Judgment J.P. Das, J. This appeal is directed against the order dated 28/08/1995 passed by the learned C.J.M.-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Puri in S.T. Case no. 16/6/101 of 1991/1990 acquitting the accused-respondents from the charges under Sections 148/452/307/34 IPC. 2. The prosecution story as reported before the police was that on 13.05.1988 at about 8.30 a.m. the informant Sudarsan Naik along with his brothers Gangadhar Naik and Chakradhar Naik went near their mango tree and found that all the accused persons were standing there being armed with different weapons like lathi, bhala, tenta etc., and the accused Rusia Bhoi was plucking mango climbing on the tree. The informant protested to such action of the accused persons and an altercation followed. Hearing the shouts, Laximidhar, the brother of the informant, came there and he was assaulted by the accused persons causing bleeding injuries and he fell down there unconscious. Then the accused persons also assaulted the informant and thereafter entering inside his house also assaulted his brother, sisters and mother by different weapons and damaged a cycle and pelted stones to their house. After the F.I.R. was lodged, the injured persons were medically examined and on completion of investigation the charge sheet was submitted against 11 accused persons. 3. The accused persons faced the trial with a plea of denial with a further plea that when they were plucking mango from their tree, the informant group came there being armed with weapons and assaulted them causing injuries for which they had reported before the police and in order to escape from the liability, this case had been foisted. 4. As many as 14 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution as against none preferred in defence. The learned trial Court on discussion of the evidence, both oral and documentary, came to the findings that the charges, as framed, could not be established by the prosecution against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts and hence, giving the benefit of doubt, he pronounced the impugned judgment of acquittal. 5. It has been submitted in the appeal filed on behalf of the Government that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the consistent evidence of the informant and his injured family members regarding the occurrence and has wrongly held the informant group as the aggressor. 5. It has been submitted in the appeal filed on behalf of the Government that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the consistent evidence of the informant and his injured family members regarding the occurrence and has wrongly held the informant group as the aggressor. It has been further submitted that the learned trial Court has erroneously harped upon the discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses regarding the sequence and modes of assault when the medical evidence well supported the prosecution case. It was submitted by the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State that when there was series of assault by different accused persons, it is not expected that all the witnesses could have remembered the exact sequence of assault. 6. It is not disputed that there has been a counter case for the same occurrence, which remained admitted in the evidence of the Investigating Officer. I have carefully gone through the evidence on record and the findings of the learned Trial Court since none appeared on behalf of the respondents for hearing. The learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State was also heard. 7. The prosecution has examined 14 witnesses in support of its cases against none preferred by the accused persons in defence. The P.Ws. 1 to 7 are the injured informant group. The P.Ws. 8 and 11 are two independent persons examined as occurrence witnesses, P.Ws. 12 and 14 are the medical officers who examined the injured persons and the P.W. 13 is the Investigating officer. 8. The learned trial Court on detailed discussion of the evidence of the occurrence witnesses has disbelieved their versions on the grounds of discrepancies, exaggerations and contradictions. Firstly, all the injured witnesses went on to narrate the incident as to who assaulted whom, by what weapon of offence and causing what injury. But juxtaposing their statements with each other, there appeared number of contradictions making their statements vulnerable to doubt. In this respect the learned Addl. Standing Counsel relying on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1971 SC page 1450, contended that when there are large number of accused involved in the occurrence, it is but natural that the witnesses get bit confused. The position is not disputed. In this respect the learned Addl. Standing Counsel relying on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1971 SC page 1450, contended that when there are large number of accused involved in the occurrence, it is but natural that the witnesses get bit confused. The position is not disputed. But here the witnesses went on to narrate the incident while their subsequent evidence in cross-examination showed that they had no occasion to see the same. That showed that either they were using their sweet imagination to narrate the occurrence or they were telling blatant falsehood. To cite a few examples, P.W.1, the informant Sudarsan Naik stated in his F.I.R. that while he along with his two brothers namely Gangadhar Naik and Chakradhar Naik went near their mango tree, they found the accused persons