STATE OF ORISSA Vs. PUMA ROUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two respondents stood charged under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (Tthe Code, for short) with having committed the murder of R. Mangala Patra (to be described hereinafter as the deceased) on March 5, 1979. Twenty-two other accused persons stood charged under section 302 read with section 149 of the Code with having shared the common object with the respondent for having committed the murder of the deceased. The plea of the respondents and the co-accused persons was one of denial and false implication. Both the sides had led evidence at the trial. On a consideration of the evidence, the trial court did not accept the case of the prosecution and held that a true story had not been presented by it and the evidence against the respondents and the co-accused persons was not worthy of credence. Accordingly, all the accused persons including the respondents were actualized of the charges.

(2.) The state has not challenged the order of acquittal in respect of the co-accused persons and has preferred this appeal only in respect of the two respondents who stood charged under section 302 of the Code. We have heard the learned Additional Government Advocate and Mr. Panda for the respondents.

(3.) In an appeal against acquittal, unless the findings arrived at by the trial court can effectively be dislodged and such findings arc found to be unreasonable or perverse, no interference is called for, even if another view can be taken on the evidence. If two views are reasonably possible and the trial court has adopted one, the Government Appeal cannot succeed.