JUDGMENT : J.M. Mahapatra, J. - The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24-8-1986 passed by the 1st. Additional District Sessions Judge, Cuttack acquitting all the three Respondents of the charges of murder criminal conspiracy and of minor offences like house trespass and theft from the dwelling house. 2. Briefly put the facts of the case are these Ratnamani Parida, a lady Health Visitor attached to Indupur Primary Health Centre (P.H.C.) of Cuttack district (P.W. 1), the informant in this case} lodged a report with Kendrapara police that during her absence, in the night of 23/24-6-1983 some unknown culprits entered her dwelling house and committed the murder of her old mother, Jhumpei Bewa, her minor son Arun aged about 13 years and Bijoya, a friend of her son aged about 14 years, and that some of her personal belongings were stolen away. In the F.I.R. she had however suspected Respondent Khirod Kumar Das, a cook of the P.H.C. and his friend Hagura ' Jitendranath Jena with whom she had prior ill-feeling and strained relationship. After recording the F.I.R. P.W. 25, the C.I. of Police Kendrapara, registered a case and took up investigation. He had taken various steps in the investigation of the case, like taking photpgraphs of the spot, pressing into service the Scientific Experts from the Foresic Science Laboratory, Bhubaneswar. Besides holding the inquest over the dead body of the three deceased he sent the dead bodies for post-mortem examination, examined some witnesses and recorded their statements. P.W. 23, the successor in Office of P.W. 25, took charge of the investigation of the case on 21-7-1983 and took some further steps in investigation. On 6-8-1983 he, however, made over charge of the investigation to P.W. 26, the Inspector of the Crime Branch, who finally submitted charge-sheet on 3-10-1983 against the three accused-Respondents. In course of investigation some letters and a pair of canvas shoes connected with the alleged crime were seized and steps were taken for obtaining the reports regarding the foot prints of the shoe and also matching of the blood groups. Confessional statement of the Respondent Hagura was also recorded during the course of investigation. In course of investigation some letters and a pair of canvas shoes connected with the alleged crime were seized and steps were taken for obtaining the reports regarding the foot prints of the shoe and also matching of the blood groups. Confessional statement of the Respondent Hagura was also recorded during the course of investigation. On completion of investigation charge-sheet was placed against the accused-Respondents under Sections 120-B, 302, 459 and 380, I.P.C. All the three Respondents have stood trial for offence u/s 120-B, I.P.C., while Respondent Khirod under Sections 302, 459 and 380, I.P.C. and Respondents Hagura and Nilambar u/s 302 read with Section 109, I.P.C. 3. The plea of the three Respondents at the trial was one of total denial. The Respondents had also submitted their written statement in defence. The "specific plea of the Respondent No. 1, Nilambar Rath, is that he had some differences leading to strained relationship and filing of criminal cases and counter cases with J.C. Misra, the Officer-in-charge, Belpara Police Station while both of them were at Belapara of Balangir District. The S.D.P.O. Kendrapara. Bidhubhusan Misra being influenced by J. C. Misra and in league with P.W. 1 had falsely implicated him in this case. Respondent No. 2. Khirod Kumar Das has taken the specific plea that he is a friend of P.W. 1's son, that he used to keep some money with P.W. 1 as a saving for his marriage expenses which P.W. 1 had spent away to construct her house. Before his marriage wen he demanded return of the money from p.w. 1 she postponed the payment on some plea or other, and on account of this he has been falsely implicated by P.W. 1 in this case. Respondent No. 3, Hagura ' Jitendranath Jena has pleaded that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He has further pleaded that under duress and coercion he was made to give a statement before the Magistrate, and that he gave the statement as tutored by the police. 4. In this case prosecution has examined 26 witnesses including the informant, several Investigating Officers, two Doctors conducting the authority, experts from S.F.S.L., Rasulgarh and a few witnesses to speak regarding the incident. There is no direct evidence to prove the case of the prosecution and the prosecution has sought to prove its Case through circumstantial evidence appearing against the Respondents. In this case prosecution has examined 26 witnesses including the informant, several Investigating Officers, two Doctors conducting the authority, experts from S.F.S.L., Rasulgarh and a few witnesses to speak regarding the incident. There is no direct evidence to prove the case of the prosecution and the prosecution has sought to prove its Case through circumstantial evidence appearing against the Respondents. The learned trial Judge on a careful scrutiny of the-entire evidence on record and taking into consideration the various items of circumstantial evidence, placed before him, namely, enmity between the accused persons and P.W. 1, presence of the accused persons at the Indupur P.H.C. on the date of occurrence, recovery of a pair of canvas shoes (M.O.I) suspected to have been stained with blood from the quarters of the senior Medical Officer of the P.H.C., and the statement of Respondent ' Jitendranath Jena (Ext. 31) recorded u/s 164, Code of Criminal Procedure by the J.M.F.C., Kendrapara has not accepted the prosecution case against the accused-Respondent. In other words, he found that the circumstantial 'evidence was not conclusive enough to prove the guilt of the accused Respondents of the various offences with which they were charged. Accordingly he has recorded the order of acquittal of all the three Respondents. 