plucking mangoes engaging one Rusia Bhoi and on their objection an altercation followed and thereafter they were assaulted by the accused persons. But in his evidence before the court he stated that while he was returning alone from the temple he found the accused persons plucking mangoes and when he objected he was assaulted and hearing his shouts his brother Laxmidhar rushed to the spot to rescue him and he was assaulted by the accused persons. Further he went on narrating the assault on himself and on his brother Laxmidhar and stated that the accused persons entering inside his house also assaulted his brothers, mother and sisters. But in his cross-examination he stated that being assaulted by the accused persons he ran inside his house and closed himself inside a room at the back of their house without raising any shout and came out of that room after the accused persons left the place. Thus he could not have seen the assault on the other inmates of the house which he narrated in his examination in chief. Obviously these are serious contradictions to be lost sight of. Similarly, Laxmidhar the brother of the informant stated that being assaulted near the mango tree he fell down unconscious near the tree and subsequently regained sense at home. Thus he had not seen the assault on the inmates of the house. Again the details of injuries stated by this witness as P.W. 2 to have been sustained by him did not match with the injuries found by the doctor during medical examination. Thus he had not seen the assault on the inmates of the house. Again the details of injuries stated by this witness as P.W. 2 to have been sustained by him did not match with the injuries found by the doctor during medical examination. Similarly another brother namely Gangadhar who has been examined as P.W. 3 stated that he was assaulted by lathi and bhali sustaining bleeding and piercing injuries whereafter he fell down unconscious. But the doctor found only a cut injury and one bruise on P.W.3 and the learned trial court has observed that it is difficult to believe that with such injuries a person would loose his sense. Similar is the case in respect of P.Ws. 4 to 7 and the other inmates of the house who went on telling the details of assault and injuries sustained by them but those were not supported by the medical evidence. 9. Now coming to the evidence of two independent witnesses, P.W.8 stated that the P.W. 7, mother of the informant, came to his house and requested him to go near the mango tree since there was assault and counter assault. Going near the tree he found the accused persons as one group and the informant and his brothers in another group were engaged in assault and counter assault being armed with different kinds of weapons like lathi, bhali etc. When he requested the persons to refrain from such act it was not paid heed to and hence, he left the spot. The other independent witness P.W.11 stated that hearing on hulla from the bari side of P.W.1 he found the accused persons assaulting the informant and his brother. Thereafter P.W.1 came away to his house and he along with P.W.8 brought P.W.2 who was lying unconscious near the tree to his house and thereafter the accused persons pelted brick bats to the house of the P.W.1. This witness was totally silent about the accused persons entering inside the house of the informant and assaulting the other inmates. This witness has not been disowned by the prosecution. 10. Thus the evidence of the informant group did not get support from the independent witnesses to establish their case beyond all reasonable doubts. Learned trial court in the judgment has made a thread bare discussion of the statements of the injured witnesses namely P.Ws. This witness has not been disowned by the prosecution. 10. Thus the evidence of the informant group did not get support from the independent witnesses to establish their case beyond all reasonable doubts. Learned trial court in the judgment has made a thread bare discussion of the statements of the injured witnesses namely P.Ws. 1 to 7, vis-à-vis the medical evidence placed on behalf of the prosecution showing glaring differences. 11. Taking into consideration these aspects, it cannot be said that the discrepancies appearing in the evidence of the witnesses besides the contradictions can be over ruled since a group of accused persons were engaged in the assault. That apart it remained admitted that there was a counter case and on confrontation to the Investigating Officer, it has been brought on the record that the case filed by the accused persons was registered earlier. The accused persons had also sustained injuries. It remains admitted on the evidence of the prosecution itself that there was a group fight with assault and counter assault and in such circumstances it can never to be said that the accused persons were aggressors so as to be liable under the alleged offences. 12. Learned trial court has rightly observed that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts and the accused persons were entitled to the benefit of doubts. I find no compelling reason to take a different view from what has been taken by the learned trial court. It may also be mentioned here that as per the settled position of law when two views are possible in a given circumstance, the views favouring the accused persons taken by the learned trial court should not be ordinarily interfered with. In the result of my aforesaid discussions and findings, the appeal merits no consideration and accordingly dismissed.