JUDGMENT : 1. Since both the parties are ready, we take up for hearing. Heard argument and the judgment is as follows: 2. The inhuman and shocking death of a child aged about 8 years and prosecution of the Appellant as the author of that crime was the subject matter of dispute in T.R. Case No. 48 of 1999 of the Court of Learned Special Judge, Puri. On conclusion of the Trial, Learned Special Judge found the Appellant guilty of the offence under Sections 302/201 I.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for five years respectively for the aforesaid two offences with a direction to run the sentences concurrently. 3. The background fact available from the lower Court record is that Mathura Dalei (P.W.12) and Janha Dalei (P.W.11) are husband and wife. They are blessed with two sons and deceased Rajib Dalei aged about eight years was the eldest among the two. Appellant was working as a Home Guard and she had also a son from her divorced/abandoned husband. She developed intimacy with P.W. 12, which became matter of concern for P.W. 11 to remain separate from P.W. 12. Ultimately, P.W. 12 remained outside serving as a cook in an Opera party and was occasionally visiting his house. P.W. 11 carried on traditional business of selling of fish at Badasankha in Puri town. On 15.12.1998, P.W. 12 had come to the house and in the evening went to move inside the township. He took the deceased with him. In the night when the father and son returned, the deceased stated to P.W. 11 that P.W. 12 mixed with (talked with) the Appellant. Because of that, there was quarrel between P. Ws.11 and 12 and therefore P.W. 12 left the house. On 16.12.1998 in afternoon when P.W. 11 had gone to shop along with the deceased at about evening time he found the son untraceable. She searched for him and could know from P.W. 10 that he had seen deceased with the accused. Therefore, on the following day morning, P.W. 11 went to place of stay of the accused and thereafter to various places, so as to trace the accused and the deceased. She searched for him and could know from P.W. 10 that he had seen deceased with the accused. Therefore, on the following day morning, P.W. 11 went to place of stay of the accused and thereafter to various places, so as to trace the accused and the deceased. When she could not locate the accused and the deceased, she went and reported the matter to her husband at his place of stay and after returning from that place, she heard rumour about discovery of a dead body at the sea beach and found that dead body was of her son. Other part of the prosecution story is that in the afternoon and in the evening of 16.12.1998, the accused and the deceased were found moving together and they spent the night in the house under occupation of the accused in the premises of P.W. 6, the land lady and that in the morning of 17.12.1998 the accused went away from the room together with the deceased. The next evidence which could be collected by the investigating agency is that P. Ws.1, 2 and 3, who had usually gone to the Casurina forest locality at the sea beach to attend to call of nature, saw the deceased sitting with the accused and they also came after rumour of discovery of dead body of a boy and found that to be the dead body of the boy whom they had seen with,the accused. After inquest, post-mortem examination was conducted over the dead body of the deceased by Dr. Sarbaswar Acharya, P.W. 15 and he opined that there were presence of injuries on the body of the deceased indicating about physical violence in course of causing manual suffocation and also burying the boy in the sand when he was alive. The dead body could be discovered by some persons moving on the sea beach because of exposure a part of the body. At first an U.D. Case was registered and thereafter a case under Sections 302/201 was registered on the F.I.R lodged by P.W. 11. The accused being not a member of scheduled caste and the deceased being of scheduled caste, the accused-Appellant was also charged u/s 3(2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989, but ultimately in the Trial Court that charge was dropped followed by an order of acquittal. 4. The accused being not a member of scheduled caste and the deceased being of scheduled caste, the accused-Appellant was also charged u/s 3(2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989, but ultimately in the Trial Court that charge was dropped followed by an order of acquittal. 4. To substantiate the charge, prosecution examined 21 witnesses and relied on series of documents marked Exts. 1 to 13/4 and also exhibited the wearing apparels i.e. the pant of the deceased and a video cassette, in which the conduct of the accused while demonstration of the manner in which occurrence took place was recorded. Those were marked as M. Os. I to III. 5. While denying to the charge and claiming for Trial, the accused pleaded a case of total innocence but did not adduce any defence evidence. 