3) On due consideration of the submissions of learned Deputy Government Advocate and the grounds taken in the app!ication, we are satisfied that the petitioner/State has succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the petition under Section 378 (3) of Cr.P.C. 4) l.A.No.O1/2008, therefore, is allowed and the delay of 31 days in filing the petition under Section 378 (3) of Cr.P.C. is hereby condoned. 5) Shri Praveen Das, learned Deputy Government Advocate is heard on the question of grant of leave to appeal against the acquittal of respondent/ accused Khageshwar @ Bhaku. 6) Police Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa, after completion of the investigation of the case registered on the report of one Ghanshyam Singh, charge-sheeted respondent/ accused Khageshwar @ Bhaku, for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 460 and 302 of the lndian Penal Code, on the accusation of his having committed murder of deceased Shatrupa Bai in the intervening night of 20‘“ & 21 5‘ of March,2007. 7) The respondent/ accused abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication to the charges framed by the trial Court under Sections 460 and 302 of the lndian Penal Code. 8) At the trial, the above charges against the respondent] accused were sought to be proved on the evidence of PW-1 Dr.K.K. Dahire, PW-2 Ghanshyam Singh, PW-3 Archana Singh, PW-4 Devendra, PW-5 Shyamlal, PW-6 Rahasram and PW-7 SR. Parihar. (x. @ 9) Of the above naMed 7 prosecution witnesses, PW-2 Ghanshyam Singh, husband of deceased Shatrupa Bai, projected himself as an eyewitness of the aileged incident. 10) The trial Court on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led by the prosecution at the trial in general and that of PW-2 .Ghanshyam Singh in particular, found that the prosecution evidence suffered from serious infirmities. The trial Court, therefore, did not find it safe to act upon the prosecution evidence. The trial Court, as such, acquitted respondent / accused Khageshwar @ Bhaku, vide impugned judgment dated 17.1 1 .2007. 11) Shri Praveen Das, learned Deputy Government Advocate vehemently argued that the trial Court has erred in discarding the evidence of the prosecution witnesses on flimsy and untenable grounds. Learned Deputy Government Advocate further submitted that the eyewitness account of PW—2 Ghanshyam Singh which was corroborated by the evidence of other prosecution witnesses was more than sufficient to establish the charge of murder against respondentl accused Khageshwar @ Bhaku. 12) Though PW-2 Ghanshyam Singh, husband of deceased Shatrupa Bai, projected himself as an eyewitness before the trial Court, in his First information Report (EXP/6) he himself mentioned that the assailant of his wife Shatrupa Bai was some unknown person. Admittedly, respondent/ accused Khageshwar @ Bhaku was well known to this prosecution witness from prior to the incident as he is a close-door neighbour of this witness. in this context, the absence of name of respondent! accused Khageshwar r @ @ Bhaku in the First Information Report Iodged by an eyewitness, who is closely related to the deceased as her husband, assumes importance and is fatal to the prosecution case. In his case-diary statement (EXP/1) aiso this witness categoricaiiy stated that he could not identify the assailant of his wife Shatrupa Bai. The other alleged incriminating evidence‘of seizure of a knife as weapon of offence also is not of any evidentiary value as no Chemical Examiner/ Serologist report was produced before the trial Court to establish that the said knife was stained with blood and blood stains ongthe knife were of human origin. 13) On due consideration of the submissions of learned Deputy Government Advocate; the findings recorded by the trial Court leading to acquittal of the respondent / accused; the evidence led by the prosecution at the trial in general and that of PW—2 Ghanshyam Singh in particular; the contents of the First Information Report (EXP/6) lodged by PW-2 Ghanshyam Singh, husband of deceased Shatrupa Bai; and the above mentioned broad features of the case, We are satisfied that the findings recorded by the trial Court leading to acquittal of respondent / accused Khageshwar @ Bhaku, do not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever. 14) Mere possibility of another view on the prosecution evidence will not by itself be a sufficient ground to warrant interference in an appeal against acquittal. > \ d by the petitioner l State under Section C. for gram of ieave to appeai against the acquittal 15) The petition tile 378 (3) of CLP. of responden is hereby dismissed. t/ accused Khageshwar @ Bhaku, therefore, fails and Sdl‘ CHIEF JUSTICE i subbu