JUDGMENT : D. Dash, J. 1. The State in this appeal has called in question the order of acquittal dated 31.8.1995 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge. Chatrapur in S.C. No. 51/345 of 1992 acquitting the respondent of the charge under Section 395, I.P.C. Prosecution case is that on 10.8.1991 night when informant PW 1 and his wife PP3 were sleeping in the bedroom of their house and his married daughter with her husband. PWs 2 and 4 respectively were sleeping in another room, around 11.30 p.m. he heard the sound of breaking open of the entrance door. No sooner did he wake up, he saw four culprits including respondent forcing their entry into the room. It is stated that the respondent guarded him and warned him not to make any nullah for else to face dire consequences. At that time another culprit closed his mouth and two others went and caught hold of his wife and snatched away the gold necklace from her person. It is also stated that one of them assaulted his wife. Next they went to the other room and broke upon the same, when the informant's daughter and son-in-law started running away through the backside door of the room. It is next stated that one more culprit was guarding the house from backside. So, he chased the son-in-law of the informant but failed in his attempt. The daughter of the informant had then concealed her presence underneath a straw heap. The culprits searched for her by focusing torch light and finding her brought to the house. They took away the gold necklace, gold chain and gold ring which she was wearing. She was then asked to disclose the place of concealment of property. Out of fear to life he pointed out the box kept in the house which was then broken and cash of Rs. 10,000 lying inside was looted away. All the culprit thereafter decamped carrying away the properties. The matter could not be reported at the police station immediately because it was dead of night. So on the next day information was given to the police station which initiated registration of the case. Police visited the spot and saw the damage caused to the door of the rooms and other articles. Police also seized damaged articles lying. The matter could not be reported at the police station immediately because it was dead of night. So on the next day information was given to the police station which initiated registration of the case. Police visited the spot and saw the damage caused to the door of the rooms and other articles. Police also seized damaged articles lying. The respondent was arrested and when other culprits were not traced out, charge-sheet was submitted against the respondent for offence under Section 395 I.P.C. and accordingly the respondent faced the trial. 2. During trial the plea of the appellant is that of complete denial and false implication. It is stated that his child was being treated by the informant who treats patients by giving herbal medicines as an Ayurved practitioner and due to wrong treatment, the child expired for which he had abused the informant. Therefore, bearing grudge on account of the same, the present case has been foisted against him. 3. During trial, prosecution has examined in total nine witnesses, when the defence has examined one. As already stated PW 1 is the informant in whose house the dacoity was committed PW3 is his wife, whereas PWs 2 and 4 are the daughter and son-in-law respectively. Thus, all these witnesses have been examined as inmates of the house. PW 1 being the nephew of the informant has come to the dock as PW6 and his house is also situated nearby. Another co-villager has been examined as PW5. The Investigating Officers are PWs 7 and 8 whereas the doctor has also been examined in the case as PW9. 4. The Trial Court upon evaluation of evidence of PWs 1, 2, 3 and 4 and also that of PW5 has found those to be inconsistent with one another and to be differing on material particulars. So, on the face of the admitted case that this respondent much earlier was known to PW 1 and was in visiting terms to his house having some reason for PW 1 to be annoyed with him, the evidence on record has not been found to be satisfactory and accordingly it has been found that there has been failure on the part of the prosecution to establish the charge by way of clear, cogent and reliable evidence. This Trial Court has not believed the evidence that the respondent was there as one of the members of the group who had entered into his house and looted away the articles. As it appears the Trial Court has further viewed the prosecution case with suspicion in view of the discrepancy appearing in the evidence of PW1 as well as the FIR narration. So, the complicity of this respondent has not been found to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the evidence on the above score having not been found to be above board the order of acquittal has been passed which is impugned in this appeal. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant State submits that here the Trial Court has not gone to appreciate the evidence being drifted away from the reality that in an incident of this kind at such odd hour inmates of a house being totally surprised remaining in a panic stricken state would be remembering to depose in Court after long lapse of time in titbit details and that to again all will be going to testify without any variation. It is his contention that such type of variation in the evidence of inmates of the house and also some discrepancy are bound to occur. According to him in this case, those have been given much stress by the Trial Court when there remains no such material contradiction in their evidence or such great divergence so as to completely destroy the substratum of the prosecution case and disbelieve the presence of the respondent altogether at the crime scenario. Thus, he urges that it is a fit case for interference with the order of acquittal. 6. Learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand, supports the finding of the Trial Court. It is his submission that such strict scrutiny of evidence has been rightly done by the Trial Court as it was necessary as per law, in the facts and circumstances. In view of the fact that here the respondent being a person having earlier acquaintance had paid visit to the informant and being fully acquainted with the informant and his family members this case has been hatched against him. And as their remains the scope of false implication for the reason as stated by DW1, the Court below has performed its legal duty. And as their remains the scope of false implication for the reason as stated by DW1, the Court below has performed its legal duty. Therefore, he submits that no fault can be found with the view of the Trial Court. He further contends that in the case, the narration of the FIR greatly differs with the evidence of PW1 and such variations cannot lightly be brushed aside. He further submits that though minor contradictions are not to be given importance of in the present case, the Trial Court has not given importance to those minor contradictions but only to the major contradictions. With pain, he has placed the depositions of all the witnesses in course of argument. Thus, he submits that the appreciation of evidence made by the Trial Court is in conformity with the settled principles of law and the order of acquittal having been founded upon the same, it does not warrant interference. 