JUDGMENT S. B. ROY, C.J. : By this appeal the seven appellants, namely, Bhalu @ Rabi Khatei (A-1), Jujhia Jena (A-2), Babu Behera (A-3), Rabi Mangaraj @ Polish (A-4), Chhabi @ Sura Barik (A-5), Dunga @ Girish Khatei (A-6) and Bhagabat Nayak (A-7) have chal¬lenged the judgment dated 2.2.1994 passed by the Additional sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar convicting all the appellants under Section 302/149 and Section 148, I.P.C. and sentencing them all to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life in respect of their conviction under Section 302/ 149 I.P.C. though no separate sentence was passed in respect of their conviction under Section 148, I.P.C. 2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 24.2.1991 at about 10.05 P.M. one Bichitrananda Pradhan came to Bhubaneswar Police Station and verbally reported that some disturbance was going on in his village Kantilo. The Inspector-in-charge of the Police Station entered this oral report in the station diary under entry No. 676 dated 24.2.1991 and immediately along with other police personnel left for Kantilo village. On their arrival in the village at or about 10.40 P.M. on the very same day P.W. 1 Abhiram Pradhan lodged an oral complaint stating, inter alia, that on that day at or about 2/3 P.M. his nephew Sachidananda Pradhan came to their village from his service place. In the evening P.W.1 had been to the local market and some time thereaf¬ter he returned home.His nephew Sachidananda Pradhan (Since deceased) was returning home from the market at or about 8/8.30 P.M. and he was coming from the side of the village Bhagabatghar. The informant Abhiram Pradhan was sitting on the verandah of the house of his elder brother. At that time the accused Babji Su¬budhi, Benua Subudhi, Kedar Subudhi, appellant No.7 Bhagabat Nayak, accused Arun Paikray, Santu Paikray, Uka Managaraj, Nibas Pradhan and Anu Mangaraj were sitting on the verandah of one Kedar Subudhi. When the deceased and P.W.1 Abhiram Pradhan passed that way, the aforesaid accused persons including appellant No. 7 came down from the verandah. At that time appellant Nos. 1 to 6 also came from the side of the house of one Laxmidhar Khatei being armed with various deadly weapons like Farsha, Bhali (sharp cutting weapon), shovel, pointed weapon (tenta) and lathi (local¬ly called Thenga) and chased the deceased. Apprehending danger, P.W.1 and his brother shouted at the appellants and yet the appel¬lants chased towards them. 1 to 6 also came from the side of the house of one Laxmidhar Khatei being armed with various deadly weapons like Farsha, Bhali (sharp cutting weapon), shovel, pointed weapon (tenta) and lathi (local¬ly called Thenga) and chased the deceased. Apprehending danger, P.W.1 and his brother shouted at the appellants and yet the appel¬lants chased towards them. At that time Gobinda Patra, Shyama Patra and others threw brick bats towards the house of the in¬formant. One brick bat struck the head of the elder brother of the informant who sustained bleeding injury.With his brother the informant entered their house. However, the deceased was chased by the aforesaid accused persons including the appellants and for this reason the deceased could not enter the house but ran to¬wards Bhagabatghar. Out of fear the informant could not come to the front side of their house and the concealed himself behind the heap of straw in the house of P.W.7 Chandramani Badjena Appellants Babu Behera, Rabi Khatei, Chhabi Barik, Dunga Khatei, Jujhia Jena and Rabi Mangaraj were searching for the deceased in the house of P.W. 2 Kartik and threatened P.W.2. They also dam¬aged the house hold articles of P.W.2 Kartik. At that time the informant further heard the noise from the side of the house of Binod Mangaraj that the deceased was there. The persons who were present in front of the house of P.W. 2 Katik as well as the persons who were in the house of Kedar Subudhi entered inside the house of Binod Mangaraj whereas the informant continued to hide himself behind the straw heap and from there he heard the cries of his nephew from the house of Binod. The informant further heard the sound of sword and Farsa. Some time thereafter the informant saw the appellants and other accused persons in the moon light and the light of torch the appellants were holding. He further saw that the appellants Rabi Khatei, Babu Behera, Jujhia Jena, Chhabi Barik, Rabi Mangaraj, Bhagabat Nayak, accused Adi¬kanda Khatei and others were dragging the deceased towards Juna¬kuda from the house of Binod Mangaraj. The deceased was then bleeding and from this the informant suspected that the deceased must have died.Some time thereafter the appellants Rabi Khatei, Rabi Mangaraj and Chhabi Barik shouted on the street to finish others if they dared to venture out. The deceased was then bleeding and from this the informant suspected that the deceased must have died.Some time thereafter the appellants Rabi Khatei, Rabi Mangaraj and Chhabi Barik shouted on the street to finish others if they dared to venture out. Some time thereafter a police vehicle arrived in the village and seeing the police he came out from the place where the informant was hiding himself and lodged the oral information about this incident. The afore¬said oral information was reduced into writing by the Inspector-in-charge of the said police station and thereafter it was for¬warded to the police station where it was registered as an F.I.R. on 25.2.1991 at about 2 A.M. against 19 accused persons including 7 appellants. On the basis of the said F.I.R. a case was regis¬tered under Sections 147/148/337/452/325/302/427/324/149, IPC against 19 accused persons including 7 appellants. After usual investigation, charge sheet was filed against 21 accused persons under the aforesaid provisions of the Indian Penal Code. In course of time, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Khurda, Bhubaneswar and on transfer the case was tried before the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar. On perusal of the materials on record, the learned trial Court framed as many as five charges against all the appellants including the charges under Section 302/149 and Section 148, IPC. 3. All the accused persons including the seven appellants pleaded not guilty to the said charges. 