S. C. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) CONVICT under section 302, I. P. C. undergoing sentence for life has appealed from Jail. ( 2 ) CONVICT aged about 30 years had intimacy with Ramani unmarried sister of Naba (P. W. 10), though they are of two different villages about 14 k. ms. apart. Accused was coming to house of his maternal uncle which is in village of Ramani where she was going, as Ranga, daughter of maternal uncle (P. W. 5) of accused was friend to Ramani. On 29. 9. 1988 Ramani missed from her house. P. W. 10, his, wife and mother were absent from house. On return, they learnt from people in the street that Ramani went away with accused. Accused and Ramani belong to the same caste. As Ramani an unmarried girl had conceived for four months by that time being in association of accused, family members were satisfied that accused had done well. Eight days after, they went to accused in his village to enquire about the comforts of Ramani. Accused denied to have gone to village of Ramani and to have taken her. Accused threatened to assault them. So they went to police station to report about the missing of Ramani. Officer-in-charge informed them that a female was lying dead near Turumunga police station and advised them to go to that police station and make enquiry. At Turumunga police station, officer-in-charge of that police station showed some wearing apparel and photographs of a deceased female. P. W. 10 identified the wearing apparel to be of Ramani. He also identified the photographs to be of Ramani. Accordingly, he lodged information (Ext. 12) at Turumunga police station on 9. 10. 1988 at about 1 p. m. that accused has killed his sister. ( 3 ) AFTER investigation accused was charge-sheeted and thereafter committed for trial. P. W. 2 who saw the dead body in the eucalyptus jungle of village Baradangua informed P. W. 1, the ward member of the village, P. W. 1 intimated the fact to officer-in-charge after arranging to watch the dead-body. Officer-in-charge came to the spot, prepared inquest report, seized the wearing apparel, broken bangles and brought them to the police station when he prepared the seizure list. Photographs of the dead body were taken. Thereafter the dead body was sent by him with dead body challan through P. W. 8 for postmortem examination. Officer-in-charge came to the spot, prepared inquest report, seized the wearing apparel, broken bangles and brought them to the police station when he prepared the seizure list. Photographs of the dead body were taken. Thereafter the dead body was sent by him with dead body challan through P. W. 8 for postmortem examination. It was produced before the doctor (P. W. 12) on 3. 10. 1988 who conducted the autopsy and sent the post mortem report. On 9. 10. 1988 P. W. 10 with others came to police station and started on seeing the wearing apparel and photographs of the dead body that the same is of his sister Ramani. There is no other evidence that the dead body is of Ramani. ( 4 ) SINCE accused has been prosecuted for causing homicide of Ramani prosecution has to prove that Ramani is dead. Before Ramani missed from her house, it is stated that she was conceiving for four months. Thus, it is to be examined whether the female whose dead body was found, had traces of Pregnancy. In this respect evidence of P. W. 12 who conducted the autopsy is material. He stated that uterus of the female dead body was normal. In cross-examination, he explained that uterus will change during pregnancy of a female and that too after 3 to 4 months pregnancy. From this evidence, it is doubtful whether the female was pregnant. Thus, on this evidence dead body cannot be connected with Ramani. P. W. 10 identified from the photographs and stated that it is of Ramani. By the time photographs were taken already 36 hours has passed as revealed from Ext. 20 the report of Dr. K. K. Misra. In absence of special identification mark, it is difficult to connect the dead body with Ramani only on identification of P. W. 10. Same would be the effect of identification of the clothings. Investigating Officer ought to have got the photographs and clothing identified by other close associates like sister, mother, sister-in-law to be definite that the dead- body is of Ramani. Some better evidence of pregnancy of Ramani ought to have been adduced. No cogent explanation is forthcoming why the Investigating Officer did not take such steps. Investigating Officer ought to have got the photographs and clothing identified by other close associates like sister, mother, sister-in-law to be definite that the dead- body is of Ramani. Some better evidence of pregnancy of Ramani ought to have been adduced. No cogent explanation is forthcoming why the Investigating Officer did not take such steps. Thus with doubtful identity of the dead body, accused ought not to have been held guilty of murder of Ra man i. ( 5 ) ASSUMING that dead body is of Ramani, to connect accused with her death thy only allegation is that the accused went with Ramani in his cycle on 29. 9. 1988. Evidence of P. W. 4 is the only evidence in this respect. If his evidence is scanned it will be found that accused who carried her on his cycle left him at the outskirts of the village and requested him to inform Ramani that he has come. P. W. 4 informed Ramani. He has not stated that house of Ramani was near the place where accused left him. He does not say that after informing Ramani, she came to accused and he saw accused and Ramani together. It is doubtful how he heard accused saying to Ramani to bring her saya and saree or to accompany him. In cross-examination, P. W. 4 stated that on the very day, he stated that he did not hear what accused and Ramani were taking about. Even if this evidence is accepted, by taking Ramani in his cycle, accused did not commit any offence. When Ramani was taken many persons must have seen them to going. There is no evidence in support of it. Place where the dead body was found was about 40 Kms. from house of Ramani as stated by 1. 0. There were villages in between. If accused would have been last seen with deceased near about the place where the dead body was found, a different views was possible because that would not be the usual place where they would be seen together. There is no I evidence to that effect. There is no evidence that accused was seen even alone near about the place where the dead body was found on 29. 9. 1988 or 30. 9. 1988 or even on 1. 10. 1988 when the dead body was found. There is no I evidence to that effect. There is no evidence that accused was seen even alone near about the place where the dead body was found on 29. 9. 1988 or 30. 9. 1988 or even on 1. 10. 1988 when the dead body was found. With many links missing, it becomes doubtful if accused caused death of Ramani. Therefore, on the facts and circumstances of the case, an inference cannot be drawn that accused has caused the death of Ra man i. ( 6 ) TRUE it is that the pant and shirt recovered from the house of the accused contained Bloodstains. There is, however, no evidence that the pant and shirt belonged to the accused which he was wearing at the time Ramani was seen with him last. ( 7 ) IN conclusion from the evidence available, it cannot conclusively be said that - (i) dead body was of Ramani; (ii) clothings near the dead body belonged to Ramani; and (iii) her death was on account of homicide and appellant is the cause of the death of the dead body which was found. In the circumstances, for paucity of evidence accused-appellant is entitled to be acquitted getting benefit of doubt. ( 8 ) IN result, appeal is allowed, accused appellant is acquitted of the charge. Appeal allowed. .