JUDGMENT Heard. 2. Order of conviction in Sessions Case No. 11/2000/(S.C.No. 215/2000 GDC) of the Court of First Addl. Ses¬sions Judge, Berhampur is under challenge. 3. Accused-appellant B.Srinivas Rao is the husband of late B.Bhulaxmi and hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’. She married to that accused on 20.3.1998 and suffered death on 8.10.1999. Together with accused B.Srinivas Rao, and his father B.Simadri, his mother B.Mahalaxmi they were charge-sheeted for the offence under Sections 498-A/302/34 I.P.C. and faced trial on such charges by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Berhampur. 4. Prosecution projected the case that there was ill-treatment and cruelty on the deceased on account of demand and non-payment of dowry and that deceased took shelter of the village Punch and the matter was settled by the village Punch but after some days the dead body of the deceased was found in the house of the accused persons. Accordingly the aunt (mother’s sister) of the deceased i.e., P.W.No. 5 lodged the F.I.R., Ext.6, which was scribed by P.W.6. In course of investigation, the Investigating Officer (P.W.14) made spot visit and found the dead body lying in the centre room of the eastern flank of the pucca residential premises of the accused persons. She also seized a saree, which was hanging from the roof. On inquest in presence of the Executive Magistrate and other witnesses found that on the front side neck there was ligature mark suggestive of hanging together with bruises on the swollen neck, so also there was small bruise on the right hand. At the time of inquest, it was suspected that the deceased was throttled to death. That inquest report is Ext. 2. The dead body was sent for post-mortem examina¬tion and P.W.10 from the F.M.T. Department of M.K.C.G. Medical College, Berhampur together with P.W.11, another doctor conducted the post-mortem examination and proved the post-mortem examina¬tion report, Ext. 10. In course of investigation photograph of the deceased was taken and the developed prints thereof have been marked as Exts. 1 to Ext.1/5 and the photographer (P.W.2) has proved the same. To substantiate the charge prosecution examined fourteen witnesses and that includes the father of the deceased (P.W.7), another aunt of the deceased (P.W.8) and the co-villagers of the accused persons (P.Ws. 1, 3, 9, 12 and 13). 5. On assessment of evidence of P.Ws. 10 and 11 and the post-mortem examination report, Ext. 10, learned Addl. To substantiate the charge prosecution examined fourteen witnesses and that includes the father of the deceased (P.W.7), another aunt of the deceased (P.W.8) and the co-villagers of the accused persons (P.Ws. 1, 3, 9, 12 and 13). 5. On assessment of evidence of P.Ws. 10 and 11 and the post-mortem examination report, Ext. 10, learned Addl. Sessions Judge found that deceased suffered homicidal death. It is evident from the post-mortem examination report about existence of the following external and internal injuries : EXTERNAL INJURIES : (1) Contused abrasion of size 13 C.M. x 6 C.M. situated on the neck adjacent to the upper broader of thyroid cartilage extending more or less horizontally 4 C.M. below the mid point of right half of mandible runs to left side, where its left end. It is sharply running upwards. The base of the wound looks dark, brown¬ish red and appears uneven and irregular. (2) Two linear scratch abrasions of each length 0.75 C.M. covering an area of 1.8 C.M. situated over the left side of the neck 1.5 C.M. below external injury No. 1. (3) Two scratch abrasions situated almost transversely on the extensor aspect of right forearm 11 C.M. above the wrist measures 3 C.M. x. 1.5 C.M. respectively and situated 2 C.M. one above the other. (4) Multiple number of scratch abrasions small and irregular situated over the flexor surface of both forearms covering an area of 3 C.M. x 4.5 C.M. respectively on either side almost 6.5 C.M. above the wrist on the right side and 4.5 C.M. above the wrist on the left side. (5) One Linear scratch abrasion situated on the right costs lateral aspect of back measuring 3 C.M. x 0.2 C.M. in between the lateral border of scapula and posterior auxiliary line 4 C.M. below the right arm pit. INTERNAL INJURIES : (1) Extra vesation of blood with contusion of muscle detected on both sides on the root of neck special over the supra clavicle area. (2) The base of tongue and adjacent soft tissue of epiglottis are found contused. The hyoid bone, thyroid cartilage, cricoid cartilage and tracheal rings although found in tact, the inter mucosal surface appeared red and congested. (3) The under surface of scalp at left frontal region shows contusion with extra-vesation in an area of 13 C.M. x 4 C.M. corresponding to hair margin. The hyoid bone, thyroid cartilage, cricoid cartilage and tracheal rings although found in tact, the inter mucosal surface appeared red and congested. (3) The under surface of scalp at left frontal region shows contusion with extra-vesation in an area of 13 C.M. x 4 C.M. corresponding to hair margin. (4) All internal organs were intact and congested. It may be noted here that homicidal death of the deceased is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants while arguing before us. Be that as it may, on re-appreciation of evidence of P.Ws. 10 and 11 and the post-mortem examination report it leaves no room for doubt that the deceased suffered homicidal death. 6. After deciding the aforesaid matter the crux of the matter before the trial Court was as to whether the accused persons were the authors of the crime. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge noted in the judgment that unfortunately all the kith and kins of the deceased and the co-villagers of the accused persons turned hostile to the prosecution to prove about any ill-treatment and cruelty on the deceased on account of demand of dowry and therefore, the charge under Section 498-A/34 I.P.C. failed. For the self same reasons and in absence of any allega¬tions he also found the mother-in-law i.e. accused B.Mahalaxmi to be not guilty for the offence under Section 302 or 302/34 I.P.C. notwithstanding that learned Addl. Sessions Judge held that in the absence of direct evidence i.e. evidence of eye witnesses, prosecution case is still proved through circumstantial evidence against the appellant inasmuch as the dead body of the deceased was found in their house. The defence plea of bringing the dead body from the field is not proved by them. In course of their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. each of the accused made false statement denying to the fact of holding of a village Panchayat and the circumstances of death of the deceased did not occur in normal circumstance inside the house. He held that the husband and father-in-law of the deceased are answerable for such death and accordingly the charge is proved against them. In that respect learned Addl. He held that the husband and father-in-law of the deceased are answerable for such death and accordingly the charge is proved against them. In that respect learned Addl. Sessions Judge relied on the case diary following the ratio in the case of Khetri Bewa v. State AIR (39) 1952 Orissa 37, the manner of appreciation of circumstantial evidence from the ratio in the case of Tanviben Pankajkumar Divetia v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1997 SC 2193 (also reported in 1997 (2) Crimes 109), but declined to follow the ratio in the case of R. Rajendran Nair v. State of Kerala; (1998) 14 OCR (SC) 127. 7. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the appellants argues that evidence on record does not prove complicity of the accused persons in the alleged crime either by direct or circumstantial evidence. The circumstances which have been taken into consideration by the trial Court do not complete the chain of circumstance and at the same time all of them are on the basis of surmises made by the trial Court and not on the basis of valid proof. According to him, prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge and on the face of that situation blame cannot be thrown on the accused for not proving certain circumstance which was advanced as defence plea. He argues that it is settled principle of law on Criminal Jurisprudence that prosecution is to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and weakness in the defence plea cannot be a ground to punish accused persons. 8. Mr. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel on the other hand supports the impugned order of conviction and argues that whether or not prosecution is able to bring sufficient materials for direct proof of the crime, the Court deciding the matter has to adopt a positive attitude to administer justice by making reasonable inferences and in this case trial Court has done that and therefore, this Court should not interfere with the factual finding on the grounds advanced by the appellants. 9. It is appropriate to mention here that cases are decided on facts proved through proper evidence and not on the basis of sentiment or abstract principle of law. In this case the back bone of the prosecution allegation against the accused persons is about ill-treatment and cruelty on account of non-fulfilment of dowry. 9. It is appropriate to mention here that cases are decided on facts proved through proper evidence and not on the basis of sentiment or abstract principle of law. In this case the back bone of the prosecution allegation against the accused persons is about ill-treatment and cruelty on account of non-fulfilment of dowry. The father of the deceased (P.W.7), aunt of the deceased (mother’s sister), P.W.5 clearly stated in their evidence about no demand of dowry, nor ill-treatment or torture on the deceased by the in-laws on that account and that they had found the husband and wife having happy conjugal life and the deceased and the parents-in-laws were in good humour. There is no contrary evidence on record from the side of the prosecution save and except Exts. 8 and 9. Ext. 9 is said to be a requisition for village Panchayat made by the deceased. That document scribed in Telgu does not bear the signature of the deceased nor the date on which the complaint was lodged. Be that as it may, Ext. 8 is said to be the decision taken by the village Punch on 22.8.1999 on the requisition of meeting by the deceased. An English translation of the punch Faisala (Ext.8) is also attached to Ext. 8. There is no dispute between the parties about contents of that English trans¬lation on the decision of the Panchayat. It comes out from that decision that the spouses i.e. deceased and her accused husband alleged misconduct against each other. The deceased alleged that accused was returning to the house after mid-night in drunken condition and was shouting at her and also assaulting her. The accused husband made the statement that deceased was leaving the house without intimating anybody and moving at her pleasure in and around the village which was objectionable. Both the spouses promised