4. In course of trial, as many as 14 witnesses were exam¬ined on behalf of the prosecution. Only one witness was examined on behalf of the defence. The version of the appellants and other accused persons in course of trial was that of complete denial of the prosecution version. On conclusion of trial, the appellants were convicted and sentenced as already stated. They were acquit¬ted from the rest of the charges. Other accused persons were ac¬quitted. 5. We have learned counsel for the respective appellants as also the learned counsel for the State. The have taken us through the evidence on record. 6. As already stated, P.W.1 Abhiram Pradhan in course of his evidence before the trial Court stated that his nephew Sachi¬dananda Pradhan died on 24.2.1991 at or about 8/8.30 P.M. in their village. The deceased was his nephew being the son of this elder brother P.W.8 Achyutananda Pradhan. The have taken us through the evidence on record. 6. As already stated, P.W.1 Abhiram Pradhan in course of his evidence before the trial Court stated that his nephew Sachi¬dananda Pradhan died on 24.2.1991 at or about 8/8.30 P.M. in their village. The deceased was his nephew being the son of this elder brother P.W.8 Achyutananda Pradhan. The deceased was a driver and he used to drive a tanker and stay in Cuttack.One Krushna Chandra Swain of their village invited P.W.1, his brother P.W. 8 Achyutananda Pradhan and other villagers on the occasion of marriage ceremony of his daughter. Accused Bhimasen Naik, Kedar Subudhi and appellant Rabi Khatei picked up a quarrel there with Krushna Chandra Swain on the ground as to why Krushna Chan¬dra Swain invited the informant and his brother to attend the marriage ceremony of his daughter. His nephew came to the village on the date of occurrence itself at about 2 P.M. In the evening the deceased had been to the market for taking tea and P.W. 1 had also gone to the market with the deceased. Around 6.30/7.00 P.M. P.W.1 returned to his village from the market. After returning from the market P.W. 1 was sitting on the verandah of his house with his elder brother being P/W. 8 Achyutananda Pradhan. At that time the acquitted accused persons, namely, Nibas Pradhan, Praful¬la Mangaraj, Arun Paikray,Shanti Paikray and appellant No.7 Bhagabat Naik alongwith others were sitting on the verandah of Babaji Behera. Some time thereafter around 8.00 P.M. the de¬ceased returned to the village and while he was so returning by the side of the house of Babaji Behera, the appellants Jujhia Jena Rabi Khatei, Rabi Mangaraj,Chhabi Barik, Babu Behera and Dunga Khatei being armed with Farsha and sword chased the de¬ceased. The deceased fled away towards Bhagabatghar. When P.W. 8 Achyutananda Pradhan protested against such action of the appel¬lants and others,one Shyama and Gobinda Patra pelted brick bats aiming at P.W.8 Achyutananda Pradhan. Because of this Achyutanan¬da sustained swelling injury on his forehead. Out of fear P.W.1 remained inside the house and did not come out.Later on he came out from the back door of the house and hide himself. behind the straw heap of P.W. 7 Chandramani Badajena. Because of this Achyutanan¬da sustained swelling injury on his forehead. Out of fear P.W.1 remained inside the house and did not come out.Later on he came out from the back door of the house and hide himself. behind the straw heap of P.W. 7 Chandramani Badajena. P.W. 1 further stated that he saw appellants Rabi Khatei, Jujhia Jena, Rabi Mangaraj, Chhabi Barik, Babu Behera, Dunga Khatei, Bhagabat Naik and some other accused persons (since acquitted) named therein were break¬ing the house of P.W. 2 Kartik and P.W. 7 Chandramani. At that time someone shouted from the house of Binod Mangaraj (not exam¬ined in this case as a witness) that the deceased was there.Imme¬diately two acquitted accused persons, namely, Adikanda and Mandia threatened P.W. 2 Kartik that he would be assaulted in case he shouted. Simultaneously appellants Chhabi Barik, Rabi Khatei, Babu Behera, Rabi Mangaraj, Bhagabat Naik, and other accused persons named therein entered into the house of Binod Mangaraj (Not examined in this case as a witness). Simultaneous¬ly, P.W.1 heard sounds of beating like “DUM DUM” and the deceased was crying “OH, MOTHER, I AM BEING KILLED”. P.W. 1 further claimed that he also heard sounds of sword and talwar. After that P.W. 1 came out to a place from where house of Binod Mangaraj was visible and he could see that the appellants and some other ac¬cused persons named therein were dragging Sachidananda Pradhan from the house of Binod Mangaraj towards Junakuda. The aforesaid accused persons then threw the deceased at Junakuda and returned to the village Danda. Within 10/15 minutes thereafter a police vehicle arrived at the village and this witness orally reported this incident before the Police Officer, who reduced his oral complaint into writing and he signed the same. This is in short the evidence given by this witness. 