JUDGMENT : B. Panigrahi, J. - This is a Government Appeal filed by the State challenging the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Phulbani acquitting the respondent of the charge u/s 302, I.P.C. in S.T. No. 46 of 1997. 2. The respondent was prosecuted for having committed murder of his wife, Naka Digal in the night of 9/10.2.97 in village Pangamaha (Gedingia) under Raikia Police Station in the district of-Khandmal. The brevity of the prosecution case as discussed in the trial Court judgment is as follows: During the night hours of 9710.2.97 the respondent and the deceased Naka Digal were sleeping in their room whereas the mother of the respondent was sleeping in Anr. room of the house and the brother of the respondent (P.W.1) along with his wife (P.W.2) was sleeping in his adjacent house. It is alleged that at about 4.00 A.M. when the mother of the respondent heard the shriek raised by deceased Naka Digal she (respondent's mother) made an outcry as a reason whereof P.Ws.1 and 2 rushed to the house of the respondent and found deceased Naka Digal was lying in a pool of blood and groaning with anguishing pain. On being asked by P.Ws.1 and 2, it is alleged, the deceased Naka Digal made an oral dying declaration uttering the name of the respondent to be her assailant and after sometime she succumbed to the injuries. P.Ws.1 and 2 also alleged to have seen the respondent running away with an axe (M.O.I) in the night of occurrence. According to the prosecution and more particularly, as stated by P.W.3 Krupasinchu Pradhan, a co-villager in the following morning the respondent was found roaming in the street and when other villagers tried to over-power him, he brandished, the axe and while he was being chased by the villagers, he jumped in to a well belonging to P.W.3 The villagers put a rope in to the well and persuaded the respondent to come out of the well. The respondent came out of the well and also gave recovery of the Tangia which was trained with blood. P.W. 1, brother of the respondent, alongwith the Ward Member of the village proceeded lo Raikia Police Station and verbally explained the incident to the Officer-in charge, who reduced the said information to writing and the same was treated as F.I.R. on the basis of which a case was registered. P.W. 1, brother of the respondent, alongwith the Ward Member of the village proceeded lo Raikia Police Station and verbally explained the incident to the Officer-in charge, who reduced the said information to writing and the same was treated as F.I.R. on the basis of which a case was registered. The Investigating Officer (P.W.7) took up investigation, arrested the respondent, went to the spot, hsld inquest over the dead body of deceased Naka Digal, despatched the same for post mortem examination to Raikia Community Health Centre, seized the incriminating materials and sent the same for chemical examination and after completion of investigation placed the charge-sheet in the Court of J.M.F.C., G. Udayagiri. 3. The prosecution in all had examined 7 witnesses in order to sustain the conviction against the respondent. The learned sessions Judge. Phulbani after thorough evaluation of the evidence was, however, not inclined to record conviction against the respondent. Therefore, the State has filed this appeal challenging the said order of acquittal. 4. Mr. Mohanty. learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has critically placed the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge and submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has seriously erred in law in coming to a finding that the prosecution had significantly failed to prove the motive of the respondent for commission of the crime. It was further high-lighted that in a criminal case the evidence regarding motive can hardly be placed by the prosecution. Merely because the prosecution was not able to prove the motive that by itself cannot raise a presumption of innocence of the respondent, inasmuch as when there are other tale-tell circumstances which would point out the guilt of the accused-respondent. We found, there is significant force in the submission of Mr. Mohanty. In all cases motive cannot be proved by any direct evidence. Therefore, it has either to be proved by circumstances or in some case it has to be inferred that the assailant must be knowing for what purpose he committed the crime. Therefore, the finding of the learned Sessions Judge that the prosecution had failed to prove the motive and on that count the accused-respondent should be acquitted does not stand to judicial scrutiny. 5. The entire case rests on circumstantial evidence. If any link in the chain or events would be found missing, then the benefit of doubt should go to the accused. 5. The entire case rests on circumstantial evidence. If any link in the chain or events would be found missing, then the benefit of doubt should go to the accused. It is none the less true that in the F.I.R. P.W.1 has stated that the deceased had slept along with the respondent in the night of occurrence. It is well established in law that the contents of the F.I.R. can only be relied upon for the purpose of any contradiction or corroboration with the evidence adduced by the prosecution. On closely examining the evidence of P.W.1 we however, did not find that the he made such a statement that the deceased was found sleeping with the respondent in the night of occurrence. Rather P.W.1 pleaded his ignorance about the presence of the respondent in the night of occurrence. From his statement we only gathered that ha went to the house of the respondent being following by his wife (P.W.2) after hearing the out cry raised by his mother. It is however strange to note that the mother of P.W.1 has not been examined nor any reason has been assigned by the prosecution for her non-examination. Had the mother of P.W.1 been examined, the statement of P.W.1 would have been appreciated that he reached the house of the respondent after hearing the outcry of his mother. Be it noted here that P.W.1 was inimically disposed towards the respondent prior to the date of occurrence since he had possessed a house while the respondent was in jail custody for 5 years prior to the date of occurrence. 6. Turning to the evidence of P.W.2 the wife of P.W.1 it is gathered that she had gone to the house of respondent following her husband. According to P.W.2 while returning from the house of the respondent she saw the respondent running away with a Tangia from a distance of 10 feet away from her house. P.W.1 had also seen the respondent going away with a Tangia. It may be stated here that although P.W.1 did not claim to have been the respondent going away with the Tangia. but P.W.2 has added to the effect that P.W.1 has seen the respondent going away with the Tangia. P.W.1 had also seen the respondent going away with a Tangia. It may be stated here that although P.W.1 did not claim to have been the respondent going away with the Tangia. but P.W.2 has added to the effect that P.W.1 has seen the respondent going away with the Tangia. Since the respondent and P.W.1 were in inimical terms prior to the date of occurrence, therefore, rule of prudence demands that the statement of P.W.2 should be examined with utmost caution and ordinarily such statement should receive corroboration by any other evidence. It is significant to note that excepting P.W.2 none has stated to have seen the respondent running away from the house with a Tangia that too from a distance of 10 feet. Moreover, the incident has taken place in the month of February around 4.00 A.M. in the night. From our experience it can be gathered that at about 4 00 A.M. in night darkness might be still continuing and it would be unusual for a person to recognise Anr. person even from a distance of 10 feet. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.2 some to be riot above suspicion and the trial Court had rightly disbelieved her testimony. 7. Let us now advert to the dying declaration said to have seen made by the deceased before P.Ws.1 and 2. On a combined reading of their statement it appears that after they reached at the house of the respondent they found the deceased Naka senseless. If that be so the question of making dying declaration uttering the name of the respondent as her assailant is far from belief and in our view, the learned Sessions Judge had rightly rejected the plea of dying declaration alleged to have been made by the deceased. 8. Mr. Mohanty, strongly placed the circumstances that from the statement of prosecution witnesses it is gathered that the respondent was found in the company of the deceased in the night of the occurrence. Really it is a tale-tell circumstance against the respondent since P.W.2 has stated to have seen both, the respondent and his deceased wife, in the night of occurrence and in the following morning she saw the respondent running away with an axe. We have already discarded her evidence of having seen the respondent running away with an axe in the night of occurrence. We have already discarded her evidence of having seen the respondent running away with an axe in the night of occurrence. Although the statement of P.W.2 with regard to presence of the respondent in the company of the deceased in the night of occurrence is vital, but that should not have been missed to have seen asked in her examination u/s 313, Code of Criminal Procedure. Since that was not asked, whatever might be the circumstances against the respondent that should be utilised for holding him guilty. 9. P.W.4 claimed to have seen the respondent to have gone inside the well and brought out a Tangia which was seized in his presence. But from his cross-examination it appeared that he did not make such a statement before the police. Turning to the evidence of P.W.5 it appears that he is Anr. seizure witness and in his presence the inquest was conducted by P.W.7. His evidence has nothing to do to connect the respondent with the crime. Now turning to the evidence of P.W.6 we found that the deceased met with a homicidal death having received eight injuries on her person. Initially some other Tangia was produced before P.W.6 who stated that was not the weapon referred to him, but later on he corrected his mistake by proving M.O.I, to be the weapon of offence referred to him. P.W.7 is the I.O. in this case who corroborated the prosecution story and he stated that M.O.I. was the Tangia which was seized from inside the well. Even assuming that the Tangia contained human blood of 'A' origin, but there has been no nexus established by the prosecution that such Tangia was used by the respondent at the time of commission of the crime. After elaborate evaluation of the evidence and hearing the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the both sides we however uphold the finding of the learned Sessions Judge. 10. In the result, the Government Appeal fails and is therefore, dismissed. Even if the respondent was directed to be released on bail, no bail bond could be executed by him. Since we uphold the order of acquittal, he should be set at liberty forthwith. P.K. Misra, J. 11. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed