JUDGMENT : B.K. Patel, J. - This criminal appeal arises out of the impugned Judgment passed by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Kendrapara in ST. Case No. 29/429 of 2003. Altogether thirteen accused persons faced the trial. By the impugned Judgment, the learned trial Court convicted the six Appellants Bijaya Kumar Sahoo, Giridhari Bank, Prasanta Swain, Bibhuti Bhusan Panda, Nalini Sahoo and Baidhar Swain @ Baia for commission of offence u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'I.P.C.') and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life while acquitting co-accused persons Bishnu Charan Panda, Raghunath Sahoo, Nrusingha Charan Panda, Bibhu Bhusana Panda, Gangadhar Barik, Rangadhar Barik and Ramesh Nayak. Being aggrieved, the Appellants have challenged the impugned Judgment and order of conviction and sentence in the present appeal. 2. Informant P.W.1 Sarbeswar Sahoo and P.W. 3 Maheswar Sahoo are deceased's brothers. Prosecution case is that there was previous enmity between the deceased and his family members on the one hand and the Appellants and co-accused persons on the other. On 26.6.2002 at about 4.00 P.M., Appellant Giridhari along with co-accused persons Rangadhar and Gangandhar came to cut a Chakunda tree standing on the land of the deceased to which the deceased and his family members protested. As a result, there was a quarrel and the accused persons threatened the informant that they would kill one of the brothers. It is further alleged that in the evening on that day, the accused persons held a meeting and gave out that they would kill one of the brothers of the informant. At about 8.00 P.M. on that day, the deceased left home to watch a Video show in the house of one Baishnab Bai, but he did not return home till 3.00 A.M. Informant P.W.1 did not find the deceased in spite of search and enquiry. It is alleged that on enquiry P.W.1 learnt that the accused persons were also not present in their houses. In the morning, dead-body of the deceased with injuries on his person was found in the tank of Baishnab Bai. On the report of Grama Rakhi, the O.I.C. of Pattamundai P.S. (P.W.14) registered U.D. Case No. 7 of 2002. In course of enquiry, the dead-body of the deceased was subjected to inquest and post mortem examination. However, on 28.6.2002, on presentation of the written report Ext. On the report of Grama Rakhi, the O.I.C. of Pattamundai P.S. (P.W.14) registered U.D. Case No. 7 of 2002. In course of enquiry, the dead-body of the deceased was subjected to inquest and post mortem examination. However, on 28.6.2002, on presentation of the written report Ext. 2 by the informant, P.W. 14 registered Pattamundai P.S. Case No. 78 of 2002, closed the U.D. Case No. 7 of 2002 and took up investigation. On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted for commission of the aforesaid offence against the accused persons. Accordingly, the accused persons faced the trial for charge under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. 3. The accused persons took the plea of false implication due to previous enmity. 4. In order to establish the charge, prosecution examined fourteen witnesses apart from relying upon documents marked Exts. 1, 2 and 3. Only one witness D.W. 1 was examined on behalf of the defence. As has been stated earlier, P.Ws. 1 and 3 are deceased's brothers whereas P.W. 14 is the Investigating Officer. P.W. 2 Jaladhar Mohanty deposes regarding meeting held by the accused persons as well as claims to have seen the Appellants dragging the deceased towards burial ground in the night of occurrence. P.W. 3 deposes regarding the quarrel between his family members and accused persons in connection with attempt of the accused persons to cut Chakunda tree. P.W. 4 also deposes regarding quarrel in connection with Chakunda tree in course of which Appellant Giridhari and co-accused persons Gangadhar and Rangadhar threatened to kill one of the brothers of the informant. Though P.W. 5 was declared to be a hostile witness by the prosecution, he also deposes regarding quarrel in connection with claim over the Chakunda tree. P.W. 6 Maheswar Panda deposes to have seen the Appellants and co-accused persons washing their feet and face in a tube-well in the night of occurrence. P.W. 7 Maheswar Sahoo was also declared to be a hostile witness. P.W. 8 Niranjan Patra is another witness who deposes regarding the quarrel in connection with claim over the Chakunda tree. P.W. 9 Kalpataru Mohapatra deposes that on 26.6.2002 co-accused Nrusingha paid some money to Appellant Bibhuti to purchase liquor and also gave out that they would murder one of the family members of the informant. P.W. 10 is an inquest witness. P.W. 9 Kalpataru Mohapatra deposes that on 26.6.2002 co-accused Nrusingha paid some money to Appellant Bibhuti to purchase liquor and also gave out that they would murder one of the family members of the informant. P.W. 10 is an inquest witness. P.W. 11 Abhaya Kumar Panda deposes regarding quarrel in connection with claim over the Chakunda tree and the meting of the accused persons. He also deposes to have seen the accused persons returning from the side of the tank of Baishnab Bai in the night of occurrence. P.W. 12 is the doctor who conducted post mortem examination over the dead-body of the deceased. P.W.13 Surendra Mallik was declared to be a hostile witness. The learned trial Court relying on the evidence mainly of P.Ws. 2, 6 and 11 passed the impugned order of conviction and sentence against the Appellants. 