7. Therefore, it appears that P.W.1 Abhiram Pradhan is not only the informant but has also figured in this case as an eye witness. In his evidence he merely stated that he knew all the accused persons standing in the dock. But he did not individually name the accused person nor did he individually identify the accused in the dock. A bare statement that he knew the accused persons does not indicate that he knew them as perpe¬trators of the crime in question. In his evidence he merely stated that he knew all the accused persons standing in the dock. But he did not individually name the accused person nor did he individually identify the accused in the dock. A bare statement that he knew the accused persons does not indicate that he knew them as perpe¬trators of the crime in question. He merely made an omnibus statement that he knew all the accused persons in the dock. 8. Next important witness is P.W. 2 Kartik Khatei. He has also claimed in this case as an eye witness.He stated in his evidence that he knew all the accused persons standing in the dock as they were co-villagers of this witness. He did not indi¬vidually name the accused nor did he identify them individually as perpetrators of the crime. In his evidence he further stated that all the accused came near him when he was just outside his house, and they asked him whether this witness saw the deceased Sachidananda. In reply thereto, this witness stated that he did not see the deceased. Immediately after that all the accused forcibly broke open the door of his house and they also complete¬ly demolished the roof of house. They also damaged the house of P.W. 7 Chandramani. At that time some one shouted from the house of one Binod Mangaraj that the deceased was there. Upon hearing this all the accused persons proceeded to that place and the acquitted accused, namely, Adikanda, Lingaraj and Mandia ramaind¬ed near the house of this witness. They threatened to kill this witness if he shouted and for this reason out of fear this wit¬ness remained mum. His house was situated at a distance of about 10 cubits from the house of Binod Mangaraj. Incidentally it needs to be mentioned here that the said Binod Mangaraj has not been examined in this case as a witness. This witness further claimed that all the accused persons had assaulted his wife. At that time he also heard the deceased screaming “OH MOTHER, I AM BEING KILLED”. All the accused were armed with different kinds of weapons like Talwar, Bhali (sharp cutting weapon), tenta (pointed weapon) and lathi. As he did not hear any further shout from the deceased, this witness suspected that the deceased must have died. All the accused were then shouting “KILLED SACHI, MANY MORE WOULD BE KILLED”. All the accused were armed with different kinds of weapons like Talwar, Bhali (sharp cutting weapon), tenta (pointed weapon) and lathi. As he did not hear any further shout from the deceased, this witness suspected that the deceased must have died. All the accused were then shouting “KILLED SACHI, MANY MORE WOULD BE KILLED”. He also stated that police seized one stick, one sword and other articles in his presence under a seizure memo on which he signed. It may be noted here that throughout his exami¬nation in chief he mentioned the names of only three acquitted accused persons but no where he named any of the appellants. He only made an Omnibus statement that he knew all the accused standing in the dock as they were his co-villagers.He never iden¬tified them individually nor uttered the names of any of the appellants and other acquitted accused persons. It further ap¬pears from the cross examination part of his evidence that he never stated before the Police that the accused persons had broken and damaged the roof of his house or that the house of Chandramani was also damaged by the accused persons or that some one shouted from the house of Binod Mangaraj saying “SACHI IS HERE” and that thereafter all the accused persons went to that place. He also did not state that he heard the deceased screaming ‘OH MOTHER I AM BEING KILLED”. All these important statements were not disclosed before the police during investigation when his statement was recorded. It further appears from the cross-examination part of his evidence that he never stated to the Police that the accused persons had entered his house or that the acquitted accused Adikanda, Lingaraj and Mandia had threatened to kill him. It further appears that this witness also did not state before the police that he had seen accused Benudhar Subudhi at the time of occurrence, or that the said accused Benudhar had also accompanied other accused persons or that he entered into his house or that he had assaulted this witness. This is a promi¬nent circumstance that no where in is evidence during examination in chief or during cross-examination he divulged the names of the appellants before the Court. No attempt was made on behalf of the prosecution to get the alleged offenders identified by this witness by name and face as the perpetrators of the crime. This is a promi¬nent circumstance that no where in is evidence during examination in chief or during cross-examination he divulged the names of the appellants before the Court. No attempt was made on behalf of the prosecution to get the alleged offenders identified by this witness by name and face as the perpetrators of the crime. In these circumstances, it appears to us that the evidence of this witness does not serve any purpose for the prosecution. As a matter of fact this witness made an omnibus statement during examination if chief that he knew all the accused persons stand¬ing in the dock as they were his co-villagers. He did not identi¬fy them by name. In these circumstances, we are constrained to hold that the evidence of this witness is of no value in so far as the prosecution is concerned. 