6. Though the sequence in which he considered different aspect of the case to connect the circumstance in furtherance of proof of charge but it is mentioned in the impugned judgment of the Learned Special Judge that the evidence on record proves beyond all reasonable doubt that (i) deceased suffered homicidal death (ii) the deceased was last seen with the accused i.e. shortly before his death and (iii) that because of elicit relationship between accused and P.W. 12, the former had a motive to commit the murder. Accordingly, Learned Special Judge recorded the order of conviction and imposed the sentence in relation to the offence u/s 302 I.P.C. Learned Special Judge found the act of burying the boy as sufficient to take steps for discreening her from punishment and accordingly convicted her for the offence u/s 201 I.P.C. 7. In the Trial Court, accused urged some points so as to wriggle out of the punishment. She argued that there is no proper identity of the dead body of the deceased so as to connect it with the missing son of P. Ws.11 and 12. Learned Special Judge discarded such an argument in view of evidence of P.W. 21 that P.W. 11 came and took away the dead body. Learned Special Judge took note of the evidence of P.W. 11 relating to positive identification of the dead body to be that of her missing son so also other attended evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3 and 6, 8 and 9. 8. Learned Special Judge took note of the evidence of P.W. 11 relating to positive identification of the dead body to be that of her missing son so also other attended evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3 and 6, 8 and 9. 8. Appellant also argued that there was delay in lodging the F.I.R., registration of U.D. case was suggestive of the fact that it was not a case of homicide but an unnatural death and there was delay in examination of witnesses and all such aspect tends to benefit the accused for granting benefit of doubt. Learned Special Judge rejected such contentions raised by the Appellant with reference to positive evidence on record. 9. After placing the entire judgment and the evidence on record Mr. Pani Learned Counsel for the Appellant argues that in view of the unchallenged evidence of P.W. 15, Appellant cannot challenge the findings of Trial Court on homicidal death. On reference to evidence of P.W. 15, we find that P.W. 15 stated that in course of postmortem examination, he found a bruise in front of right ear-lobe, three bruises on front and left side of the neck and one bruise on the middle of right side neck and contusion/laceration near the outer half of the left side of upper lip and left Nos. tril. He also noticed the mouth cavity was containing sand mixed with saliva and blood and that blood had come out from mouth and Nos. e. Accordingly, he opined that cause of death of the deceased was due to asphyxia produced by combined effect of manual compression of neck and face and burying in sand when the deceased was alive. We appreciate fair play of Mr. Pani in the above respect and agree with the findings of the Trial Court that prosecution has proved homicidal death of the deceased. 10. He argued that the conduct of P.W. 1- in not showing anxiety for the missing of the child on 16.12.1998 and not lodging missing report even on 17.12.1998 is one circumstance which upset rest of the evidence and findings recorded by the Trial Court on the motive and the last seen theory. 10. He argued that the conduct of P.W. 1- in not showing anxiety for the missing of the child on 16.12.1998 and not lodging missing report even on 17.12.1998 is one circumstance which upset rest of the evidence and findings recorded by the Trial Court on the motive and the last seen theory. According to him, when the child was found missing and later on P.W. 11 learnt that he was in custody of the accused, it would have been natural for her to go and seek custody of the child in the night of 16.12.1998 itself. In that respect no attempt by her makes it clear that the occurrence did not take place in the manner it has been projected by her and also by the rest of the witnesses. In the above respect, Learned Standing Counsel argues and we find substance in the said submission that the deceased was acquainted with the accused. Relationship between accused and P.W. 12 had given advantage to the accused to take custody of the child without any hesitation, protest or resistance of the deceased. If that aspect is to be considered, then not taking prompt step by P.W. 11 to get custody of the child itself in the night does not amount to a grave circumstance so as to cast doubt on her affection or to create cloud of doubt on her conduct. Her evidence regarding proceeding to the house of the accused in the morning on 17.12.1998 and moving around to trace them has not been challenged or disputed by the accused in course of the cross-examination and therefore that evidence of P.W. 11 sufficiently nullifies the aforesaid criticism. 11. The circumstance of last seen, as stated by P. Ws. 1 to 3 clinches the issue because shortly thereafter the deceased died and sometimes thereafter in the selfsame day dead body could be noticed. That all such relevant time the child was in the Custody of accused has been abundantly proved by P. Ws. 6, 8 and 9, besides P. Ws. 1 to 3. Under such circumstance, much deliberation is not necessary so as to agree with the view of the Learned Special Judge that accused is the author of the injuries, which resulted in homicidal death of the deceased. Under such circumstance, we find no merit in the Criminal Appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed