JUDGMENT : S.K. MISHRA, J. 1. In this Government Appeal the State of Orissa challenges the judgment of acquittal recorded with respect to the respondents, who are accused persons in Sessions Trial Case No.16/99 of 1987. The IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Puri vide judgment dated 20th February, 1989 has acquitted the accused persons of the offences for which they have been charged. It is borne out from the record that killing of two persons and hurting quite a few other witnesses for which offences under Sections 302/323/325/34 of the I.P.C. have been variously framed against different accused persons. 2. The case of the prosecution in short is that P.W.1, Chailla Pradhan, on 11.12.1985 at about 9.30 P.M. submitted an oral report before the Satyabadi P.S. at Sakhigopal Government Hospital alleging that at about 4 P.M. he along with deceased Jugal Pradhan and Abhaya Pradhan and the injured Maheswar Pradhan were going to their lands located at Mankudidhipa Danda to collect the paddy sheaves. When both the deceased and Maheswar proceeded ahead, the informant was walking at the back. At that time they saw the accused persons were cutting paddy in the disputed Anabadi Plot No.1484 and the other accused persons were standing there being armed with lathis and bahungis. When the accused persons saw them they rushed and encircled Jugal Pradhan, Abhaya Pradhan and Maheswar Pradhan. The accused Naba Kishore Pradhan dealt a blow by means of lathis on the head of Jugal Pradhan and on account of such assault he fell down. While he was lying accused Bansidhar Pradhan also assaulted him by means of a lathi. Accused Giridhari Pradhan and Bhagaban Pradhan assaulted the deceased Abhaya Pradhan on his head by means of lathis. The accused persons were assaulted P.W.2-Maheswar Pradhan for which he fell down on the ground. When his father Bairagi came to rescue of his son Maheswar, he was also assaulted on his head. When he and Naran Pradhan (P.W.3) raised protest, he was assaulted by accused Bansidhar Pradhan with lathi and he sustained injuries on his right hand. Accused Biswanath Pradhan also assaulted him and on account of assault he fell down on the ground and became senseless. After regaining his sense he saw that Gangadhar Pradhan (P.W.8), Dinabandhu Pradhan (P.W.11), Nabaghana Pradhan (P.W.5) and Sarbeswar Pradhan (P.W.7) had sustained injuries on their persons. Accused Biswanath Pradhan also assaulted him and on account of assault he fell down on the ground and became senseless. After regaining his sense he saw that Gangadhar Pradhan (P.W.8), Dinabandhu Pradhan (P.W.11), Nabaghana Pradhan (P.W.5) and Sarbeswar Pradhan (P.W.7) had sustained injuries on their persons. It is stated that after the assault they were shifted to Sakhigopal Hospital in carts. On the way Jugal Pradhan died and Abhaya Pradhan succumbed to the injuries at the hospital. After lodging of the F.I.R., the Investigating Officer took up the investigation of the case and took all necessary steps for investigation of the case and finally submitted charge sheet for offences alleged above. 3. The plea of the accused persons is a denial one. The defence without disputing regarding the death of the deceased Jugal Pradhan and Abhaya Pradhan, the injuries sustained by all the accused persons denied to have assaulted them. They have further taken their plea in Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement that the disputed land belonged to the accused Bansidhar Pradhan, who was in possession of the land and had raised crop in the disputed year in question. On the alleged date of occurrence, the prosecution party including the so-called deceased persons and the injured persons forcibly cut the paddy from that land. When accused Balaram Pradhan raised protest, he was assaulted there. Hearing the incident, when they went to the spot and raised protest they were also assaulted. It is further revealed that they have taken the plea that they were snatched away the lathis from the hands of the witness and other persons and whirled the same. In other words they have taken the plea of right to private defence both of persons as well as of property. 4. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined twenty witnesses on its behalf. The defence, on the other hand, examined one D.W. namely, Iswar Pradhan, who simply proved certain documents like rent receipts, encroachment notice in Encroachment Case No.911/1982 and certified copy of the R.O.R. Out of the witnesses examined by the prosecution P.Ws. 1 to 8 and 11 are the witness, who have suffered injuries in the incident. P.W.1 is the informant, who had lodged the First Information Report. P.Ws. 1 and 2 are the eye witnesses to the assault. 1 to 8 and 11 are the witness, who have suffered injuries in the incident. P.W.1 is the informant, who had lodged the First Information Report. P.Ws. 1 and 2 are the eye witnesses to the assault. Rest of the witnesses speak that they had seen that the deceased Abhaya and Jugal were lying at the spot with bleeding injuries on their persons. They also speak regarding the assault on them. P.Ws. 9 and 10 did not support the case of the prosecution and were crossexamined by the prosecution after taking permission of the Court under Section 154 of the Evidence Act. Rest of the witnesses are formal witnesses. 5. At the outset Mr. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the respondents has admitted that they are not raising any question regarding the homicidal nature of death of the two deceased or the injuries sustained by the injured. The respondents only confined their argument to show that they have exercised their right of private defence with their landed property invaded by informant and others. 6. After careful examination of the judgment, it reveals that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove that both the deceased were done to death by the respondents and also injured suffered hurt in the hands of the respondents. But after careful assessment of the evidence, learned Addl. Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that the accused persons are not guilty because they acted in exercising the right of private defence. 7. It has been reflected in the F.I.R. that the disputed plot is Plot No.1484. However the report of the I.O.