5. In assailing the impugned Judgment, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Appellants that there is no eye-witness to the commission of murder of the deceased and the prosecution case was sought to be established against the Appellants and co-accused persons on circumstantial evidence on the basis of which the Appellants stand convicted. It is contended that not only none of circumstances including homicidal nature of death of the deceased relied upon by the prosecution has been established but also the so called circumstances taken together do not constitute a complete chain to unerringly point out that it was the Appellants who committed murder of the deceased. It is also contended that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is replete with contradictions and inconsistencies for which no reliance whatsoever can be placed on any of them including the three material witnesses P.Ws. 2, 6 and 11. It is further argued that there has been inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging of the F.I.R. as well as recording of police statements of the witnesses mainly on whose evidence reliance is placed by the prosecution. It is strenuously contended that the nature of evidence adduced by the prosecution is far short of proof to sustain conviction in a criminal trial. In reply, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State submits that the evidence of P.Ws. It is strenuously contended that the nature of evidence adduced by the prosecution is far short of proof to sustain conviction in a criminal trial. In reply, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State submits that the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 6 and 11 goes to show that the deceased was last seen when he was being dragged by the Appellants and that the Appellants were found near the tank in which the dead-body of the deceased was discovered. Such evidence in the back ground of previous enmity constituting motive for commission of offence clearly establishes that it was the Appellants who killed the deceased and threw the dead-body in the tank. In such circumstances, the impugned Judgment is not amenable to interference. 6. Admittedly, there is no eye-witness to the occurrence. Circumstances relied upon by the prosecution to prove the charge against the Appellants are: (i) there was previous enmity between the Appellants on the one hand and family of the deceased on the other; (ii) on the date of occurrence i.e. 26.6.2002 at about 4.00 P.M., there was quarrel between the Appellants and the family members of the deceased in course of which the Appellants threatened to kill one of the brothers of the informant. (iii) in the evening on that day, the accused persons held a meeting in course of which they gave out that they would kill one of the brothers of the informant; (iv) in the night of occurrence, the Appellants were found dragging the deceased towards the burial ground; (v) soon after the occurrence the accused persons with mud on their persons were found washing their feets and face in a tube-well; and (vi) the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. 7. Enmity by itself, being a double edged of weapon, does not lead to infallible inference of commission of offence. In the present case, allegation of previous enmity made by the prosecution does not appear to have been disputed by the Appellants. Rather in course of their examination u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure the Appellants state that they have been falsely implicated due to previous enmity. Undoubtedly, previous enmity may constitute a motive not only for the commission of offence but to falsely implicate accused persons with commission of offence. 8. Prosecution seeks to establish the circumstance (ii) as the immediate motive for commission of murder of the deceased. Undoubtedly, previous enmity may constitute a motive not only for the commission of offence but to falsely implicate accused persons with commission of offence. 8. Prosecution seeks to establish the circumstance (ii) as the immediate motive for commission of murder of the deceased. Informant P.W. 1 deposes that at about 4.00 P.M. on 26.6.2002, the accused persons Rangadhar, Gangadhar, Giridhari and Ramesh came to cut the Chakunda tree standing on the ridge on their land to which P.W. 1, the deceased and P.W. protested. There was tussle between them and since the above named accused persons were armed with axe, the informant and his brothers returned back. It is further alleged by P.W. 1 that at that time, the above named accused persons threatened to kill one of the informant's brothers. It is pertinent to point out that out of the above named accused persons, only Appellant Giridhari has been convicted whereas accused persons Rangadhar, Gangadhar and Ramesh were acquitted. Though the F.I.R. Ext.2 was lodged on 28.6.2002 at about 8.00 P.M., it is strange to notice that the F.I.R. is altogether silent regarding quarrel between any of the Appellants on the one hand and informant and his brothers on the other on 26.6.2002. Also as has been referred to earlier, the police instituted U.D. Case No. 7 of 2002 on 27.6. 