R.N.BISWAL, J. - (1.)IN this appeal the State of Orissa has challenged the judgment dated 24.2.1987 passed by the Asst. Sessions Judge -cum -Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bolangir in Sessions case NO.54/15 of 1987 acquitting the Respondents of the charge under Sections 147/148/307 read with Section 149 of I.P.C.
(2.)THE case as set out by the prosecution is that P.W.1, who resides in Bolangir town used to visit his landed property situated in village Sikabahanga. On 14.4.1986 at about 7.00 A.M. while he himself and his cousin, (paternal uncles son) P.W.2 were going on a cycle to that village, on the way near Chhuibandha, all the accused -Respondents, who had concealed themselves in a cart covered with gunny bags, emerged out of it being armed with axe, Lathi, Gujer (spear) etc. and abused and rushed towards them. At this, out of fear when P.W.1, who was riding the cycle while P.W.2 was sitting on the carrier tried to sped away, accused Respondent Basudeb Patel inflicted a Lathi blow on his back and accused Respondent Pruthiraj Patel inflicted an axe blow on its blunt side on P.W.2, resulting in his falling down. P.W.1 accelerated the speed of his cycle and after covering about 50 yards got down from it and looked back to see P.W.2 running on a field being chased by all the Respondents armed with different deadly weapons. Respondent Tejraj Patel assaulted P.W.2 with a Gujer and when he fell down accused Respondent Pabitra Patel, Byasadev Patel and Premraj Patel caught hold of both his legs, Tikeswar Patel and Pruthiraj Patel pressed his left hand and head respectively and accused Respondent Pabitra Patel inflicted a Tabli (axe) blow on his right hand above the wrist completely severing the same. Then P.W.1 went to village Sikabahanga and narrated the incident before Murali Patel (P.W.3), Nilakar Naik and others and requested them to go to the spot. Accordingly all of them went there and found P.W.2 lying senseless with the severed hand. P.W.1 with the help of some gentlemen of the locality shifted P.W.2 to Bolangir District Headquarters hospital, got him admitted there and thereafter at about 9.00 A.M. went to Bolangir Sadar Police station and orally reported the incident before the Officer -in -charge (P.W.8) who reduced the same into writing as per Ext.1. On receipt of the FIR, P.W.8 swung into action. He visited the spot, seized one Gujer (spear), the severed portion of hand, blood stained earth and sample earth and prepared the seizure list in respect thereof, examined the witnesses and apprehended the accused persons. On the same date he visited the district headquarters hospital, issued injury requisition to the Medical Officer for examination of the injured, examined some more witnesses and after completion of investigation submitted charge sheet under Sections 147/148/307 read with Section 149 of I.P.C. against all the accused Respondents. The case having been committed to the Court of Session, it was transferred to the Court of Asst. Sessions Judge -cum -Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bolangir, who framed charge for the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. against accused -Respondent Pabitra Patel and under Sections 307/149 of I.P.C. against all the accused -Respondents. He further charged accused -Respondents Byasadev Patel and Premraj Patel for the offence under Section 323 of I.P.C. under which they faced their trial.
The plea of the accused -Respondents was one of denial. Accused -Respondents Pabitra Patel took the plea of alibi.

In order to bring home the charge against the accused Respondents, prosecution examined 9 witnesses in all as against one by the defence. After assessing the evidence on record, the trial Court acquitted the Respondents of all the charges holding that the presence of P.W.7 at the spot, who was said to be the only eye witness to the occurrence was not trust worthy and evidence of other witnesses suffered from embellishment. Being aggrieved with the said judgment, the State of Orissa has preferred this appeal as stated earlier.