before the Panchayat not to repeat such alleged habits and to maintain good relationship. Therefore, the Panchayat decided to leave the matter on them with a warning to impose suitable punishment if anybody commits breach of that promise. There is no evidence worth the name on record that after this settlement on 22.9.1999 there was any dispute between the husband and wife. Therefore, the Panchayat decided to leave the matter on them with a warning to impose suitable punishment if anybody commits breach of that promise. There is no evidence worth the name on record that after this settlement on 22.9.1999 there was any dispute between the husband and wife. The aforesaid dispute between the spouses in absence of any connecting link or evidence cannot be construed as motive for the husband and father-in-law to commit the murder of the de¬ceased unless it is proved on record by direct or circumstantial evidence that after the Punch Faisala, the deceased was still continuing the habit of moving out at her sweet will, so as to give occasion for the husband and the father-in-law to be annoyed with her. Therefore dispute between the spouses which was found as the foundation circumstance by the trial Court is found to be not substantiated by the prosecution either by direct or circum¬stantial evidence. 10. Dead body of the deceased was laying on the middle room on the eastern flank of the residential premises of the accused persons, which has been mentioned in the spot map, Ext. 11. In the case diary, it has been noted that the house is pucca one. P.W.14 has stated nothing in her evidence nor it is noted in the spot visit report, if the Investigating Officer found any mark of violence or blood-stain in that middle room. No weapon of offence could also be recovered nor there was any interrogation in that respect. Therefore, the defence plea that the dead body was brought from outside does not appear to be improbable and that circumstance was not taken into consideration by the trial Court while presuming that the middle room was the spot of occurrence. It has been noted in the spot map, Ext. 11 that the room at spot ‘U’ is under the possession of a tenant namely, Rajkishore Naren¬dra. That room is the first room on the western flank of the residential premises. According to the post mortem report which was conducted at 10.30 A.M. on 9.10.1999, time of death was between 24 to 30 hours from the time of post mortem examination. If that is accepted and the time of occurrence is fixed, then it relates back to between 6.30 A.M. to 10.30 A.M. of 8.10.1999. According to the post mortem report which was conducted at 10.30 A.M. on 9.10.1999, time of death was between 24 to 30 hours from the time of post mortem examination. If that is accepted and the time of occurrence is fixed, then it relates back to between 6.30 A.M. to 10.30 A.M. of 8.10.1999. Death of the deceased was by not hanging but throttling with the aid of external hard and rough weapon. Their was no attempt during investigation to ascertain whereabouts of the weapon nor the evidence of the tenant was obtained to note if there was any unusual noise or anything unusual happened in the occurrence room which was within the same premises and at a close distance. This deficiency in investigation and lack of evidence to that effect cannot be over looked only because of discovery of the dead body from the middle room. Apart from that no witness from the side of the prosecution makes any allegation against the father-in-law regarding any ill-feeling whether or not it is related to claim of dowry. No motive has also been built up as against the father-in-law. Admittedly, by the date of occurrence deceased and her husband were living together and therefore accused Srinivas is answerable for the death of the deceased. But then the occurrence having taken place in the morning between 6.30 to 10.30 A.M. and the deceased was not deprived of moving out of the house and the other facts and circumstances already discussed, even no infer¬ence is available against accused Srinivas for the death of the deceased. In such a case prosecution is duty bound to provide at least minimum evidence to draw adverse inference against the conduct of the accused. In this case the fact situation is oppo¬site. Prosecution witnesses, which includes parents of the de¬ceased and co-villagers of the accused supports the defence plea. No effort was made by prosecution to fortify such hostile P.Ws. Therefore, the chain of circumstance is not completed to at¬tribute the crime on the husband. All these circumstances expect¬ed to be considered in such a case were omitted to be considered and the discovery of the dead body from the middle room was highlighted without any evidence. No effort was made by prosecution to fortify such hostile P.Ws. Therefore, the chain of circumstance is not completed to at¬tribute the crime on the husband. All these circumstances expect¬ed to be considered in such a case were omitted to be considered and the discovery of the dead body from the middle room was highlighted without any evidence. On a close and proper scrutiny of the evidence on record, we find that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge and the accused persons are at least entitled to the benefit of doubt. Thus, the order of conviction is set aside and the accused persons are acquitted. Bail bond executed by accused B. Simadri is discharged. Accused B.Srinivas Rao be released from jail if his detention is not required in any other criminal case. Appeal allowed.