2002 in course of which P.W. 14 appears to have held inquest over the dead-body of the deceased in presence of P.W. 1 and others. Omission of P.W. 1 to state soon after the occurrence regarding quarrel between the parties before the police in course of enquiry into U.D. Case No. 7 of 2002 as well as in the F.I.R. renders such assertion unreliable. P.W. 3 who is also one of the brothers of the deceased deposes that on 26.6.2002 while measurement of land was held and when the parties were near the Chakunda tree, accused persons Giridhari, Gangadhar and Rangadhar protested. They came to cut the Chakunda tree claiming that it belongs to them to which the deceased, P.W. 3 and his other brother and father protested. The above named accused persons abused them and threatened by saying "TINIBHAI BHITARU JANAKU MURDER KARIBU". It is specifically stated by P.W. 3 that the other accused persons were in good term. They came to cut the Chakunda tree claiming that it belongs to them to which the deceased, P.W. 3 and his other brother and father protested. The above named accused persons abused them and threatened by saying "TINIBHAI BHITARU JANAKU MURDER KARIBU". It is specifically stated by P.W. 3 that the other accused persons were in good term. Though such assertion is made by P.W. 3 in Court, it has been elicited by the defence that P.W. 3 had not stated before the Investigating Officer P.W. 14 that the accused persons threatened to kill one of their brothers, or that there was dispute for cutting of Chakunda tree, or that threat was given by saying "TINI BHAIRU JANAKU MURDER KARIBU", or that the accused persons came to claim the Chakunda tree to which P.W. 3, his brother and father protested. Omission on the part of P.W. 3 to disclose regarding quarrel on the very day of occurrence amounts to material contradiction. Also his testimony to the effect that the other accused persons were in good term with the family members of the deceased renders the prosecution case of previous enmity suspicious. P.W. 4 deposes that on 26.6.2002, the accused persons Rangadhar, Gangadhar and Giridhari quarreled with P.W.3 and his brother for Chakunda tree standing on the fence. They also threatened that "TINI BHAI BHITARU JANAKU MARIBU". Thus, P.W.4 does not state the name of accused Ramesh to have been involved in the quarrel as deposed by P.W. 1 and thereby contradicts P.W. 1 on this score. Though P.W. 5 also deposes regarding quarrel in connection with claim over the Chakunda tree, this witness was declared to be a hostile witness. Moreover, P.W. 5 deposes that at the time of measurement, accused Gangadhar claimed that Chakunda tree belongs to him to which Nirakar Moharana protested. Nirakar and Gangadhar came quarreling to Danda when P.W. 3 claimed the Chakunda tree to be his tree. Thereafter, P.W. 3 and accused Giridhari claimed the Chakunda tree. According to P.W. 8, on 26.6.2002 they heard hulla, went, and saw that the deceased and Appellant Giridhari quarreled. Accused persons Gangadhar and Rangadhar were there. One Chakunda tree was standing on the ridge of the fence. The deceased and P.W. 3 were also present there. Accused Rangadhar wanted to cut the tree to which P.W. 3 and deceased protested. According to P.W. 8, on 26.6.2002 they heard hulla, went, and saw that the deceased and Appellant Giridhari quarreled. Accused persons Gangadhar and Rangadhar were there. One Chakunda tree was standing on the ridge of the fence. The deceased and P.W. 3 were also present there. Accused Rangadhar wanted to cut the tree to which P.W. 3 and deceased protested. Accused persons Gangadhar and Rangadhar threatened to commit (sic) if they were not allowed to cut the tree. Though P.W. 8 makes such assertions in Court, he does not appear to have stated so in course of investigation to P.W. 14. P.W. 14 deposes that P.W. 8 had not stated to him that accused Gangadhar wanted to cut the Chakunda tree and the deceased protested, or that threat was given when they were prevented to cut the tree. On this score, P.W. 11 deposes that on 26.6.2002, accused persons Rangadhar, Gangadhar and Giridhari on the one hand and the deceased, P.W. 1 and P.W. 3 on the other quarreled with each other for Chakunda tree standing on the fence. Accused Rangadhar and others wanted to cut the tree to which P.W. 3 and his family members protested. The above named three accused persons threatened to kill one of the brothers of P.W. 3. This witness had also not stated before P.W. 14 that accused persons Gangadhar and Rangadhar went to cut the Chakunda tree to which P.W. 3 and others protested, or that they threatened to kill. Thus, there is absolutely no scope to hold that prosecution has established that there was quarrel between any of the Appellants on the one hand and the deceased and his brothers on the other on the date of occurrence in connection with claim over the Chakunda tree. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has failed to establish the so called immediate motive for commission of murder of the deceased. 9. Circumstance (iii) relates to a meeting held by the accused persons in the evening of 26.6.02 in course of which they openly gave out that they would kill one of the brothers of the informant. Prosecution relies upon the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 11 to establish the circumstances. 9. Circumstance (iii) relates to a meeting held by the accused persons in the evening of 26.6.02 in course of which they openly gave out that they would kill one of the brothers of the informant. Prosecution relies upon the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 11 to establish the circumstances. P.W. 2 also deposes regarding the circumstance (iv) which is one of the most vital circumstances marshalled by the prosecution against the Appellants in as much as it is asserted that in the night of occurrence the Appellants were found dragging the deceased towards the burial ground. As P.W. 2 is a witness to both the circumstances, the evidence adduced by the prosecution to establish circumstances (iii) and (iv) are taken up together for scrutiny. 10. P.W. 2 testifies that on 26.2.02 after returning from Pirababa at 6 P.M., he went to the shop of accused Nrusingha Panda where he found that all the accused persons were sitting. P.W.2 purchased Gaja. He heard Ranjan telling "LAXMIDHARAKU MURDER KALE GOTIA BHAI SARIJIBA". It may be pointed out that above said Ranjan was not an accused person who faced trial. It is further deposed by P.W.2 that on being questioned by him, Appellant Giridhari told that there was dispute relating to Chakunda tree. Evidence relating to dispute in connection with Chakunda tree has already been discussed. P.W.2 further says that at about 8 P.M., he went to see Video and saw the accused discussing with Nrusingha Panda. While preparation of meat was going on accused Nrusingha told that "TINI BHAIRU JANE KAHAKU KHATAM KALE SARIJIBA". In this connection P.W.2 contradicts himself when he says in his cross examination that Appellant Giridhari told that he did not ask anything to Ranjan and that it was Appellant Giridhari who told that "LAXMIDHARAKU MURDER KARIDELA GOTIA SARIJIBA" though he does not attribute such statement to Appellant Giridhari in his examination-in-chief. P.W. 2 further says that at 10.30 P.M. he returned to his house and saw the accused taking liquor on the backside of the bari of Jariram. At about 12 mid night hearing barking sound of dog, he got up and went to the bari. He saw Appellants Bijaya, Giridhari, Prasanta, Bibhuti, Nalini and Baidhar dragging the deceased towards the burial ground. He was not able to see the other people going with the Appellants. There was light in his bari. At about 12 mid night hearing barking sound of dog, he got up and went to the bari. He saw Appellants Bijaya, Giridhari, Prasanta, Bibhuti, Nalini and Baidhar dragging the deceased towards the burial ground. He was not able to see the other people going with the Appellants. There was light in his bari. P.W.2 heard the shout of Laxmidhar "BHAILO MOTE MARIPAKAILE". Out of fear he went inside the house. Some time thereafter, P.W.2 says to have seen all the accused persons washing their legs and hands which he could see in the electric light of Babaji. On 27.6.02 in the early morning P.W.2 saw some villagers running and he went with them. He saw Laxmidhar lying in the tank with face downwards at about 7 A.M. Thereafter, P.W.2 claims to have gone away to the house of his sister at Belatala as he had urgent work there and to have returned on 28.6.02. P.W.2 admits that he was examined on 29.6.02. In cross examination P.W.2 admits that he had not told anything to the deceased or his family members about the statements of Ranjan and the Appellant Giridhari nor did he state to the family members of the deceased when he saw that he was being dragged by the accused persons or when he saw the accused persons washing their feet and legs. It is further elicited in the cross examination of P.W.2 that though he saw deceased's parents and brother, who were going towards the tank while returning from the spot, he did not tell them anything. It is categorically admitted by P.W.2 that he had not revealed regarding the incidents which he had witnessed in the night of occurrence till his statement was recorded by the I.O. It has further been elicited from P.W.2 that he did not disclose regarding the incidents to any one in the village of his sister. P.W.2 admits that he had Stated before P.W.14 the Investigating Officer that the Occurrence night was dark night. It has been elicited from the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 14 that P.W.2 had not stated before P.W. 14 