9. Same can be said with regard to the evidence of P.W.3 Pramila Khatei except that during her cross examination she divulged the name of only appellant No.4 Rabi Mangaraj. She is the wife on P.W.2. Her evidence suffers from same infirmity from which evidence of P.W.2 suffers except that during her cross examination she mentioned the name of Rabi Mangaraj. In her evi¬dence she made same type of omnibus statement that she knew all the accused persons standing in the dock. But she did not name any of the accused or the appellants except as aforesaid nor any attempt was made on behalf of the prosecution to get the perpe¬trators of the crime identified by this witness by name and face. This is very serious infirmity in the evidence of this fitness. Briefly speaking she stated in her evidence that at the time of occurrence she was in her house and it was a bright night. It was around 8.00 P.M. in the night of occurrence, when her husband returned home. At that time the deceased came running towards her house and thereafter she ran towards the house of Binod Mangraj. At that time she saw some acquitted accused persons apart from appellant No.4 Police alias Rabi Mangaraj. They were armed with various weapons and were chasing the deceased. Some other persons were also chasing the deceased but she could not say their names. During her examination in chief she specifically stated that aforesaid nine accused threatened her and asked about the de¬ceased. They were armed with various weapons and were chasing the deceased. Some other persons were also chasing the deceased but she could not say their names. During her examination in chief she specifically stated that aforesaid nine accused threatened her and asked about the de¬ceased. When she denied any knowledge about the deceased, at that time the aforesaid nine accused persons knocked at the front door of the house and broke open the same. Throughout her examination in chief and during cross examination she was harping only that nine accused persons were involved. She never disclosed the names of the appellants except the name of appellant No.4 Polish alias Rabi Mangaraj. Therefore,her evidence does not help the prosecu¬tion in so far as other appellants are concerned. She further proceeded to describe as to what she saw during the occurrence. We are not discussing them in detail as because she did not name any of the appellants except appellant No.4 Rabi Mangaraj. No attempt was made on behalf of the prosecution to get appellant No.4 individually identified by this witness as perpetrator of the crime. She named appellant No.4 as Polish and not as Rabi Mangaraj. During her cross examination she specifically stated that she did not know the names of all the accused and in the next sentence she again claimed that she knew the names of half of the accused parsons. It further appears from her evidence that this witness did not state before the Police that the acquitted accused Babu Behera, Lingaraj Khatei and Rabi Mangaraj were amongst the persons who chased the deceased or that she saw the accused persons cutting Sachidananda, the deceased or that the names of the accused persons who had assaulted her. We have already observed that in so far as the other appellants are concerned this witness does not help the prosecution at all. Further because she omitted to mention the name of appellant No. 4 Rabi mangaraj before the Police as one of the perpetrators of the crime, her evidence does not help the prosecution even in respect of appellant No. 4. She also did not identify appellant No.4 or any of the acquitted accused she had named individually by face. She made only an omnibus statement that she knew all the accused persons. She also did not identify appellant No.4 or any of the acquitted accused she had named individually by face. She made only an omnibus statement that she knew all the accused persons. Mere knowing a person is not equivalent to a statement of identification of such persons as perpetrators of the crime. 10. Next important witness is P.W. 4 Sarat Kumar Pradhan being wife of P.W. 1 Abhiram Pradhan. Here also she made an omni¬bus statement that she knew all the accused persons in the dock. In her evidence she stated that on hearing some hue and cry, she came out of her house and saw appellant No.5 Chhabi Barik, appel¬lant No.1 Rabi Khatei, appellant No.3 Babu Behera, appellant No. 4 Rabi Mangaraj and few other acquitted accused persons as named therein were shouting obscene language aimed at the husband and brother-in-law Achyutananda and his wife. They were armed with sword, Bhali (sharp cutting weapon) and lathi. They were also saying her brother-in-law “GO AND SEE THAT YOUR SON SACHIDANANDA HAS BEEN KILLED BY US AND WE HAVE THROWN HIM AT JUNAKUDA”. This is in short the evidence given by witness in course of her exami¬nation in chief. It appears there from that she did not see the actual occurrence. Though she claimed to have been some of the appellants and few other acquitted accused persons soon after the occurrence virtually confessing that they had killed the de¬ceased. Here also no attempt was made on behalf of the prosecution to get the accused and the appellants named by her during examination in chief being individually identified by face and name before the Trial Court. Mere uttering some names like a parrot is not equivalent to substantive evidence of iden¬tification of offenders. This is a serious infirmity from which her evidence suffers. Therefore, we are constrained to observe that unless the perpetrators of the crime as claimed to have been seen by her are individually identified by face and name during trial, her evidence is of no use particularly when in course of her evidence she did not give the particulars of identification and names of parents of those offenders whom she had named in her examination in chief. On this ground alone, her evidence cannot afford a foundation for sustaining the conviction of the appel¬lants in this case. 11. P.W. 5 Sukanti Pradhan is the younger sister of the deceased. On this ground alone, her evidence cannot afford a foundation for sustaining the conviction of the appel¬lants in this case. 11. P.W. 5 Sukanti Pradhan is the younger sister of the deceased. She stated in her evidence that the accused persons in the dock are known to her as they all are her co-villagers. Her elder brother died