JUDGMENT S.PANDA, J. - Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 2002 is directed against the judgment dated 05.08.2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Puri in Sessions Trial Case No. 147 of 1999 in convicting the appellants for commission of offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life. Criminal Revision No. 468 of 2002 has been filed by the informant challenging the self same order in acquitting the other accused persons under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 10.10.1996 at about 7 P.M. at Govt. Boys’ High School, Nimapara accused-appellants of the Criminal Appeal along with some others being armed with deadly weapons like sword, farsa, lathi etc. chased the deceased and his two friends namely Sangrama Baral and Kiran Chandra Pattnaik @ Lalu. They inflicted number of injuries with such weapons on the deceased and committed murder of the deceased near the vacant quarters of the Headmaster of the School inside the Boy’s High School campus. On the written report of the father of the deceased containing above allegations Nimapara P.S. Case No. 156 dt. 10.10.96 was registered. The matter was investigated into by the O.I.C of the Police Station. The informant and witnesses were examined, spot map was prepared, spot was verified by the Scientific Officer D.F.S.L., Puri, blood stained earth, sample earth, blood stained leaves, sample leaves were sized from the spot. Inquest was made over the dead body and the same was send to P.M. Examination. Wearing apparels of the deceased so collected at the time of P.M. Examination were seized. Accused Alok Mallik while in police custody gave recovery of two swords, the weapons of offence, from a pond of his village which were seized and all the seized articles were sent for chemical examination. Further investigation was taken up from 4.1.97 by the Inspector, C.I.D. (C.B.), Cuttack, who again examined the informant, the scriber of the F.I.R., witnesses, moved for recording of the statements of some of the witnesses u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. made seizure of documents in respect of College Union Election, Nimapara from the office of the Principal of that College and placed charge sheet against the accused persons on 23.3.99. 3. The defence plea of such accused persons was one of complete denial. 3. The defence plea of such accused persons was one of complete denial. They stated that since villagers of the accused persons had complained the authorities about the criminal activities of the deceased and his friends, they have been implicated falsely. 4. In order to bring home the charge, during trial the prosecution had examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited 19 documents. On the other hand, the defence had not examined any witness, but exhibited documents from Ext. A to Ext. Z. The prosecution also proved six Material Objects from M.O.I to M.O.VI. 5. The learned Sessions Judge after threadbare discussion of the materials available on record found that the appellants of CRLA No. 35 of 2002 are the author of the crime and the prosecution has succeeded to bring home the charge under Section 302/34 IPC and accordingly convicted them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of Life. However, the learned Sessions Judge set the other accused persons, i.e. opposite parties 2 to 14 of CRLREV No. 468 of 2002, at liberty under Section 325 (1) Cr. P.C., enjoying the benefit of doubt. 6. Mr. Sarangi, learned counsel for the appellants in CRLA No. 35 of 2002 submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is based on the sole evidence of P.W.2, which is not clear and cogent. When there is no substantive evidence of involvement of the appellants, merely because of the mention of the names of the appellants has been made in the FIR, the impugned order of conviction was passed. He further submits that even though appellants 2 and 4 were not specifically named by P.W.2 and they stand in similar footing like the other accused persons, who have been acquitted, the order of conviction against them is not sustainable. As such the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the appellants are entitled for acquittal. 7. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand contended that so far as appellants in Criminal Appeal is concerned, the Court below has passed order basing on the evidence of the eye witness, P.W.2 so also the evidence of other witnesses. The sentence imposed on the appellants has been properly assessed by the Trial Court and as such, the same calls for no interference by this Court. 8. The sentence imposed on the appellants has been properly assessed by the Trial Court and as such, the same calls for no interference by this Court. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner the Criminal Revision cited the decision in the case of State v. Chaitu Kisan & 9 others, reported in Vol. XXXII, CLT 695, wherein at paragraph-9 and 17, it has been observed as follows:- 9. It is true that the trial Court has the great advantage which is denied to the Court of appeal of seeking the witnesses and watching their demeanour but at the same time it cannot be disputed that, in law (vide Harbans Singh v. State of Punjab and Radha Kishan v. State of U.P.) the powers bestowed on appellate Courts under Section 423, Criminal Procedure Code in hearing appeals against acquittal are not in any way different to the powers bestowed on them in hearing appeals against orders of conviction. Nor can it be claimed that the Judge of first instance is the possessor of infallibility. Like other tribunals there maybe occasions when he goes wrong on a question of fact therefore, all that it comes to is, as observed by the Supreme Court in Harbans Singh v. State of Punjab, that- “In deciding appeals against acquittal the Court of appeal must examine the evidence with particular care, just examine also the reasons on which the order of acquittal was passed and interfere with the order only when satisfied that the view taken by the acquitting Judge is clearly an unreasonable one that itself is a compelling reason for interference for it is the Court’s duty to convict a guilty person when the guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt, no less then it is to acquit the accused person if the guilt is not so established.” 17. The last criticism made by the trial Court relates to the question of identification of the accused persons. It is true that the night was dark but the claim made by the witnesses is that these accused persons were standing at a very short distance and, both the parties being mostly residents of the same village, must have been well known to each other. Therefore, apart from face, they could also identify them by their voice. It is true that the night was dark but the claim made by the witnesses is that these accused persons were standing at a very short distance and, both the parties being mostly residents of the same village, must have been well known to each other. Therefore, apart from face, they could also identify them by their voice. Again, there is also the claim made by the witnesses that when the house was put to fire there was sufficient light at that place and, therefore, there was no difficulty about identification. The only person among these witnesses who was not a permanent resident of the village was P.W. 4. In these circumstances the identification claimed to have been made at least by p.ws. 1, 2, 3 and 5 cannot be held to be unreliable. No doubt in the statement made before the Police, there is no mention made by p.w.5 of the fact that he saw the other accused persons with the aid of the light of fire. But that is at best only an omission and is not available, in law, to be used as substantive piece of evidence to believe his positive statement made at the trial (See Tahasildar Singh v. State of U.P.). According to him, since the witnesses know the assailants, the identification of such assailants is not in doubt. The evidence of witnesses to be believed and the order of acquittal against other accused persons are to be interfered with. He further submits that when the circumstantial evidence corroborates with the evidence of eye witness, the Court below should have convicted such opposite parties 2 to 14 instead of acquitting them giving benefit of doubt to them. Hence such order is acquittal and is liable to be quashed. 9. Learned Standing Counsel for the State, however, supported the claim of the learned counsel for petitioner in the Criminal Revision. 10. Learned Counsel for the opposite parties 2 to 14, on the other hand contended that there were no sufficient materials on record to convict the charge sheeted accused persons and the prosecution has failed its case beyond reasonable doubt and rightly the trial Court has passed the order of acquittal. According to him when two views are possible, the views in favour of the accused persons are to be accepted and the impugned judgment need not be interfered with. 11. According to him when two views are possible, the views in favour of the accused persons are to be accepted and the impugned judgment need not be interfered with. 11. Perused the L.C.R. and went through the evidence on record carefully. It appears that the prosecution has basically founded its case on the basis of statement of the eye witnesses P.W.2, the chain of evidence of the witnesses with regard of alleged incident, so also the statements of the P.W.13, the Doctor, who conducted the post mortem examination, opining that injuries were ante mortem in nature and caused by sharp cutting weapons and the cause of death is haemorrhage and shock out of the injuries. 12. P.W.5, a co-villager of the deceased has deposed that on his way back to his village at about 4.30 P.M. on 10.10.1996, he saw 25 persons including the accused persons were making discussion and from a distance of 8 to 10 cubits he heard one of them saying to set right the deceased that day and on the same day at about 7 P.M., he heard murder of the deceased. 13. P.E.3 another witness had stated that while he was sitting with others near Barabati ground after playing foot ball, he found about 20 persons including the accused persons armed with deadly weapons proceeding by the side of the field towards Government Boy’s High School and 5 to 10 minutes thereafter they returned back, where after P.W.3 heard the shout ‘Maridela Maridela’. When he reached there, he ascertained from P.W.4 and others that 20 to 25 persons of village Bhobanipur assaulted the deceased and fled away. He had seen the present accused-appellants among such group of persons. 14. The above statement also corroborates form the statement of P.W.4, according to whom while he along with Mutu and Hari were talking near Gandhi Mandap, 10 to 30 persons of village Bhobanipur including the accused persons encircled them. When they found that the person whom they were searching was not among them they proceeded towards Sangram, Lalu and the deceased. They chased the deceased and his two other companions. Reaching the spot P.W.4 found that the deceased was lying there dead in a pool of blood. 15. According to the Trial Court, the next linking chain gets support from the evidence of P.W.2, the eye witness to the occurrence. They chased the deceased and his two other companions. Reaching the spot P.W.4 found that the deceased was lying there dead in a pool of blood. 15. According to the Trial Court, the next linking chain gets support from the evidence of P.W.2, the eye witness to the occurrence. According to him at about 6.30 P.M. on 10.10.1996 when he along with deceased and Lalu were sitting near the Statute of Padmanav Mohapatra, near Government Boy’s High School, a group of 30 persons including the accused persons approached them. According to him, accused Raju was armed with Farsa, Chhunchan was armed with sword, which was also marked as M.O.1, Jita with Chapad, Amitav and Prafulla with tadas and Ajit with sword. He also stated that rest of the accused persons were armed with swords. The accused persons chased them. Thus they rushed away from the place. When the deceased tried to escape through the quarter of the Headmaster, he rushed by the side of the quarter of the PET. The deceased was ahead of him. Hearing the shout of the deceased, he looked back from the fence and found the accused persons were assaulting the deceased. They left the place saying that the play was over. Deceased was assaulted for 4 to 5 minutes. He saw the assault on the focus of halogen light of the Puja Mandap. He has narrated the incident to the informant in details. 16. P.W.1, the father of the deceased is the informant in the case. According to him P.W.2 informed him at about 7.05 P.M. with regard to the occurrence. On his way he was informed by P.W.2 about the commission of murder of the deceased and accordingly he had lodged the FIR immediately by indicating the names of the assailants. On his oral version, his brother-in-law has scribed the FIR. The FIR as well as the statement of P.W.1 corroborates the statement of P.W.2, the eye witness to the occurrence. 17. P.W.13, the doctor, who conducted the postmortem examination over the dead body found the following injuries on the body of the deceased. “External Injuries:- (i) Incised wound 8" x 2" horizontally placed on left cheek and back of ear cutting the lower part of left ear. (ii) Incised 11" x 2"x2" involving brain ½” above injury no. 17. P.W.13, the doctor, who conducted the postmortem examination over the dead body found the following injuries on the body of the deceased. “External Injuries:- (i) Incised wound 8" x 2" horizontally placed on left cheek and back of ear cutting the lower part of left ear. (ii) Incised 11" x 2"x2" involving brain ½” above injury no. 1 from upper part of nose on the left side of the face through the left ear to the back of head up to mid line. (iii) Incised wound 6" x 1 “ brain on right side of face from behind the right eye long the right ear to the back of the head. (iv) Incised wound 8" x 12" bone vertically placed on left side of face near nose, from chin to forehead. (v) Incised wound 2" x ½” scalp the flap reflected medially on the right temporal region. (vi) Incised wound 8" x 1" brain on the left parietal region above injury no.v. (vii) Incised wound 6" x 3 “ bone right forearm. (viii) Incised wound 4" x ½” x 1" on lower part of the right arm. (ix) Incised wound on dorsum of right hand 1 “x 1.5” skin. (x) Incised wound on right index finger ½” x ½ x 1". (xi) Incised wound extending from over proximal phalanges of left second, third and fourth fingers of palmer aspect. (xii) Incised wound 5" x 2" x 2 behind left forearm 2" below the elbow. (xiii) Incised wound 3" x 2" x 2" in front of left leg. (xiv) Incised wound 1" x ¼” x ½ “ from left flank pillow axillaela tailing for 1” lateral and liner cut at the other end with bruised edges. (xv) Inside wound 2" x ¼” x1" on left scapular region linaer cut on both angles.” P.W.13 opined that the injuries were ante-mortem in nature caused by heavy cutting weapons and the cause of death is haemorrhage and shock out of the injuries. 18. On verification of the case records by the higher authority as it was found that the investigation was defective, the case was further investigated by the Inspector. CID, Crime Branch, Cuttack. 19. Admittedly, except P.W.2 others are the post occurrence witness and none of them saw the assault made by any of the accused. 18. On verification of the case records by the higher authority as it was found that the investigation was defective, the case was further investigated by the Inspector. CID, Crime Branch, Cuttack. 19. Admittedly, except P.W.2 others are the post occurrence witness and none of them saw the assault made by any of the accused. Enough day-light was there at 6.30 P.M. in the evening of the month of October and P.W.2 has also mentioned about the halogen light of the Puja Mandap. So the visibility was not doubtful. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the statement of P.W.2 There is also nothing to disbelieve the presence of P.W.2 at the spot, at the time of occurrence. Taking all the materials o n record, there is no force in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants in the Criminal Appeal to interfere with the impugned order. 20. So far as Criminal Revision is concerned, as discussed herein above paragraphs, P.W.2 in his evidence on record since has not specifically stated regarding the overt act committed by opposite parties 2 to 14, on an omnibus allegation, the order of acquittal should not be interfered with. Accordingly, we are not inclined to interfere with the said order of acquittal against the opposite parties 2 to 14. The Criminal Appeal and Criminal Revision stands dismissed accordingly. 21. The appellants of the Criminal Appeal were released n bail pursuant to the order of this Court dated 12.09.2002 and 08.10.2002. In view of the dismissal of the Criminal Appeal, the bail bonds so furnished be cancelled and the said appellants be taken into custody forthwith. Appeal dismissed.