in hit statement u/s 161 Code of Criminal Procedure that Appellant Baidhar wig also among the persons who were dragging the deceased, or that electric light was burning in his bari or in the house of Babaji. It has been elicited from the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 14 that P.W.2 had not stated before P.W. 14 in hit statement u/s 161 Code of Criminal Procedure that Appellant Baidhar wig also among the persons who were dragging the deceased, or that electric light was burning in his bari or in the house of Babaji. P.W.2 appears to have also not stated in his police statement that he went away to the house of his sister and returned ?fl 28.1,02. Thus, not only P.W.2 Contradicts himself in Court with regard to the alleged statements in the meeting held by the Appellants in the evening on 26.6.02 but also there is Vital contradictions between his statement made before police and testimony made in Court Implicating the Appellants with the act of dragging the deceased towards burial ground, about the accused persons washing their feet in the night of occurrence and about existence of source of light which enabled P.W.2 to see the two vital circumstances of the Appellants dragging the deceased and the Appellants washing themselves. That apart, the manner in which P.W.2 deposes to have stumbled upon these two circumstances puts him in the position of a chance witness. Above all, nondisclosure of the incidents to any one including the family members of the deceased though he met them after seeing the dead body of the deceased in the morning of 27.6.02 is not the normal conduct of a reasonable person. The plea of P.W.2 that delay in his examination by police till 29.6.02 occurred due to absence from his village as he had gone to his sister's village is also not acceptable in view of his omission to explain the delay in his police statement. All these circumstances render the evidence of P.W.2 with regard to the circumstances of holding a meeting by the accused persons, of the Appellants dragging the deceased and of the Appellants washing their feet, as stated by him, incapable of being accepted as the evidence of a reliable witness. The evidence of P.W.2 does not stand the test of legal scrutiny to be acted upon without corroboration as P.W.2 is not found to be a firm witness and while looking for corroboration it is found that P.W.2 is the only witness who claims to have chanced upon the Appellants when they were dragging the deceased towards burial ground in the night of occurrence. In the absence of corroboration we are constrained to observe that evidence adduced by the prosecution falls far short of proof beyond reasonable doubt to establish the circumstance(iv). 11. So far as circumstance (iii) regarding the meeting held by the accused persons is concerned, prosecution relies upon the evidence of P.W.11 also. It has already been observed that evidence of P.W.11 with regard to quarrel between the accused persons on the one hand and the family members of the deceased on the other in connection with rival claim over Chakunda tree is not acceptable. P.W.11 also claims that in the evening on 26.6.02 when he went to the shop of accused Nrusingha, he saw accused persons Raghu, Bishnu, Bibhuti, Bidubhusan, Nalini, Bijoy, Prasanta, Baidhar, Ramesh, Rangadhar, Gangadhar and Giridhari as well as one Ranjan there. However, it has been elicited by the defence that P.W.11 had not stated to P.W.14 in his police statement regarding the meeting of the accused persons. In such circumstances, the evidence of P.W.11 also is not capable of being accepted for the purpose of substantiating the circumstance (iii) relied upon by the prosecution. Thus, prosecution is found to have failed to establish circumstance (iii) also. 12. P.W.11 further says that in the night he went to witness Video show. While witnessing the Video show he was told by his nephew that his pet dog had expired upon which he returned home and went to the burial ground the bury the dog. When he was returning in the midnight P.W.11 claims to have seen accused persons Raghu, Bishnu, Nrusingha, Bibhuti, Bidubhusan, Nalini, Bijoy, Prasanta, Baidhar, Ramesh, Giridhari, Rangadhar and Gangadhar as well as above said Ranjan returning from the side of the spot tank. P.W.11 further says that their bodies were stained with mud. Omission of P.W.11 to make vital statements before investigating officer has already been taken note of. In view of such omissions which amount to material contradictions P.W.11 also to not a firm witness to be relied upon without corroboration. That apart it is found that P.W.11 was examined by Police as late as on 25.9.02. In this connection P.W.11 takes the plea that on 26.6.02 he went to Delhi and returned home on 22.9.02. In view of such omissions which amount to material contradictions P.W.11 also to not a firm witness to be relied upon without corroboration. That apart it is found that P.W.11 was examined by Police as late as on 25.9.02. In this connection P.W.11 takes the plea that on 26.6.02 he went to Delhi and returned home on 22.9.02. This