(3.)BESIDES P.Ws. 1 and 2, P.W.7 is said to be the only eye witness to the occurrence. It transpires from the evidence of P.W.1 that Respondent -Byasadev Patel dealt a Lathi blow on his back, while he was riding the cycle and P.W.2 was sitting on the carrier of it. The trial Court did not believe this version of P.W.1, as in its view assault could not be made, on the back of a person, riding a cycle while another person was sitting on the carrier of it. This view does not appear to be absurd. It further transpires from the evidence of P.W.1 that accused -Respondent Prithiraj Patel dealt two blows by the blunt side of his axe on the left leg of P.W.2 for which he fell down, while P.W.2 himself says that he inflicted one such blow on his left leg. It further transpires from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that when the latter slipped down from the cycle, and out of fear took to his heels, the accused -Respondents chased them. According to P.W.2 Respondent Debraj Patel dealt a blow by means of a Gujer on his head and when he fell down, suddenly accused -Respondent Prithiraj Patal caught hold of his left hand, Tikeswar Patel held his head, Premraj Patel hold the right hand and Byasadev hold his right leg and Respondent Pabitra Patel dealt a blow on the sharp side of a Tabli on his right hand severing it from the wrist. But in his examination -in -chief, he stated that he was not examined by the police. Of course during cross -examination again he deposed that he was examined by the I.O on 16.4.1986. On perusal of the evidence of I.O., P.W.8, it is found that P.W.2, while being examined under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. stated that accused Tejraj Patel gave a piercing blow by a Gujer on his head. But there was no such piercing wound on his head as found from the evidence of the doctor, P.W.5. Furthermore, P.W.8 deposed that P.W.2 stated before him that accused -Respondent Pabitra Patel gave two Tabli blows on his right hand, while P.W.2 deposed before the Court that he inflicted one Tabli blow on his right hand as stated earlier. P.W.1 further deposed that he saw the assault on P.W.2 from a distance of 50 yards, but according to P.W.7, P.W.1 did not stop on the way after P.W.2 slipped down from his cycle. According to P.W.7, P.W.1 was at a distance of about one K.M. from the spot where P.W.2 was alleged to be assaulted. So, it appears improbable that P.W.1 could see the occurrence from a distance of one K.M. While reporting the incident to P.W.8, P.W.1 stated that son of one Ganjia, Choukidar of Kulerbahal saw the occurrence. The said Ganjia Chaukidar has been examined as D.W.1. As per his evidence he has no son. P.W.7 also corroborates the said evidence of D.W.1. As per the evidence of P.W.7 he had not known the accused -Respondents before the occurrence. He identified them for the first time in Court by face only. When P.W.7 had not named the accused -Respondents on the date of occurrence, I.O. ought to have held T.I. parade under Section 9 of the Evidence Act. But he has not done so. During cross - examination, P.W.8 stated that P.W.7 named the accused -Respondents while he was being examined by him. But in view of the evidence of P.W.7 this statement of P.W.8 cannot be believed. In absence of T.I. parade, evidence of P.W.7 is of no importance. Admittedly there was previous enmity between the accused -Respondents and P.Ws. 1 and 2. P.W.1 admitted that a criminal case was pending against him and P.W.2, on the allegation that they assaulted Jubaraj Patel, the brother of accused -Respondent Prithiraj Patel with the help of Goondas. He also admitted that another police case was registered against P.W. 2 and others on the allegation that they reaped away paddy crops from the land of Respondents -Prithiraj Patel in which they got acquitted. Another police case was filed against P.W.2 and father of P.W.1 for the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. by Netrananda, brother of accused -Respondent Pabitra Patel. Respondent Kabiraj Patel was a witness for the prosecution in the case filed under Section 307 of I.P.C. P.W.1 further stated that some of his villagers use to engage Goondas to assault and counter assault their opponents. It transpires from the evidence of P.W.4 that accused Respondent, Pabitra Patel went to village Fatkara to see his ailing brother in -law, Ananta Naik on 13.1.86 and thereafter he saw him in his village only on 16.4.1986 for the first time. This was the plea taken by accused Respondent Pabitra. This plea being corroborated by prosecution witnesses, the very presence of accused -Respondent Pabitra Patel, said to be the main accused in the case, at the spot, casts a serious doubt. When several cases are pending against P.Ws. 1 and 2 and their evidence reveals that very often there was assault and counter assault in their village by engaging Goondas, the conclusion arrived at by trial Court that some other unknown Goondas might have assaulted P.Ws. 1 and 2 causing severance of the hand of the latter from the wrist, cannot be ruled out. In an appeal against acquittal, it is to be seen as to whether the finding recorded by the trial Court is reasonably possible. Even if another view can be taken, no interference is called for. In the case at hand the finding of the trial Court is reasonably possible. Apart from all these, the alleged occurrence took place on 14.4.1986. In the meantime more than twenty -one years has already been elapsed. At this belated stage, it would be travesty of justice to set aside the impugned judgment and record an order of conviction.
In the result, the Government Appeal stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.