ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. The complainant challenges the acquittal of the respondents accused of the offences under Section 302/34 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as made by the High Court of Chhattisgarh in reversal of the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Court. 3. We have perused the order of the High Court under challenge and considered the relevant part of the evidence tendered by the witnesses examined in the case. We have also heard the learned counsels for the parties. 4. P.W.5 (Shyamlal) who is the sole eye-witness has been found by the High Court to be unworthy of credit in view of serious inconsistencies in his evidence. We cannot find any fault with the aforesaid conclusion of the High Court. 5. Insofar as the circumstantial evidence is concerned, according to the P.W.4 (Vinayaka Yadav), the accused No.1 – Goverdhan Yadav had threatened P.W.4 and her husband (deceased) to the effect that he will kill them if they had got married. P.W. 17 (Francis Khalko) and P.W. 22 (Nand Kishore Yadav) have deposed that they have seen the respondents accused near the place of occurrence. The aforesaid statements of P.W. 17 and P.W. 22 were made after about six months from the date of the incident. 6. If in the aforesaid facts the High Court had taken the view that the circumstances apart from creating suspicion against the respondents accused do not conclusively prove the guilt, we cannot find fault with the said conclusion of the High Court. The view taken by the High Court is a possible view with which we should not be interfering in an appeal against an order of acquittal. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeals by the complainant are dismissed and the order of the High Court is affirmed.