about 2 years back at night. At that time she was in her house with her parents, aunt and two other sisters.On hearing the hue and cry, she came out of her house and saw appel¬lants Bhalu Khatei, Chhabi Barik, Babu Behera, Jujhia Jena, Girish Khatei, Polish Mangaraj, Bhagabat Naik and other accused as mentioned therein standing on the village road being armed with Farsa, Bhali Tada (stick) and they were shouting “GO AND SEE THAT THE DECEASED HAS BEEN KILLED AND HIS DEAD BODY HAS BEEN THROWN AT A PLACE CALLED JUNAKUDA.” She also says that she heard this while she was remaining inside her house. This is what she had stated in her examination in chief. All the seven appellants, she named apart from naming the other acquitted accused. But the question arises if she heard the cries while remaining inside her house could see the appellants or the other accused persons. Equally it was not possible for her to see as to who were shout¬ing while making the aforesaid statement. She further confirmed during her cross examination on behalf of the accused persons that out of fear she did not go out during the night to see the place where the dead body of her brother was lying and she went to that place only in the next morning. In the night of occur¬rence at or about 10.00 P.M. the police came and saw the dead body of the deceased lying at a place called Junakuda. It further appears that she did not tell to the police in her statement that on hearing the hue and cry she came out of her house and saw the accused persons named above standing on the village road being armed with Farsa and other weapons. She also did not state to the police in her statement that the accused persons shouted saying that they threw the dead body of the deceased at the place called Junakuda. She also did not state to the police in her statement that the accused persons shouted saying that they threw the dead body of the deceased at the place called Junakuda. These omissions are indeed very important omissions in the sense that she did not claim to have seen the accused persons on the road or that the accused persons were shouting saying that they killed the deceased and threw the dead body at the place called Junakuda. Such omissions amount to serious contradictions within the meaning of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Tahasildar Singh v. State of U.P. AIR 1959 S.C. 1012 . Therefore, her evidence also does not give any assistance at all to the prosecution. Her claim that she saw some of the appellants and other accused persons on the road being armed with various weapons and further that they were shouting saying that they had killed the deceased and threw his dead body at a place called Junakuda cannot be believed in view of the aforesaid serious omissions. 12. P.W. 6 Bulu Badjena said in his evidence that he knew all the accused persons standing in the dock and also deceased Sachidananda Pradhan. The occurrence took place about 2 years prior to the date when his deposition was recorded during night at or about 8.30 P.M. At that time he was in his house with his parents when the occurrence took place. Hearing some hue and cry on the village road, his father asked him to go outside and see what was happening. On being so instructed by his father this witness came out and saw the deceased running away and he was being chased by accused Bhalu Khatei (A-1), Polish Mangaraj (A-4), Bhagabat Naik (A-7), Jujhia Jena (A-2), Babu Behera (A-3), Chhabi Barik (A-5) and some other accused persons as named there¬in being armed with sword, Farsa, Kuni and other weapons. The de¬ceased ran towards the house of Binod Mangaraj. Thereafter the aforesaid accused persons entered the house of this witness and asked his father about the whereabouts of the deceased. Father of this witness denied to have any knowledge about the deceased. Thereafter the aforesaid miscreants demolished the roof of the house of this witness. The de¬ceased ran towards the house of Binod Mangaraj. Thereafter the aforesaid accused persons entered the house of this witness and asked his father about the whereabouts of the deceased. Father of this witness denied to have any knowledge about the deceased. Thereafter the aforesaid miscreants demolished the roof of the house of this witness. Simultaneously some one shouted from the side of the house of Binod Mangaraj that the deceased was there and on hearing this the accused persons went towards the house of Binod Mangaraj. However, of the accused persons. Adikanda Kha¬tei, Mandia Khatei, Debaraj Khatei and Lingaraj Khatei remained near the house of this witness in order to guard them and they did not go towards the house of Binod Mangaraj. This is in brief the evidence given by this witness before the Trial Court during his examination in chief. However, from the cross examination part of this witness, it appears that when this witness was exam¬ined by the Investigating Officer, he did not state to the police that upon hearing human cry his father asked this witness to go out and see as to what was happening on the village road, and that being so, as instructed by his father he came out of his house and saw appellant No.1, Bhalu Khatei, appellant No. 4 Polish @ Rabi Mangaraj, acquitted accused Mandia Khatei,Debraj Khatei, Santanu Paikray, appellant No.7 Bhagabat Naik and appel¬lant No.3 Babu Behera coming to the house of this witness in the night of occurrence and further saw that they were chasing the deceased being armed with various weapons. He also did not state before the Police. In his statement recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161, Cr.P.C. that accused Mandia Khatei and Debraj Khatei remained near his house for guarding them. It also appears that this witness did not claim before the police when the was examined by the Investigating Officer that he also saw accused Debraj Khatei chasing the deceased being armed with weapon. Therefore, it appears that in so far as appellant No.1 Bhalu Khatei, appellant No.4 Polish Mangaraj, appellant No.7 Bhagabat Naik and appellant No.3 Babu Behera are concerned, this witness did not claim before the police that these appellants were seen chasing the deceased. So no reliance can be placed on the testimony of this witness that these four appellants took part in the incident. So no reliance can be placed on the testimony of this witness that these four appellants took part in the incident. There was no attempt on the part of the prosecution to get the accused and the appellants named by this witness during his examination in chief being individually iden¬tified by face and name. This is again a serious infirmity in the evidence of this witness.Any omission in the evidence, howsoever reliable same may be otherwise, can be of no assistance to the prosecution unless there is substantive evidence on oath before the Court as regards identification of the offenders. An omnibus statement has been made by this witness in the first line of his cross examination that he knew all the accused persons standing in the dock. Except this, there was absolutely nothing to show that the appellants and other accused persons named by this witness in his evidence were identified individually by name and face. 13. P.W. 7 Chintamani Badajena is the father of Bulu Bada¬jena, P.W.6. In his evidence he stated that in the night of occurrence he knew that the deceased had died when he was in his house. The house of Kartik Khatei is adjacent to the house of this witness. Around 8.00 P.M. in the night of occurrence when his son (P.W.6) was studying in the house and this witness was with P.W. 6, he heard some hue and cry on the village road. Upon hearing such hue and cry this witness asked his son to see as to what was happening outside, and accordingly his son (P.W. 6) went out of the house. This witness also followed his son (P.W. 6) and after coming out of the house he could see that the deceased was running towards his father from the village road and accused standing in the dock and three others were chasing him and the distance between the chasers and the deceased was around 25 cubits. On seeing the deceased running away towards the house of Binod Mangaraj, the accused persons threatened Kartik Khatei (not examined in this case as a witness) and challenged him saying that the deceased was concealed in his house. All the accused were then armed with sword, Tenta (a pointed weapon) and other weapons. The accused persons also threatened the wife of Kartik and challenged her saying that she had concealed the deceased inside her house. All the accused were then armed with sword, Tenta (a pointed weapon) and other weapons. The accused persons also threatened the wife of Kartik and challenged her saying that she had concealed the deceased inside her house. She denied to have any knowledge about the deceased or that the deceased had concealed himself inside her house. Thereafter the accused Chhabi Barik, Rabi Khatei, Rabi Mangaraj and Bhagabat Naik assaulted the wife of Kartik by fist and kicks. They also broke open the front door of the house of Kartik and entered his house and at that time other accused persons were standing outside his house. After that all the accused person came and challenged this witness stating that the deceased Sachidananda was hiding himself in the house of this witness. However, when this witness denied that the deceased was hiding himself in the house of this witness, the accused persons went away towards the house of Binod Mangaraj and some one shout¬ed from the house of Binod Mangaraj that deceased Sachidananda was there. However, accused Adikanda Khatei, Mandia Khatei, Lingaraj Khatei and Debaraj Khatei guarded this witness and the remaining accused persons went away towards the house of Binod Mangaraj. The accused persons who were guarding his house further threatened that if this witness did not enter his house he may be killed and therefore, out of fear this witness went inside his house and closed the door. About five minutes thereafter this witness heard deceased Sachidananda from the house of Binod Mangaraj saying “OH MOTHER, I AM BEING KILLED”. This is in brief the evidence given by this witness during his examination in chief. However from his cross examination it appears that this witness never stated before the Police in his statement recorded by the Investigating Officer that he instructed his son (P.W.6) to go out and to see as to what was happening. He also did not state that this witness also followed his son and came out of his house and saw the deceased Sachidananda running and all the accused persons named by him were chasing. He also did not state before the Police that he saw the deceased running towards the house of Binod Mangaraj or that the accused were armed with various weapons as claimed by him. It further appears that before the Police he could name 12 persons being involved in the inci¬dent. He also did not state before the Police that he saw the deceased running towards the house of Binod Mangaraj or that the accused were armed with various weapons as claimed by him. It further appears that before the Police he could name 12 persons being involved in the inci¬dent. He claimed to know all the 12 accused persons standing in the dock, but no attempt was made by the prosecution to get the accused persons including the appellants named by this wit¬ness being individually identified by face and name. The signifi¬cant omission on the part of the prosecution as regards identifi¬cation assumes special importance in view of omission on the part of this witness to disclose various important statements before the Police which he for the first time narrated in his evidence before the Trial Court. It further appears that this witness never