5. As to the nature and cause of the death of the three deceased, the evidence of two Medical Officers, P.Ws. 18 and 14, who held post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, leave no room for doubt, that the death of all the three deceased Was homicidal, and that the injuries on their persons, which were incised wounds on the neck were ante mortem in nature and caused by sharp cutting weapon such as knife. I would, therefore, agree with the finding of the learned trial Judge that the death of the three deceased was homicidal in nature. The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents also does not challenge this finding of fact during the hearing of the appeal. 6. During hearing of the appeal Sri B. Misra, the learned Addl. I would, therefore, agree with the finding of the learned trial Judge that the death of the three deceased was homicidal in nature. The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents also does not challenge this finding of fact during the hearing of the appeal. 6. During hearing of the appeal Sri B. Misra, the learned Addl. Government advocate appearing for the Appellant has virtually harped on the self-same items of circumstantial evidence on which a few witnesses have been examined and which have been elaborately discussed by the learned trial Judge and which eventually were discarded by him on the grounds that these items of evidence do not connect the accused-Respondents with the crime of criminal conspiracy and murder of the three unfortunate victims of the crime. On a careful scrutiny of the various statements of circumstantial evidence, as referred to earlier, I find myself in entire agreement with the findings reached by the learned trial Judge to hold that these items of circumstantial evidence do not connect the Respondents with the alleged crime. Relying, therefore, on the authority of, the State of Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy Alias Vemareddy and Another I do not propose to repeat the reasonings discussed by the learned Court below for holding that the circumstantial evidence taken together do not fasten the Respondents with the criminal liability. 7. In the recent leading decision of the Supreme Court reported in Ashok Kumar Chatterjee Vs. State of M.P. enunciating the principles on which the circumstantial evidence would form the basis of conviction, the following tests have been laid down: (1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there, is no escape from the conclusion that within all human, probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else, and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must 'be complete and incapable of explanation on any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with the innocence. Applying the dictum of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case (supra), we find that the learned trial Judge was correct in his conclusion, that prosecution has failed to establish any enmity between P.W. 1 and Respondent No. 1, Nilambar Rath. Although there has been evidence of strained, relationship between P.W. 1, and Respondent, No. 2, Khirod as borne out from the evidence on record, yet this by itself could not have been sufficient ground to hold that he was the culprit. The learned trial Judge has taken into consideration a few other circumstances favouring the Respondent Khirod to hold that he could not have been the culprit. The first circumstance is that P.W. 1 was on E.L. for 15 days with effect from 16-6-1983, and there was no evidence to show that any of the Respondents knew that P.W. 1 was due to return to Indupur in the night of 23-6-1983. It was therefore unlikely that Respondent Khirod or any other accused would enter the house of P.W. 1 to commit murder in the night of 23-6-1983. Another circumstances is that alongwith murder several house-hold items including jewellery of P.W. 1 were said to have been stolen away. The evidence of P.W. 1 would go to show that as she got down from the Bus on 24-6-1983 at 10 a.m. Respondent Khirod was boarding another Bus to go to his village, and that the Respondent Khirod invited her to attend his marriage feast. The learned trial Judge has taken this circumstance and the fact that none of the stolen articles were recovered from the possession of Respondent Khirod and the weapon of offence having remained untraced it was highly unlikely that Respondent Khirod could have been the culprit. Another item of circumstantial evidence on which the prosecution appears to have relied on is the seizure M.O.I. a pair of canvas shoes belonging to P.W. 6, which were alleged to have been used by P.W. 1. The lace of the canvas shoes are said to have been stained with blood. Another item of circumstantial evidence on which the prosecution appears to have relied on is the seizure M.O.I. a pair of canvas shoes belonging to P.W. 6, which were alleged to have been used by P.W. 1. The lace of the canvas shoes are said to have been stained with blood. The learned trial Judge has very elaborately discussed the evidence in this regard to hold that there was no evidence to show that M.O.I. was used by the Respondent Khirod at the material time, or that the size of the shoes tallied with the size of the feet of Khirod, or that P.W. 6 gave M.O.I. to Respondent Khirod for use. The learned trial Judge also found that although the M.O. was seized on 25-6-1983, it was sent for chemical examination on 23-7-1983, and that during this period, the pair of shoes was not kept inside a sealed cover. He had however noticed that according to the Investigating Officer, P.W. 25, who seized the M.O.I. no blood stain was found on the lace of the shoes, while the subsequent Investigating Officer. P.W. 20, gave evidence to say that be found mark of blood-stain on the lace of the shoes. The learned trial Judge has also discussed the evidence of finger prints testified to by P.Ws. 16 and 19, the Experts and Scientists and has held in my opinion rightly, that the evidence is not conclusive that the finger prints found on the body of the deceased were that of the Respondent Khirod. He has also referred to some disquieting features of the prosecution case namely, failure of the prosecution to take follow up action on the report of the Expert, P.W. 16 for comparison of the foot prints found on the left thigh of the deceased Arun Kumar Parida. Certain other suggestion of P.W. 16 were also persued so as to get a clue as to the authorship of the crime The other circumstance namely, confessional statement (Ext.31) of the Respondent Hagura ' Jitendra has been rightly dicarded by the learned trial, Judge, on the ground that it cannot be utilised against any of the accused. It is not inculpatory so far as the maker of the statement and as such it cannot be utilised against accused Khirod although 'his name has been mentioned therein. It is not inculpatory so far as the maker of the statement and as such it cannot be utilised against accused Khirod although 'his name has been mentioned therein. The principles of law in this regard have been referred to by the trial Judge and we find that he has kept the correct legal perspective in view. No other circumstance worth the name has been proved against any of the Respondents to fasten them with criminal liability. I would accordingly, while agreeing with the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Judge, hold that prosecution has signally failed to prove its case against any of the Respondents. 8. In a recent decision of the Supreme Court reported in Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai Vs. State of Gujarat the powers of the appellate Court in dealing with the case of an acquittal against acquittal was considered and their Lordships have held as follows: The appellate Court while dealing with an appeal, against the order of acquittal has full power to review at large the evidence on which the order of acquittal is founded and to reach a conclusion that upon such evidence the order of acquittal should be reversed. However, in exercising that power the appellate Court should give proper weight and consideration to the following matters; (1) the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility/of the witnesses, (2) the prosumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at the trial, (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt, and (4) the slowness of the appellate Court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge, who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses, which finding would not certainly be disturbed if two reasonable conclusion can be reached on the basis of the evidence on record. 9. On a consideration of the entire materials on record, we are fully satisfied that the various items of circumstantial evidence sought to be proved against the Respondents do not prove the guilt of the accused Respondents beyond all reasonable doubts, The circumstances taken cumulatively do not form a chain from which there would be no escape from the conclusion that the alleged crimes were committed by the Respondents and none else. The materials do not go to indicate that they are only consistent with the guilt of the accused persons and are inconsistent with their innocence. For the aforesaid reasons, while agreeing with the findings of the learned trial Judge, we would hold that the accused-Respondents have been rightly acquitted of all the charges. 10. In the result, the appeal fails being devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. L. Rath, J. While agreeing with my learned brother Mohapatra, J., I cannot but express my deep feeling of anguish and pain that a grisly act of triple murder" has gone unpunished which must have resulted in a frustrating imbalance of the social tempo. While the murders have been committed with ingenuity making it certain that direct evidence is wholly absent even the evidences circumstantially available were not fully explored by the investigating agency. One would think that in cases like these the officers charged with duties of investigation would gear themselves to the maximum operation and would leave no due pursued to its ultimate and no direction left unexploited to its logical end. Unfortunately, as has been noticed by the learned Trial Judge and reaffirmed by learned Brother, the same cannot be said of the investigation carried out in this case, a fact which is to a great extent responsible for the offenders not to have been brought to book. A copy of our judgment he sent to the State Government in the Home Department for such action in respect of the investigation as they may deem fit. Appeal dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed