bishnu assaulted by stick. All the prosecution witnesses have not come forward to corroborate the said testimony of P.W. 3, on the score that he was assaulted by the Respondents having been tied by the rope. The F.I.R does not find mention the names of the assailants who had assaulted P.W. 3. All the prosecution witnesses have not come forward to corroborate the said testimony of P.W. 3, on the score that he was assaulted by the Respondents having been tied by the rope. The F.I.R does not find mention the names of the assailants who had assaulted P.W. 3. So, the above evidence of, P. W.3 do not receive any corroboration from the F.I. R. In view of this, the Trial Court entertaining doubt as regards the establishment of such fact is found to be justified., 10. Next as regards the assault by the Respondents upon P. W. 2 to 4, the Trial Court has made elaborate discussion in para 11, 12, 13 & 14 of the Judgment. P.W.1's evidence is that the Responden1 Laxman instigated other Respondents to take away the life of the P.W.1 & 4 at the spot. Evidence of P.W. 4 is also on that point. But surprisingly enough, the name of Laxman is conspicuously absent in the F.I.R. (Ext.1) as one of the aggressors being there at the relevant time of the incident. P.W. 5 & 6 also do not state anything Implicating the Respondent Laxman. In view of above, the evidence of P.W.1 & 4 as regards his involvement is not believable & the Trial Court appears to have rightly so held. 11. About assault upon P.W. 1 to P.W. 4, out of the two independent witnesses namely, Mula Bhoi & Mona Chhatar, the prosecution has only examined Mana who has come to the witness box as P.W. 5. Next with regard to assault on P.W. 3; the independent witnesses are Kathu Meher & Pawan MeheL When Kathu Mehera has not been examined; Pawan Meher has been examined as P.W. 7. It is seen from FIR that it has been stated therein that the alleged occurrence had been seen by witnesses Mula & Mana. So citing the other two later to have been seen is not free from doubt. It is stated in FIR that P.W. 1 came to know about assault on P.W. 3 later, So, the prosecution's attempt to prove that part from the lips of Pawan Mehera appears to be a later development. P.W. 1 again says contrary to the above that when P.W. 4 was being assaulted, Kathu & Pawan were there. P.W.2 states that when she & P.W. 4 were assaulted they were present. P.W. 1 again says contrary to the above that when P.W. 4 was being assaulted, Kathu & Pawan were there. P.W.2 states that when she & P.W. 4 were assaulted they were present. All these are running contrary to the F.I.R. story & are irreconcilable. P.W. 5 states in his evidence that the Respondent Subash assaulted P.W. 4 with the blunt side of the spade & then the Respondents assaulted him. When P.W. 5 has stated that Respondent Bishnu assaulted P. W. 2 by a stick, he has not so in his prior statement before the investigating officer that Respondent Subash assaulted P.W.4 by means of spade & other Respondents thereafter assaulted him. This P.W. 5 has not stated before the investigating officer that the Respondent Bishnu assaulted P.W. 2. It having been confronted to the I.O. has been duly proved. Thus, now the evidence of P.W. 5 with regard to that part stands as an introduction during trial. The witness has also failed to identify the Respondents namely, Pabitra & Bishnu during trial. So, the Trial Court has rightly held said evidence of P.W.5 be unsafe to be relied upon being not trustworthy. As it appears on threadbare analysis of the evidence on record & evaluation in view of variance in the evidence of the injured witnesses & on the face of the discrepancies the Trial Court has finally held .the case of the prosecution as laid to have not been established beyond reasonable doubt. The appreciation of evidence by Trial Court for the above discussion does not appear to be flawed. On reappreciation of evidence as ma-de above, this Court also finds no justification to disturb the finding of the Trial Court against the case of the prosecution. 12. Resultantly, the Appeal stands dismissed.