explanation is also not capable of being accepted in view of the fact that it has been elicited m the evidence that P.W.11 had not stated in his police statement before P.W.14 that from Delhi on 25.9.02. The delay in examination of P.W.11 by the Investigating Police Officer remains unexplained and renders his evidence suspicious. P.W.11 categorically says that in the morning following the night of occurrence he learnt regarding the murder of the deceased and disposal of the dead body in the tank. However, in course of his cross examination it has been brought out that he had not disclosed regarding the incident which he claims to have witnessed in the night of occurrence to any body till he was examined by the I.O. Therefore, evidence of P.W. 11 is also found to be too shaky to sustain any finding in a criminal trial. Consequently, there is no acceptable evidence en record that any of the accused persons was found returning from the side of the spot in the night of occurrence. 13. P.W.6 claims that in the night of occurrence he went to look for the deceased when he failed to return from Video show. However, deceased could not be traced out. When P.W.6 was returning, he saw that accused persons Nrusingha, Bishnu, Bidhu, Bibhuti, Ramesh, Raghu, Rangadhar, Giridhari, Bijoy and Nalini were washing their feet and face near the tube-well. It appears that this witness was also examined by the I.O. as late as on 25.9.02. In this connection P.W.6 says that he went out to Rourkela on 27.6.02 and returned on 24.9.02. P.W.6 admits to have been present, to have gone to the spot and to have seen the dead body of the deceased in the morning of 27.6.02. However, he is constrained to admit in cross examination that he did not disclose regarding the incident which he had witnessed in the night of occurrence to any one including the brothers of the deceased though he saw them in the morning. However, he is constrained to admit in cross examination that he did not disclose regarding the incident which he had witnessed in the night of occurrence to any one including the brothers of the deceased though he saw them in the morning. That apart, P.W.6 is found to have not stated in his police statement that on 27.6.02 he went to Rourkela and returned on 24.9.02. It has also been brought out by the defence in evidence that P.W.6 had not stated the names of accused persons Bishnu, Nalini, Baidhar and Prasanta before P.W. 14. Therefore, evidence of P.W.6 is also of no assistance to the prosecution for being utilised to sustain any finding. 14. Not only evidence with regard to circumstances (i) to (v) relied upon by the prosecution are, as discussed above, is not found to have been established beyond doubt but also it is curious to note that prosecution has also failed to place on record unimpeachable evidence to indicate that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. P.W. 12 conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. Externally he found abrasion on the left ear, bruises on both side eye brows and forehead, and small abrasions on feet. All such injuries were simple in nature. There was no legature mark. Though P.W.12 opines that the cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia, in course of cross examination he admits that he did not find any definite symptom of cause of death for which he reserved his opinion. Viscera preserved by P.W.12 do not appear to have been subjected to forensic examination. P.W.12 categorically says that he did not receive any report from the Forensic Laboratory. In the absence of any other clinching circumstance to indicate homicide, decisions in State of Tamil Nadu v. P. Muniappan : 1998 SCC (Cri) 417, Godabarish Mishra v. Kuntala Mishra and Anr. : 1997 SCC (Cri) 78 and State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jeet Singh : 1999 SCC (Cri) 539 : 1999 (II) OLR (SC) 133 pressed into service on behalf of the State are of no assistance to prosecution. In the present case, the evidence of doctor P.W. 12 cannot be construed to suggest hemlcidal death of the deceased in the absence of any indication regarding the cause of death the opinion with regard to which was kept reserved by P.W. 12. In the present case, the evidence of doctor P.W. 12 cannot be construed to suggest hemlcidal death of the deceased in the absence of any indication regarding the cause of death the opinion with regard to which was kept reserved by P.W. 12. Therefore, the medical evidence of P.W. 12 does not constitute Incriminating circumstance against the Appellants. 15. Not only the prosecution is found to have failed to place on record impeachable evidence to substantiate the vital circumstance implicating the Appellants with the murder of the deceased, but also the circumstance of delay in alleging the F.I.R. till 28.06.2002 at 7.00 P.M., though the dead body of the deceased was found in the tank in the early morning on 27.06.2002, raises suspicion regarding the veracity of allegations made in the F.I.R. itself as well as the prosecution case. No doubt, as has been consistently held in authoritative judicial pronouncements, including in Ravinder Kumar and Anr. v. State of Punjab : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1384 and Sahebrao and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 408, delay in alleging F.I.R. by itself cannot be a ground to discard the prosecution case as being fatal to the prosecution. However, in the present, case failure on the part of police to draw first information report in spite of presence of the informant and other material witnesses when enquiry into the U.D. case was conducted in which they actively participated without raising any allegations against the Appellants and co-accused person renders subsequent allegations against them suspicious. In the F.I.R. no reason for delay in reporting to the police has been spelt out. Informant also in his deposition does not ascribe any reason for not lodging the F.I.R. at the earliest. Obviously, no allegations against anyone was made before the police till the case was registered upon submission of the F.I.R. by the informant P.W.1. Therefore, under the facts and circumstances of the case the inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R. cannot be lightly brushed aside. 16. Not only there has been delay in lodging the F.I.R. which remains unexplained, but also, as already observed, there has been delay in examination of material witnesses by the Investigating Police Officer. P.W.2 was examined on 29.06.2002 whereas P.Ws.6 and 11 were examined on 25.09.2002 by the Investigating Police Officer. 16. Not only there has been delay in lodging the F.I.R. which remains unexplained, but also, as already observed, there has been delay in examination of material witnesses by the Investigating Police Officer. P.W.2 was examined on 29.06.2002 whereas P.Ws.6 and 11 were examined on 25.09.2002 by the Investigating Police Officer. These witnesses admit to have not disclosed regarding the unusual circumstances relating to the deceased noticed by them in the night of occurrence despite the fact that they saw the dead body of the deceased in the morning of 27.06.2002 which is in the normal conduct of reasonable men. Learned Counsel for the Appellants pressed into service the decisions of this Court in Ratnakar Palei Anr. v. State : (1990) 3 OCR 126 : 1990 (I) OLR 227 and Santanu Naik v. State of Orissa (2002) 23 OCR 344 : 2002 OLR 399 wherein non-disclosure about the incident by witnesses has been held to a circumstance casting suspicion on the veracity of witnesses. Relying on Ramanand Yadav v. Prabhu Nath Jha and Ors. : (2004) 27 OCR (SC) 456, Dr. Krishna Pal and Anr. v. State of U.P. : 1996 SCC (Cri) 249 and Mohd. Iqbai M. Shaikh and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1064, however, it is urged on behalf of the State that convincing reliable evidence given by the witnesses cannot be discarded solely on the ground that they were examined by the police in a belated stage and that unless the Investigating Police Officer is categorically asked as to why there was delay in examination of witness, the defence cannot gain any advantage. In the present case, the Investigating Police Officer has been categorically asked in cross-examination regarding the dates of examination by him of the material witnesses including P.Ws.6 and 11. P.W. 14 also says that these witnesses did not disclose him regarding their absence from village. That apart, in view of the inherent inconsistencies in their evidence, these witnesses had been found to be unreliable. Therefore, taking into account the totality of the circumstance in the present case, the delay in recording the police statements of the material witnesses also is a circumstance casting shadow on the veracity of the prosecution case. 17. That apart, in view of the inherent inconsistencies in their evidence, these witnesses had been found to be unreliable. Therefore, taking into account the totality of the circumstance in the present case, the delay in recording the police statements of the material witnesses also is a circumstance casting shadow on the veracity of the prosecution case. 17. In view of the above discussion, it is found that the vital circumstances relied upon by the prosecution implicating the Appellants for commission of offence of murder of the deceased have not been established so as to conclude that it was the Appellants who committed murder of the deceased. Consequently, the Appellants are entitled to be acquitted. 18. Therefore, the appeal is allowed. The impugned Judgment and order of conviction passed by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kendrapara in ST. case No. 29/429 of 2003 convicting the Appellants for commission of offence u/s 302 of the I.P.C. and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life is set aside. It appears from the record that all the Appellants are in custody. If that be so, the Appellants namely, Bijaya Kumar Sahoo, Giridhari Barik, Prasanta Swain, Bibhuti Bhusan Panda, Nalini Sahoo and Baidhar Swain be set at liberty forthwith unless they are required to be detained in any other case. L. Mohapatra, J. 19. I agree. Final Result : Allowed