/ 2. Shri Akhil Agrawal, leamed Panel Lawyer, is heard on LA. No. 01 I2007, an application for condonation of the delay in filing the petition under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. 3. On due consideration of the submissions of learned Panel Lawyer and the grounds taken in the application, we are satisfied that the petitioner/ State has succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in tiling the petition under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. 4. l.A. No.01 of 2007, therefore, is allowed and the delay of 21 days in ming the petition under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. is hereby condoned. 5. Learned Panel Lawyer is heard on the question of grant of leave to appeal against the acquittal of respondents! accused persons Hardev Kodaku, Bira and Purna Kodaku. 6. Police Balrampur, District Surguj'a, after completion of the investigation of the case registered on' the report of one Rameshwari charge-sheeted the respondents/ accused persons for - the alleged commission of the offence punishabie under Section .302 read with Section 34 of the lndian Penal Code, on the accusation of their having committed murder of deceased Somra by causing injUries on him by means of lathi and fists in the evening of 23‘04-2006. 7. The respondents/ accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded faise implication to the charge framed by the trial Court under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the lndian Penal Code. 8. The charge of murder punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was sought to be proved against the respondents/ accused persons on the evidence of PW1 Ramdas, PW2 Bifna, PW3 Basiya, PW4 Debkumar, PW5 Raghuvansh, PW6 Shankar Yadav, PW? Somra, PW8 Smt. Mangni, PW9 Hirawa, PW10 Shivkumar, PW11 Rajesh Kumar, PW12 Anand Masih, PW13 Jawahar Tirkey, PW14 Bhuvaneshwar Singh, PW15 Dr. R.S. Markam, PW16 Arjun Kumar Singh, PW17 Powni and PW18 Rameshwari. - 9. Of the above named 18 prosecution witnesses, PW18 Rameshwan‘ alone was examined by the prosecution as an eyewitness of the alleged incident of assault on deceased Somra. 10. The trial Court on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led by the prosecution at the trial found that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses fell short of establishing the charge of murder punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the indian Penal Code against the respondents / accused persons. The trial Court, therefore, acquitted the respondents/ accused persons vide impugned judgment dated 04—04-2007. l1. Shri Akhil Agrawal, learned Panel Lawyer vehemently argued that the trial Court has erred in discarding the evidence of the: prosecution witnesses on flimsy and untenable grounds. Learned Panel Lawyer further submitted that the evidence led by the prosecution at the trial was more than sufticiént to establish the charge of murder punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Pena! Code against the respondents! accused persons. 12. The entire prosecution case against the respondents/ accused persons hinges on the solitary eyewitness account of PW18 Rameshwari, who iodged the First information Report. PW18 Rameshwari, at the trial, did not support the prosecution case at all and was declared hostile. In fact, she has feigned ignorance about the alleged incident of assault on her husband Somra. Since the evidence of other prosecution witnesses was founded on the disclosure made by PW18 Rameshwari about the alleged incident of assault on her husband Somra at the hands of respondents/ accused persons Hardev Kodaku, Bira and Purna Kodaku and PW18 Rameshwari has not deposed anything against the respondents! accused persons in her evidence before the triai Court, the trial Court obviously was left with no other option but to discard the eVidence of all the prosecution witnesses and record. acquittal of the respondents/ accused persons. 13. On due consideration of the submissions of leamed Panel Lawyer; the findings recorded by the trial Court leading to acquittal of respondents/ accused persons Hardev Kodaku, Bira and Puma Kodaku; and the evidence led by the prosecution at the trial in general and that‘ of PW18 Rameshwari in particular, we are satisfied that the findings recorded by the trial Court leading to acquittal of respondents] accused persons Hardev Kodaku, Bira and Purna Kodaku 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. 15. We, therefore, do not find any ground for grant of leave to appeal against the acquittal of the respondents! accused persons. 16. The petition tiled by the petitioner! State under Section 378 (3) of Cr.P.C., therefore, fails and is here?! dismissed. Sd/- 3 fl l Sunil Kumar Sinha l Subbu Sdl- ‘\ l i Chief Justice f i Judge