stated before the Police that five accused persons named by him during examination in chief had threatened the wife of Kartik and also assaulted her or that they broke open the front door of the house of Kartik. In the context of aforesaid serious omis¬sions on the part of this witness to disclose the material parts of his evidence when this witness made his statement before the Police coupled with the fact that no attempt was made on behalf of the prosecution to get the miscreants named by him in is evi¬dence individually identified by name and face, we are con¬strained to observe that it is not possible to place any reliance on the testimony of this witness. Howsoever credible the evidence of a witness may be, same cannot form the foundation for the conviction on a grave charge like that of murder unless the of¬fenders are individually identified in the dock by name and face on oath. Only such evidence on oath tested by cross examination can be called substantive evidence as regards identification. Without such substantive evidence as regards the identification of the perpetrators of the crime, it is not possible to act upon such evidence. That apart, this witness virtually omitted to disclose before the Police about the roles played by different accused persons as stated by him for the first time before the Trial Court. Without such substantive evidence as regards the identification of the perpetrators of the crime, it is not possible to act upon such evidence. That apart, this witness virtually omitted to disclose before the Police about the roles played by different accused persons as stated by him for the first time before the Trial Court. Such omissions being of great importance amount to contradiction within the meaning of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Tahasildar Singh (supra). 14. P.W.8 Achyutananda Pradhan is the father of the de¬ceased. In the night of occurrence at about 7.30 P.M. he was studying on the verandah of his house and around 10/15 minutes thereafter his younger brother Abhiram Pradhan (P.W.1) came and sat with him. The deceased had been to market for taking tea and the returned home around 8.00 P.M. while his son being the de¬ceased was going to the house of Babaji Subudhi, appellant No. 7 Bhagabat Naik and some of the other acquitted accused named in his evidence said in filthy language that the deceased was going and simultaneously they started chasing the deceased. On hearing the shout raised by the aforesaid accused persons, appellant No.1 Bhalu Khatei, appellant No. 5 Chhabi Barik, appellant No. 3 Babu Behera, appellant No. 4 Polish @ Rabi Mangaraj and appellant No. 6 Dunga @ Girish Khatei and the acquitted accused Oka Mangaraj came from the side of the house of Laxmidhar Khatei and they also chased the deceased. They were armed with Bhali (a sharp cutting weapon), Farsa,Sword and other weapons. Seeing this, when this witness protested, appellant No. 5 Chhabi Barik directed others saying “KILL HIM” and on hearing this Abhiram, the younger broth¬er of this witness dragged this witness inside the house. The acquitted accused Gobinda Patra and Shyama Patra pelted brick bats and one such brick hit this witness on his forehead as a result of which he sustained an injury on his forehead. Thereaf¬ter this witness was forcibly taken inside his house and the front door was closed by his younger brother, P.W.1 About 10/15 minutes thereafter, this witness heard the accused persons saying in loud voice “ABHIRAM PRADHAN, ACHYUTA PRADHAN, YOUR SON HAS BEEN KILLED AND HIS DEAD BODY HAS BEEN THROWN AT THE PLACE CALLED JUNAKUDA. GO AND SE HIS DEAD BODY.” This is in short the evidence given by this witness. GO AND SE HIS DEAD BODY.” This is in short the evidence given by this witness. Here this witness has named some of the appellants and acquitted accused in course of his examination in chief. Unfortunately no attempt has been made on behalf of the prosecution to get the appellants or other accused persons named by this witness being identified in the dock in course of the trial. As a result not even an iota of substantive evidence on oath is available on record as to identification of the offenders by name and face. Needless to respect that this is a very serious infirmity in the prosecution evidence. No amount of evidence, howsoever credible may be otherwise, could afford sufficient foundation for holding the accused guilty on a grave charge like that of murder unless there is substantive evidence on record on oath as to identification of the author of the crime. This evi¬dence of identification on oath is evidence of highest importance in absence of which conviction is not possible howsoever the evidence may be reliable otherwise. We find that prosecution has been committing this glaring mistake time and again while examin¬ing its witness. The Trial Court has also a duty to see that the authors of the crime are specifically identified by face and name in the dock in course of the trial. Therefore, we are constrained to observe that the Trial Court also failed to discharge its duty properly. The Trial Court is not expected to discharge its duty as a neutral umpire without giving proper guidance to both par¬ties whenever considered necessary in the interest of justice. It is further found from the cross examination part of this witness that in his statement before the police recorded during investi¬gation this witness did not state that when he was sitting on the verandah of his house along with his younger brother (P.W.1) the deceased returned from the market or that when the deceased reached in front of the house of Babaji, accused Bhagabat Naik (A-7) Arun Paikray, Santi Paikray, Bhagabat Patra, Bhima Naik, Babaji Subudhi, Kedar Subudhi, Benudhar Subudhi. Prafulla Manga¬raj and Amu Mangaraj shouted in filthy language and that all of them chased the deceased or