(P.W.20), who has visited the spot, prepared the spot map and investigated into the case, shows that the disputed plot is 361/1484 which is a fraction plot. It is evident from Ext.L, a certified copy of the R.O.R. of 1977 settlement, Plot No.361/1484, Anabadi, has note of possession in favour of Bansidhar Pradhan and Balaram Pradhan, sons of Bauribandhu Pradhan since 1964. Moreover, it is further seen that in the year 1982 for such unauthorized possession an Encroachment Case being E.C. No.991/1982 was initiated against the accused Bansidhar Pradhan. Admittedly, the rent receipts showing the penalty of encroachment case has been deposited on 4.9.1987 by Bansidhar Pradhan. From this learned IInd Addl. Moreover, it is further seen that in the year 1982 for such unauthorized possession an Encroachment Case being E.C. No.991/1982 was initiated against the accused Bansidhar Pradhan. Admittedly, the rent receipts showing the penalty of encroachment case has been deposited on 4.9.1987 by Bansidhar Pradhan. From this learned IInd Addl. District Judge has come to the conclusion that even though the disputed plot is Anabadi Plot, it was in the possession of the accused Bansidhar Pradhan and Balaram Pradhan since 1964 and the same is within the knowledge of the Government and it has recognized their possession since the penalty of Rs.260/- has been accepted from them. 8. The second salient feature which influenced the learned IInd Addl. Sessions Judge is the evidence of P.W.9. This witness has stated that from his village if one goes to village Banpur he has to pass by the side of the land of the accused Bansidhar Pradhan at Mankudidhipa Chaka and he has occasion to see that Bansidhar Pradhan and his people used to cultivate their land. It is also stated by P.W.10 that he has seen the land of the accused Banasidhar Pradhan at Mankudidhipa Chaka, which is one "Mana" in area. In the year of occurrence, the accused Bansidhar Pradhan had raised Godari Champa variety of paddy in that land. These witnesses were declared as hostile witnesses. The learned IInd Addl. Sessions Judge has rightly placed reliance on the same. P.W.1-Chaila Pradhan had admitted that there were disputes between them and the accused persons prior to the occurrence. Accused Bansidhar Pradhan has filed a criminal case against him. It is seen that Satyabadi P.S. Case No.124/85 for the offence under Section 379 of the I.P.C. has been initiated against Chaila Pradhan, Mahendra Mohanty, Jugal Pradhan, Bairagi Pradhan and Bishnu Pradhan. They were arrested and forwarded to the Court. The aforesaid case had taken place a few days prior to the occurrence involved in this case. Moreover, it is also seen from the record that the learned IInd Addl. Sessions Judge has taken note of the fact that a counter case has been filed against the informant and others, in which some of the accused persons have sustained injuries and no explanation is forthcoming from the side of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the accused persons. 9. Sessions Judge has taken note of the fact that a counter case has been filed against the informant and others, in which some of the accused persons have sustained injuries and no explanation is forthcoming from the side of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the accused persons. 9. After having a detailed discussions of the aforesaid materials and discussing the law applicable, the learned IInd Addl. Sessions Judge held that the accused persons have successfully established the right of private defence and therefore the accused persons were held not guilty. 10. In the case of Ghurey Lal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 10 SCC 450 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has the occasion to examine almost all the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the principles to be followed in a case of appeal against acquittal. The summary of the judgment is reflected at Paragraph-70. We find it appropriate to quote the same:- "In light of the above, the High Court and other appellate courts should follow the well-settled principles crystallized by number of judgments if it is going to overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so. A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would have "very substantial and compelling reasons" to discard the trial court's decision. "Very substantial and compelling reasons" exist when: (i) The trial court's conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong; (ii) The trial court's decision was based on an erroneous view of law; (iii) The trial court's judgment is likely to result in "grave miscarriage of justice; (iv) The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal; (v) The trial court's judgment was manifestly unjust and unreasonable; (vi) The trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declarations/report of the ballistic expert, etc. (vii) This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive. 2. The appellate court must always give proper weight and consideration to the findings of the trial court. 3. If two reasonable views can be reached - one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction - the High Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused. 11. (vii) This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive. 2. The appellate court must always give proper weight and consideration to the findings of the trial court. 3. If two reasonable views can be reached - one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction - the High Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused. 11. Thus unless a very substantial and compelling reasons are there the appellate court should not overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal. Very substantial and compelling reasons are, the trial court's conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong or the trial court's decision was based on an erroneous view of law. It is not the case of the State that the facts have not been properly appreciated by the learned IInd Addl. Sessions Judge nor it is that the trial court's decision was based on erroneous view of law. The State also do not submit that the trial court's judgment is likely to result in grave miscarriage of justice or the entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal or the trial court judgment was manifestly unjust and unreasonable or that the trial court has ignored the evidence or misleading the material facts and has ignored the material document like dying declaration report of the ballistic report etc. Moreover, two views can be reached, one that leads to acquittal and other to conviction, then the view in favour of the accused is to be accepted. 12. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts succinctly stated by us and the principles guiding the appeal against acquittal, we find no merit in the Government Appeal and, therefore, come to the conclusion that the appeal is devoid of any merit and there is no substantial and compelling reasons to disturb the findings recorded by the leaned IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Puri. 13. With such observation, the Government Appeal is dismissed. 14. L.C.R. be sent back forthwith.