JUDGMENT : P.K. Tripathy, J. - Heard Order of acquittal of the Respondents recorded by the Learned Sessions Judge, Sundargarh in Sessions Trial No. 110 of 1990 arising out of G.R. Case No. 5 of 1990 of the Court of S.D.J.M., Sundargarh is under challenge. 2. The accused persons faced the trial for the offence under Sections 302/201/34 Indian Penal Code on the allegation that in the night between 22nd and 23rd December 1989 Siriya Tandia, the deceased, was found hanging in her matrimonial home i.e. in the house of the accused persons. of the two accused, Labendra Tandia is her husband and Tirtha Tandia is her husband's brother. On the basis of the information given by the father of the accused persons Judhistir Tandia (P.W.15), a case of unnatural death was registered and P.W. 16, i.e. the ASI of Sargipali Police Out Post, took up the enquiry. He held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and dispatched the same for post- mortem examination. On police requisition, Dr. Dhabaleswar Choudhury (P.W.11) conducted post-mortem examination and found presence of two ligature marks on the dead body of the deceased. He held that first ligature mark was due to homicidal strangulation whereas the second ligature mark was after the death. In view of the aforesaid opinion of P.W. 11, the Enquiry Officer suspected it to be a case of homicide and accordingly F.I.R. was lodged and P.W. 12-Prasana Kumar Rout as the Officer-in-charge of Lephripara Police Station took up the investigation. From the evidence collected in course of such investigation, he came to the opinion that both the accused persons committed manual strangulation of the deceased and gave it a color of suicidal hanging and that the motive behind such crime was non-fulfilling the demand of the accused persons after her (deceased) marriage with accused Labendra in Chaitra, 1989. 3. To substantiate the charge, prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses. Besides the above noted witnesses, the other prosecution witnesses are P.W. 1 who did not state anything about the occurrence or anything implicating the accused persons, P. Ws.2,3,4 and 6 who have given similar evidence and P.W. 5 who deposed that on the request of P.W. 15 he went and informed the incident to P. Ws.7 and 8 who are respectively the father and brother of the deceased. P.W. 9 the Grama Rakhi came and saw the deceased hanging and informed the police. P.W. 10 a Police Constable from the out post had come and guarded the dead body till arrival of ASI and also identified the dead body to the doctor P.W. 11 and after post-mortem examination he returned the wearing apparels. P.W. 7, the father of the deceased and P.W. 8 the brother of the deceased, both stated about atrocities on the deceased by the accused husband not leaving her as and when they were coming to take her to their house and in some occasion P.W. 7 had seen accused Labendra assaulting the deceased. In that respect, however, P.W. 7 admitted in cross-examination that the deceased never complained against her husband and in his statement u/s 161 Code of Criminal Procedure. he (P.W.7) did not state that the accused assaulted the deceased. Similar is the position of evidence of P.W. 8 relating to the disputes between the spouses. P.W. 13 is the aunt (father's brother's wife) of the accused persons and P.W. 15 as already noted is the father of the accused persons. In their evidence both of them supported the defense plea of accused persons that accused Labendra was not present in the house by the time of occurrence so also the other inmates of the house including the co-accused were absent and that only the deceased and P.W. 13 were present. In the above context, P.W. 13 deposed that the deceased went to bathing ghat and before she could return P.W. 13 proceeded to the bathing ghat but by the time she reached the pond, P.W. 13 had already returned. The family of the accused persons, i.e. the family of P.W. 15 and the family of P.W. 13, remain in the same premises and that when she (P.W.13) returned, she found the deceased was hanging and was dead. 4. Evidence of P.W. 14 indicates that accused was not present in the spinning mill premises on 22nd & 23rd December, 2008. That answer was given with reference to the muster roll. In his cross-examination that witness has stated that attendance of the laborer can also be known from the register maintained in the entry gate. That aspect was not verified by the Investigating Agency nor was any evidence adduced by the prosecution. That answer was given with reference to the muster roll. In his cross-examination that witness has stated that attendance of the laborer can also be known from the register maintained in the entry gate. That aspect was not verified by the Investigating Agency nor was any evidence adduced by the prosecution. Be that as it may, the plea of alibi of the accused recedes back when the prosecution fails to prove a homicidal death in the manner it has alleged. 5. In course of his evidence, the ASI of Police who first visited the spot did not speak anything peculiar about the spot of occurrence or if he could notice mark of violence or presence of any physical evidence about any foul-play. The spot visit by P.W. 12 also does not improve the prosecution case in any manner in furtherance of proof of charge. Evidence of P. Ws.1,2,3 and 4 read together goes to indicate that the dead body was brought down on Saturday and again it was hung; may be for police to see it. In that process, the prosecution witnesses have explained about the dual hanging of the deceased probabilising two separate ligature marks. No attempt was made by the prosecution at any stage to explain that circumstance or to disprove such circumstance stated by their own witnesses. Under such circumstance, when the Trial Court has acquitted the accused from the charge under Sections 302/201/34 Indian Penal Code and Learned Standing Counsel is not able to show any illegality or perversity from the findings recorded by the Trial Court, we find no fault in the impugned order of acquittal so as to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the Government Appeal is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed