The judgment established that in cases involving enmity between parties, the evidence should be scrutinized with great care and caution, and any doubt should benefit the accused persons.

( 1 ) THIS is on appeal by the state against the order of acquittal of the respondents recorded by the learned Assistant sessions Judge, Chhatrapur in Sessions Case No. 31 of 1985.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution case is that the injured P. W. 6 and the respondent-accused persons were inimical to each other and number of litigations were going on between them. The accused persons had also threatened P. W. 6 and his family members with dire consequences. In such background, on 23-4-1983 at about 3. 00 p. m. while P. W. 6 was coming with P. W. 5 on a bicycle from village Hatiota to Polasara, the accused persons armed with deadly weapons obstructed them at a place called 'kolamabadalanala' and while the accused persons namely, Banshi, Kirtana, Kati Sahu and Rarnesh obstructed P. Ws. 5 and 6, accused madhusudan Sahu and Kalu Charan sahu dealt Kati (sword) blows on the left leg of P. W. 6, as a result of which his leg was severed from the body. It is also alleged that accused Debendra Panigrahi removed a cash of Rs. 1250/- from the pocket of P. W. 6. Seeing this murderous attack on P. W, 6, p. W. 5 fled away from the spot leaving his cycle and informed P. W. 4, who happens to be the grandson of P. W. 6. P. W. 4 immediately arranged an ambulance to bring P. W. 6 from the spot and lodged an F. I. R. in purusottarnpur Police Station, in the meantime, p. W. 6 was shifted from the spot by a rickshaw, but after meeting the ambulance on the way he was taken in the ambulance to Polasara P. H. C. where he was given first aid and then referred to M. K. C. G. Medical college and Hospital, Berhampur. Basing on the F. I. R. investigation was done and charge-sheet was placed under Sections 143, 307/379, IPC.

( 3 ) THE accused persons took the plea of complete denial and false implication due to previous enmity.

( 4 ) NINE witnesses were examined by the prosecution. P. W. 1 is a seizure witness, who spoke about the seizure of blood-stained earth from the spot, P. W. 2 is the rickshaw puller who carried the injured in his rickshaw for medical treatment, P. W. 3 is the doctor, who gave first aid at Polosara P. H. C. to the injured, P. W. 4 is the informant P. W. (5 is the eye-witness who was carrying P. W. (6 on the carrier of his bicycle, P. W. 6 is the injured, P. Ws. 7 and 8 are the investigating officers, P. W. 9 is the doctor who examined and treated the injured at M. K. C. G. Medical college and Hospital. Besides oral evidence, the prosecution also proved the documents, which were marked as Exts. 1 to 11. The blood stained chappals, blood stained dhoti and blood stained sample earth were marked as M. Os. I, II and III respectively. The accused persons did not examine any witness, but produced two documents, which were marked as Exts. A and B. After perusing the oral and documentary evidence, learned Assistant Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution evidence is riddled with contradictions, omissions and inherent improbabilities. He accordingly recorded an order of acquittal, which is under challenge in this appeal.

( 5 ) MR. A. K. Mishra, learned Addl. Government advocate appearing for the State appellant contends that the trial Court not only failed to appreciate the evidence on record but also omitted to follow the settled principles of law regarding admissibility of the documentary evidences. According to him, the evidence of the eye-witnesses, post occurrence witnesses coupled with the medical evidence clearly establish that the accused persons after forming an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons attacked p. W. 6 in order to do away with his life. He specifically argues that minor contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses are never fatal to the case of the prosecution and as such, the conclusion of the trial court that the evidence of the P. Ws. are unacceptable because of contradiction is unsustainable. In support of this contentions, he cites the case of P. Venkataswarlu v. State of Andhra Prade