that the other accused persons, namely, Bhalu Khatei (A-1), Chhabi Barik (A-5), Dunga Khatei (A-6), Babu Behera (A-3) Polish @ Rabi Mangaraj (A-4) and Oka Manga¬raj also chased the deceased after coming out from the side of the house of Laxmidhar Khatei. It further appears that he did not disclose names to any of the aforesaid accused persons before the Police except the name of Chhabi Barik (A-5), Babu Behera (A-3), and Polish @ Rabi Mangaraj (A-4). It further appears that this witness did not state before police, that accused Chhabi Barik uttered to kill this witness and the other acquitted accused Gobinda Patra and Shyama Patra were pelting brick bats one of which hit his forehead thereby causing an injury. Therefore, it appears that this wit¬ness did not divulge before the police various roles he has at¬tributed to different appellants and other accused persons during his examination in Chief. This a very serious omission on the part of this witness. He might have attributed before the Trial Court for the first time in respect of different accused and the appellant. But he omitted to mention the overt acts attributed to various appellants and the accused before the police. In these situation, in view of the nature of omissions, the same amount to contradiction within the meaning of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Tahasildar Singh (supra) and hence no reli¬ance can be placed on the testimony of this witness when serious doubts arise as to the veracity of the testimony of the witness¬es. Apart from this, the evidence of this witness suffers from another serious infirmity, as no attempt was made on behalf of the prosecution to ask this witness while he gave evidence in the Trial Court from the witness box to identify different persons he named in his evidence by name and face. That having not been done, and in view of the aforesaid serious omissions amounting to contradiction which is of great importance, we are constrained to hold that on the basis of such evidence with such infirmities, conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained. 15. P.W. 9 Smt. Guna Pradhan is the mother of the deceased and wife of P.W. 8. That having not been done, and in view of the aforesaid serious omissions amounting to contradiction which is of great importance, we are constrained to hold that on the basis of such evidence with such infirmities, conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained. 15. P.W. 9 Smt. Guna Pradhan is the mother of the deceased and wife of P.W. 8. In her evidence she stated that in the evening of occurrence this witness along with her husband the daughters and others were in their own house. On hearing hue and cry, she came out from her house and saw the appellants Rabi Khatei, Chhabi Barik, Rabi Mangaraj alias Polish along with other accused persons, namely, Kedar Gouda, Benu, Babaji, Oka and others were shouting stating that they had killed her son and kept it in Juna Kuda. Out of fear she retreated back to her house and closed the doors from inside. All the accused persons were pelting bricks on her house.No attempt was made on behalf of the prosecution to get the appellants and other accused persons named by herein examination-in-chief identified by her. Therefore, such evidence without identification of the persons named by her is of no use at all. During cross-examination she also stated that apart from what she had stated in her examination-in-chief, as stated above, she new nothing more. In view of the fact that the persons named by her were not identified in the Court, no further discus¬sion of her evidence is at all required. However, it is needless to observe here that for the aforesaid reason her evidence cannot be the foundation for conviction of the appellants. 16. P.W. 11 Nimai Charan Dhal was the officer-in-charge of the Police Station. He investigated the case. Apart from the aforesaid, there is no other importance in the evidence of this witness. 17. P.W. 12 Dr Suchitra Das was attached as Assistant Surgeon in the Capital Hospital at Bhubaneswar. She conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. But in the absence of identification of the appellants by the eye-witnesses before the Trial Court and in view of other infirmities in their evidence as already pointed out above, the evidence of post mortem examination does not acquire any further importance. 18. P.W. 13 Srimanta Kumar Swain was the Sub-Inspector of Police. He investigated the case. But in the absence of identification of the appellants by the eye-witnesses before the Trial Court and in view of other infirmities in their evidence as already pointed out above, the evidence of post mortem examination does not acquire any further importance. 18. P.W. 13 Srimanta Kumar Swain was the Sub-Inspector of Police. He investigated the case. This is in short the entire evidence on record. 19. In a criminal trial evidence on oath about the identi¬fication of the offenders is of highest importance. Without such evidence no conviction is possible irrespective of other evidence on record. We have already discussed how badly the prosecution in this case was conducted. Prosecution did not take any step what¬soever to get the miscreants as named by different eye-witnesses identified by them on oath in the dock. Because of this shortcom¬ing in the evidence on record, apart from other infirmities regarding contradictions and omissions as already pointed out, the conviction of the appellants was not at all warranted and therefore, same cannot be sustained. 20. In the circumstances, we are left with no option but to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of convic¬tion and sentence passed against the appellants, and direct that all the aforesaid appellants be set at liberty forthwith, unless their detention is required in connection with any other case. Appeal allowed.