JUDGMENT : B. Panigrahi, J. - The sole Appellant was prosecuted for commission of murder of his wife Pusparani Mandal and convicted u/s 302, IPC by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Malkangiri and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution story as revealed in the trial Courts' judgment is that in the evening of 22.11.99 the informant (father of the appellant), his wife and younger son were absent from their house. The informant's wife went to the house of one Nirmal Burman to call her second son Biswanath Mandal and on return she found that the Appellant and his wife were absent from the house. It is further alleged that the Appellant had left the house after quarreling with his wife on the preceding Saturday and returned to the house in the afternoon of some day, i.e. 22.11.99 and taking advantage of the absence of other family members and seeing his wife Pusparani alone he was said to have killed his wife. The informant, his wife and younger son searched for the Appellant and his wife in the same night, but could not get trace of them. In the early morning of the following day, i.e. 23.11.99 the family members of the informant got information that deceased Pusparani is lying dead with cut injuries on her neck in a paddy field about 2 kms. away from their house. On receiving the said information the informant went to the spot and thereafter proceeded straight to the police station for lodging information. The informant lodged information at the Police Station and on receiving information the police registered a case and proceeded to investigate into the case. The I.O. visited the spot, held inquest over the dead-body of the deceased, despatched the deadbody for post mortem examination, examined the witnesses, arrested the accused-Appellant and recovered the Kati (M.O.I) pursuant to the discovery statement made by the Appellant u/s 27 of the Evidence Act and after completion of investigation placed the charge-sheet in Court. 3. The plea of the Appellant was one of denial of the incident and claimed to have been falsely implicated in this case. 4. Prosecution in all examined 19 witnesses, but could not examine the I.O. since it is alleged that he was killed by the Naxalities before commencement of the trial. 3. The plea of the Appellant was one of denial of the incident and claimed to have been falsely implicated in this case. 4. Prosecution in all examined 19 witnesses, but could not examine the I.O. since it is alleged that he was killed by the Naxalities before commencement of the trial. So far as the death of deceased Pusparani is concerned, there is no dispute that she met with a homicidal death on account of injuries. P.Ws. 1 and 2 are the father and mother respectively of the Appellant. P.W.1 was the informant in this case, but the scribe of the FIR could not be examined. P.W.7 is the sister of the Appellant. P.W.6 is the mother of the deceased and Ors. are post occurrence witnesses. 5. It is unfortunate to note that none of the prosecution witnesses including the seizure witnesses supported the prosecution case excepting the official witnesses. It is strange to note that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge basing on certain conjectures and surmises that the Appellant might have been the author of the crime convicted him even though there was no legal evidence available against him. 6. It is stated that there was a quarrel between the Appellant and the deceased on a preceding Saturday, but it is not sufficient to hold that he was the author of the crime without any further corroborative evidence. It is significant to note that the deadbody of the deceased was lying at a distance of 2 kms. away from the house of the informant. There is no credible evidence adduced by the prosecution to establish that the Appellant had gone with the deceased and they were last seen together before commission of the crime. There has been no eye witness to the occurrence nor any circumstance has been proved by the prosecution. In the FIR P.W.1 has described that his wife went to the house of one Nirmal Burman to ball her second son and by the time she left the house she found the Appellant and his wife present in the house. From the evidence of P.W.2 we did not find any such incriminating statement said to have been made by her. The discovery statement alleged to have been made by the Appellant u/s 27 of the Evidence Act has also not been proved by the prosecution inasmuch as the seizure witnesses, P.Ws. From the evidence of P.W.2 we did not find any such incriminating statement said to have been made by her. The discovery statement alleged to have been made by the Appellant u/s 27 of the Evidence Act has also not been proved by the prosecution inasmuch as the seizure witnesses, P.Ws. 1, 2 and 15 have not also supported the prosecution case, nor they have proved the seizure of the M.O., the Kati, from the custody of the Appellant. All that RW.12 stated was that by the time he went to the spot, he found that the police was holding a Kati. P.W. 15 also deposed in the same manner. Even assuming that the I.O. was dead, the prosecution could have examined some other police officer who was acquainted with the handwriting of the I.O. to prove the seizure. But surprisingly no step was taken by the prosecution even to prove the seizure list, much less the discovery statement u/s 27 of the Evidence Act. 7. From the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the insufficient evidence placed before us by the prosecution, we are constrained to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the accused-appellant. 8. In the result, we allow the appeal, set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Malkangiri against the Appellant and direct that the Appellant be set liberty forthwith. P.K. Misra, J. 9. I agree. Final Result : Allowed