NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH, J.:–The present appeal is against acquittal. The private respondents were charged for an offence punishable under Section 307 and other sections of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant is the alleged injured informant. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the informant/appellant and perused the judgment. 3. In our view, there is no case for interference. The trial Court has examined the evidence, as given by the prosecution, and has come to a finding that the so-called eye witnesses, who are all closely related being brother-in-law, mother and the informant himself, had contradicted each other in every aspect of the case. Some of the other independent witnesses did not support prosecution case. 4. In that view of the matter, the trial Court was of the view that the guilt of the accused persons was not established beyond reasonable doubt. It is not shown that the finding is either perverse or contrary to records. 5. Thus, we find no merit in this appeal. It is dismissed accordingly.