ORDER - The three appellants before us were tried along with four others by the Additional Sessions Judge for offences punishable under S. 302 read with Ss. 148 and 149, I.P.C. The case mainly rests on the evidence of eye-witnesses PWs. Nos. 1, 4. 5, 8 and 10. The trial Court rejected their evidence on the ground that apart from their version being in conflict with the medical evidence, the time of occurrence has not been correctly put forward and, therefore, the whole case becomes doubtful. The State preferred an appeal and Division Bench of the Orissa High Court disagreed with the finding of the trial Court in respect of these three appellants. The acquittal of the remaining accused was,however, confirmed.

2. The learned counsel submits that the High Court has not kept in view the well settled principles to be observed in reversing the order of acquittal and the evidence of the so-called eye-witnesses has been rejected by the trial Court which had also the advantage of watching their demeanour and that in these circumstances, the order of the High Court cannot be sustained.

3. According to the prosecution, the deceased Bharat Satpaty purchased a piece of land from one of the accus