7. Before going to re-appreciate the evidence in the light of the contentions as advanced, it is felt apposite to take note of the settled position of law with regard to the scope and power of this Court for interference with the order of acquittal. It has been held in case of Basappa Vs. State of Karnataka that the High Court in an appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. is entitled to reappraise the evidence and put the conclusions drawn by the Trial Court to test but the same is permissible only if the judgment of the Trial Court is perverse. Relying the case of Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao and Others Vs. State of A.P. thr. Secretary it has been held that the word "perverse" in terms as understood in law has been defined to mean 'against weight of evidence'. In K. Prakashan Vs. P.K. Surenderan it has also been held that the Appellate Court should not reverse the acquittal merely because another view is possible on evidence. It has been clarified that if two views are reasonably possible on the very same evidence, it cannot be said that prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt T. Subramanian Vs. State of Tamil Nadu. Further, the interference by Appellate Court against an order of acquittal is held to be justified only if the view taken by the Trial Court is one which no reasonable person would in the given circumstances, take Bhim Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu. Further, the interference by Appellate Court against an order of acquittal is held to be justified only if the view taken by the Trial Court is one which no reasonable person would in the given circumstances, take Bhim Singh Vs. State of Haryana, . 8. So, let's now take up the exercise in appreciating the evidence in the light of the submission advanced as above keeping in mind the settled position stated in the forgoing paras in judging the defensibility of the finding of the Trial Court. 9. Admittedly, the respondent is known to the informant and his family members much prior to the incident. It is not denied that he was in visiting terms to the house of the PW 1 who was an Ayurved practitioner in the rural pocket. It is also the case that except this respondent none other have been traced out. So, it is required to be examined as to whether presence of the respondent with the role attributed to him being in the house of PW1 on the dead of night has been established beyond reasonable doubt through reliable evidence as so to safely arrive at a conclusion in that regard. As already stated PWs 1 to 4 are the inmates of the house. The respondent was working for sometimes with one S. Rajaya of the village of the informant as a field servant and had also gone to the house of the respondent to bring Ayurvedic medicines. Thus, PW1 and other inmates of his house had earlier known this respondent and had the acquaintance. The informant PW1 first states that the respondent with three other culprits entered into the room where he was sleeping with his wife, when his wife was assaulted. He has admitted during cross-examination to have not stated before police that respondent with his friends had entered into his house and committed dacoity. He specifically states that respondent gave two lathi blows to his wife PWS. Now PW3 states that five persons had entered into the house and out of them one caught hold of PW1 and two others robbed her and they assaulted her. She is not stating to have been assaulted by this respondent. She further states that when those culprits went to the other room, she with PW1 came out of the house and raised hullah. She is not stating to have been assaulted by this respondent. She further states that when those culprits went to the other room, she with PW1 came out of the house and raised hullah. But PW1 is stating the details of happening in the other room and about her daughter being robbed and more specifically that respondent compelled PW2 to state about the keeping place of other articles, whereas PW2 states that all compelled her to disclose. However, PW 1 latter admits to have heard from PW2. The daughter of PW1 examined as PW2 has stated that she had seen the respondent inside her bedroom after she was brought from the courtyard and she had seen him committing the robbery of her gold ornaments and looting of cash from chest PW4, the husband of PW2 has stated that hearing cry of PWS and out of fear, he with his wife PW2 escaped through the back door of the house and then one culprit chased him to assault and that after lapse of time when he came back, he found villagers to have already assembled near the house. This is not stated by other inmates. The FIR scenario is to the effect that four culprits broke open the entrance door and made their entry to the second room. It is stated that two guarded him when other two robbed PW3 and when PW3 shouted, one assaulted her and this respondent is not implicated to have assaulted PW3. It is further stated in Ext. 1 that the respondent had guarded him. It further reveals from the FIR version that another culprit had assaulted his wife. It has been further stated by him that one culprit caught hold of him, closed his mouth by hands and then the respondent gave two lathi blows on his wife when others snatched away the necklace from the neck of his wife. Careful reading of evidence of PW1 and his FIR version shows the discrepancy on material particulars. The Trial Court on detail analysis of evidence has found exaggeration and embellishment. More importantly, PW3 admits to have not stated before IO as having not identified the respondent and that she heard it from PWs 1 and 2. Again she has stated before I.O. that the doors were closed, so her husband went to the roof and raised hullah which also runs contrary to the version of PW1. More importantly, PW3 admits to have not stated before IO as having not identified the respondent and that she heard it from PWs 1 and 2. Again she has stated before I.O. that the doors were closed, so her husband went to the roof and raised hullah which also runs contrary to the version of PW1. Then again she states to have gone out of the house. She further admits to have stated before I.O. that after culprits were away they came out and raised hullah. These discrepancies are not minor so as to be ignored saying that those normally occur. Rather such discrepancies being material, those throw doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case particularly as regards the presence of respondent and the role as projected. Another aspect cannot be lost sight of that what PW1 states, the same differs with evidence of inmates of the house on the aspect of presence and role of respondent right from the time of entry of culprits till they decamped. It is stated that when neighbours arrived, the respondent and other culprits were still available inside the room of his daughter. So, due to that non-examination of anyone of them calls for drawal of adverse information that had they been examined, truth would have surfaced which would have provided corroboration to the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3 pressing hard to accept their testimony oath for being acted upon. PW5 has not supported the prosecution case and the other witness PW6 is the nephew of PW1. On cumulative assessment of the evidence on record, in view of the inconsistency in the evidence of witnesses and also with the FIR version, the Trial Court's finding that the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt as regards the presence and the role of the respondent in the house at the relevant night with other culprits is not found to be reasonable. For the aforesaid discussion of evidence and upon their reappraisal, this Court do not find any such justifiable reason to interfere with the order, of acquittal of the respondent. Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed