JUDGMENT : B.K. Patel, J. - The Respondent having been acquitted of the charges for commission of offences under Sections 147, 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'I.P.C.) by the Judgment and order passed in Sessions Case No. 75 of 2003 by the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam-Gajapati, Berhampur, the State has preferred this appeal. 2. Allegation in the case relates to the occurrence in course of which murder of deceased Laxmi Das was committed. Prosecution case is that on 13.09.1999, which was the day of celebration of 'Ganesh Chaturthi', at about 6.15 P.M., the deceased's brother, informant P.W. 2 Rajendra Das was proceeding to see the Ganesh Medha, i.e., decorative pandal of Lord Ganesh, from Bada Sahi towards Badhei Sahi Gorji (Lane) of the occurrence village Lochapoda. He found the deceased coming from the side of Ganesh Bazar Sahi. In between the house of D. Laxman Patro and Chintadu Raghuram Patro, on the road itself, co-accused Kalia pulled the deceased's leg as a result of which he fell down. Thereafter, it is alleged, the Respondent as well as co-accused Kalia @ Harikrishna, Biswanath @ Bisu @ Bisua, Dandapani and Dillip assaulted the deceased with deadly weapons. It is alleged that Respondent Rabindra at first dealt a blow by means of a Kati on the deceased's neck. Thereafter, co-accused Biswanath dealt a sword blow on the deceased's neck. It is further alleged that co-accused Dandapani instigated by shouting "SALAKU SESHA KARIDIA AAU CHHADA NAHIN". Seeing the occurrence, the informant raised alarm upon which all the five accused persons ran away towards Mill Sahi. Deceased, with injuries on his person, ran towards Bada Sahi where he fell down in front of the house of T. Kalia Patra. The further case of the prosecution is that one Balaram Patra and another Rajendra Kumar Patra' were present near the place of occurrence. The informant shifted the deceased in a trolly rickshaw to M.K.C.G. Medical College and Hospital, Berhampur. However, on the way the deceased succumbed to the injuries. The further case of the prosecution is that one Balaram Patra and another Rajendra Kumar Patra' were present near the place of occurrence. The informant shifted the deceased in a trolly rickshaw to M.K.C.G. Medical College and Hospital, Berhampur. However, on the way the deceased succumbed to the injuries. It is also alleged by the prosecution that in the month of preceding June, the accused persons had attacked, assaulted and threatened to kill the deceased, and that in the afternoon on the date of occurrence also there was verbal altercations between co-accused Dillip and the deceased when the deceased and others were playing volley ball in the playground near Ganesh Bazar. On the basis of written report Ext.2 submitted by P.W.2, S.I. of Police P.W.6 Madhusudan Mallik registered the case and took up investigation. P.W. 6 also appears to have received, the Casualty Memo Ext. 'A' forwarded by D.W. 1 Dr. M.K. Panigrahi from M.K.C.G. Medical College and Hospital. In course of investigation, witnesses were examined, dead body of the deceased was subjected to inquest and post mortem examination, spot was visited and seizures were effected. S.I. of Police P.W. 5 Bishnupada Mohanta took charge of investigation on 1.11.1999 and S.I. of Police Ashok Kumar Parida took charge of investigation on 25.03.2000. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the Respondent and the above said co-accused persons, for commission of offences under Sections 147, 148 and 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C showing the Respondent as absconder. The co-accused persons appear to have been tried analogously in two trials bearing S.C. Nos. 14 of 2001 and 194 of 2002. However, the present Respondent faced separate trial culminating in the impugned Judgment and order as stated supra. 3. Defence plea appears to be one of complete denial. 4. Prosecution examined six witnesses, P.Ws. 1 to 6, apart from relying upon the documents marked Exts. 1 to 6. P.Ws. 2, 5, and 6 as well as D.W.1 have already been introduced in course of the narration of the prosecution case. P.W.3 Kailash Sahu was examined as another eyewitness. P.W.4 Dr. S.N. Mohanty conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. Police Constable P.W.1 Rama Chandra Mohanty accompanied the dead body of the deceased for post mortem examination to and collected wearing apparels of the deceased from the Hospital. Defence examined D.W.1 only and relied upon documents marked Ext. P.W.3 Kailash Sahu was examined as another eyewitness. P.W.4 Dr. S.N. Mohanty conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. Police Constable P.W.1 Rama Chandra Mohanty accompanied the dead body of the deceased for post mortem examination to and collected wearing apparels of the deceased from the Hospital. Defence examined D.W.1 only and relied upon documents marked Ext. 'A'. On analysis of the evidence on record, learned trial Court held the two eye-witnesses P.Ws. 2 and 3 to be not only inimically disposed towards the accused persons but also to be chance witnesses liable to be subjected to close scrutiny of their evidence. On such scrutiny, learned trial Court found their evidence to be contradictory and inconsistent with regard to the exact spot of assault on the deceased. In coming to such conclusion, learned trial Court also relied upon the evidence of D.W.1 and disbelieved the presence of the two eye-witnesses at the spot and consequently held the Respondent to be entitled to be acquitted. 5. It is not at all disputed that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature in view of evidence of P.W.4 who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased under postmortem examination report Ext. 5. The deceased was found to have sustained cut wounds on the right occipital region, at right side neck, at right side of the face, a chop wound on the right upper neck and a lacerated wound over right cheek. The cut wound in the right occipital region had resulted in severe internal injuries including underlying bone cleanly cut for a length of about 6 cm with underlying durra cut cleanly. Cut wound over the right side of the face had internally resulted in cutting of the ramus of right mandible cleanly with underlying muscles, the jugular vein and external carotid artery cut cleanly. 6. In assailing the impugned Judgment and order it was contended by the learned Counsel for the State that learned Court below should have placed reliance upon evidence of two eye-witnesses, P.Ws. 2 and 3, instead of finding their evidence suspect and tainted. In view of their candid testimonies in Court to have seen the Respondent along with co-accused persons committing murder of the deceased in furtherance of their common object, there should not have been any doubt with regard to their presence at the scene of occurrence. 2 and 3, instead of finding their evidence suspect and tainted. In view of their candid testimonies in Court to have seen the Respondent along with co-accused persons committing murder of the deceased in furtherance of their common object, there should not have been any doubt with regard to their presence at the scene of occurrence. The evidence of the two eye-witnesses was asserted to have got square corroboration from the medical evidence, and it was argued that the Respondent is liable to be convicted for the offences under which he stood charged. Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the informant P.W.2 being the brother of the deceased and a chance witness, and both the eye-witnesses being inimically disposed towards the accused persons due to previous dispute, learned Court below rightly held that their evidence has to be-subjected to close scrutiny. On close scrutiny it is apparent that their assertions to have seen accused persons assaulting the deceased is improbable in view of topography of the spot. It is further submitted that it is apparent from the evidence of D.W. 1 that the prosecution case was subjected to doctoring and manipulation from the very beginning inasmuch as at the first instance, in the hospital, the spot of occurrence was stated to be a place other than the place mentioned in the F.I.R. 7. We have scrutinized the evidence upon reference to the rival contentions. It appears from the evidence of P.W.2 that his house is situated at a considerable distance from the spot Badheisahi Gorji which is a narrow lane. The case of the prosecution is that P.W.2 witnessed the occurrence while going to see Ganesh Medha through Badheisahi Gorji. Therefore, apparently P.W.2 chanced upon the occurrence coincidentally. Not only P.W.2 happens to be the brother of the deceased, but he was an accused in a criminal case bearing G.R. Case No. 579 of 1999 instituted at the instance of the accused persons. It is also in the evidence of P.W.2 that the above said criminal case was lodged as a counter-case to another case lodged against the accused persons including the Respondent by P.W.2. Thus existence of inimical relationship between the parties is apparent. In such circumstances; on the face of it P.W.2 is not only a chance witness but also a partisan witness. Thus existence of inimical relationship between the parties is apparent. In such circumstances; on the face of it P.W.2 is not only a chance witness but also a partisan witness. The other eye-witness P.W.3 deposed to have witnessed the occurrence while distributing prasad of lord Ganesh in different houses in the Badheisahi Gorji. P.W.3 admitted in his evidence that he faced trial in a dacoity case along with the deceased. Therefore, it is on record that both the eye-witnesses were close associates of the deceased and partition witnesses. Such status of the witnesses by itself does not render their evidence to be totally unacceptable. What is required in such circumstance, is close scrutiny of their evidence in order to arrive at the conclusion that both the eye-witnesses are or anyone of them is truthful so as to repose confidence in them and to hold their evidence capable of sustaining finding in a criminal trial. 8. It is observed that the spot map prepared by the I.O. does not indicate the exact places from which P.Ws. 2, and 3 witnessed the occurrence. The spot map indicates two spots referred to as 'A' spot and 'B' spot. Admittedly, the deceased was assaulted at one spot only. After assaulting the deceased and causing injuries on him, accused persons fled away. The second spot appears to be the place where the deceased ultimately fell down after sustaining injuries and running away from the first spot. Both the spots are in a lane connecting Lochapoda-Gurunthi road and Berhampur-Lochapoda road. If one comes through the lane from Lochapoda-Gurunthi road, he has to take a sharp right turn in front of house of one Simachal Pradhan and proceed towards Berhampur Lochapoda road. Thus it is evident that unless one is present right at the place in the lane where it has taken the turn in front of the house of abovesaid Simachal Pradhan, he cannot have the entire view of the lane i.e. that portion of the lane between Lochapoda-Gurunthi road and the house of Simachal Pradhan; and that portion of the lane between the house of Simachal Pradhan and Berhampur-Lochapoda road. It appears that the portion of the lane between the Lochapoda-Gurunthi road and the turn in front of house of Simachal Pradhan is called 'Badneisahi Gorji' and the locality is called Badheisahi. It appears that the portion of the lane between the Lochapoda-Gurunthi road and the turn in front of house of Simachal Pradhan is called 'Badneisahi Gorji' and the locality is called Badheisahi. In his evidence P.W.2 did not depose-regarding specific spot of assault of the deceased. He simply testified that the occurrence took place at Badheisahi Gorji. In the F.I.R., P.W.2 has disclosed that the occurrence took place in the 'Gorji' in between houses of one D.Laxman Patra and one Chintadu Raghuram Patra. Upon reference to the spot map it is found that 'A' spot mentioned therein is between the houses of D. Laxman Patra and Chintadu Raghuram Patra. P.W.3 also stated that the occurrence, took place at Badheisahi Gorji. It is in the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 that having sustained injuries on him, the deceased got up, ran away from the spot and finally fell down near tea stall of one T. Kalu Patra. Upon reference to the spot map, 'B' spot is found to be situated in front of tea Stall of T. Kalu Patra. It is further observed that the above turn of the lane in front of house of Simachal Pradhan situates in between 'A' spot and 'B' spot. As has been stated earlier, therefore, one could not have seen the assault on the deceased at "A" spot as well as the deceased falling down at 'B' spot unless he was present right in front of house of Simachal Pradhan. Not only it is in the evidence of P.W.2 that at the spot of assault there were blood stains and from there, there were patches of blood on the road from the place of assault to the place where the deceased fell down, but also P. W.4 deposed that the injuries on the jugular vein and external carotid would cause draining out of deceased's blood in its entirety. However, the I.O. P.W.6 stated that he had seized blood stained earth and sample earth from a distance of 112 feet from the spot of initial assault. He obviously seized blood stained earth from the road in front of tea stall of T. Kalu Patra. Therefore, non-seizure of blood stained earth from the place of assault is a vital omission on the part of the investigating officer leaving evidence of P.Ws 2 and 3 with regard to the spot of assault uncorroborated by independent source. 9. He obviously seized blood stained earth from the road in front of tea stall of T. Kalu Patra. Therefore, non-seizure of blood stained earth from the place of assault is a vital omission on the part of the investigating officer leaving evidence of P.Ws 2 and 3 with regard to the spot of assault uncorroborated by independent source. 9. P.W.2 testified that the length of Badheisahi Gorji extending from Lochapoda-Gurunthi Road to the turning in front of house of Simachal Pradhan is about 100 meters. There are about 70 families in the lane and the houses of D. Laxman Patra and Chitadu Raghuram Patra are situated at Badheisahi Gorji. There are houses on both sides of Badheisahi Gorji and Badheisahi Gorji is not visible from Ganesh pandal of Badheisahi. If one stands in front of the house of Simachal Pradhan he can see across the Gorji and Badheisahi but the Gorji is not visible from places beyond Simachal Pradhan's house towards Badheisahi. It is also in the evidence of P.W.2 that if one comes from Badheisahi side, he shall come across Ganesh pandal first and about 40 feet thereafter he shall come across Badheisahi Gorji to come to the main road. P.W.3 corroborated P.W.2 by deposing that house of Simanchal Pradhan is situated at the end of Badheisahi Gorji where the lane has taken a turn to Badheisahi. The I.O. P.W.6 also stated that there are houses on both sides of the road at the initial spot of assault. Thus testimonies of the witnesses in Court make it clear that Badheisahi Gorji starts from main road and takes a right turn towards Badheisahi in front of house of Simanchal Pradhan. Badheisahi Gorji is a narrow lane between Lochapoda-Gurunthi main road at the one end and house of Simanchal Pradhan on the other end. The Ganesh pandal was situated in the Badheisahi at a distance of 40 feet from the turn in front of house of Simanchal Pradhan. At the time of occurrence, according to P.W.2, he was coming towards main road which means that he was coming from the side of the Ganesh pandal, situated at a distance of 40 feet from the house of Simanchal Pradhan, to come to Lochapoda-Gurunthi main road. P.W.3 was distributing prasad inside Badheisahi Gorji. At the time of occurrence, according to P.W.2, he was coming towards main road which means that he was coming from the side of the Ganesh pandal, situated at a distance of 40 feet from the house of Simanchal Pradhan, to come to Lochapoda-Gurunthi main road. P.W.3 was distributing prasad inside Badheisahi Gorji. Neither P.W.2 nor P.W.3 testified regarding the spot where he was present when the assault on the deceased took place nor either of them deposed regarding exact place of occurrence. P.W.6 testified that the main road is at a distance of 35 yards from the place of assault. P.W.2 deposed that Badheisahi Gorji is about 100 meters in length. It appears from the evidence of P.W:6 that the spot on the road in front of tea stall of T. Kalu Patra, from which he seized blood stained earth, is about 112 feet away from the spot of assault. A combined reading of evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3 and 6 goes to show that the spot, of assault all the deceased on the Badheisahi Gorji was at a distance from the turning point in front of house of Simanchal Pradhan and nearer to the Lochapoda Gurunthi main road. 10. Having so determined the spot of assault on the deceased on the lane, it is obvious that if the witnesses were present on the lane between the turning point in front of house of Simanchal Pradhan and Berhampur Lochapoda road, they could not have seen the occurrence because of the obstruction of their vision by the houses on either side of Badheisahi Gorji. In fact, as has been already observed above, P.W.2 admitted in his evidence that if one stands near the house of Simanchal-Pradhan, he can see across from the Gorji but from places beyond the house of Simanchal Pradhan towards Badheisahi, Badheisahi Gorji is not visible. P.W.2 testified that he saw the assault on the deceased from a distance of 25 feet when he was passing through Badheisahi Gorji. P.W.3 deposed that after the deceased came and fell down near the tea stall of T.Kalu Patra, he saw P.W.2 standing near Ganesh pandal. He expressed his inability to say where was P.W.2 prior to that. P.W. 3, standing near the Gan.esh pandal; said to have raised alarm on seeing assault on the deceased. Thus, P.Ws. 2 and 3 thoroughly contradicted each other. He expressed his inability to say where was P.W.2 prior to that. P.W. 3, standing near the Gan.esh pandal; said to have raised alarm on seeing assault on the deceased. Thus, P.Ws. 2 and 3 thoroughly contradicted each other. P.W.2 asserted that the Ganesh pandal was at a distance of 40 feet from in front of the house of Simachal Prahdan. If the assault took place inside Badheisahi Gorji which is about 100 meters in length extending from Lochhapara-Gurunthi main road to the turning in front of the house of Simanchal Pradhan at a distance of 35 yards from Lochapoda-Gurunthi road, P.W.2 standing near the Genesh pandal situated at a distance of 40 feet from the turning towards Berhampur-Lochapoda road, could not have seen the assault. Though P.W.3 deposed to have seen the occurrence while distributing prasad of Lord Ganesh and coming towards Lochapoda-Gurunthi road through Badheisahi Gonji, in his cross examination P.W.3 testified that he was standing in front of house of one Gopi Patra at the time of occurrence. The house of Gopi Patra, as is evident from the evidence, is not situated inside Badheisahi Gorji. His house is situated in between the turning in front of house of Simanchal Pradhan and Berhampur-Lochapoda road. Also there is another house of one Dukhishyam Patra between the house of Gopi Patra and the turning. Therefore, P.W.3 also could not have seen the occurrence as he was standing at a distance from the turning towards Berhampur-Lochapoda road due to obstruction of vision by the houses on either side of narrow lane Badheisahi Gorji. 11. P.W.2 testified to have arranged trolley rickshaw to remove the deceased to M.K.C.G. Hospital, Berhampur. The deceased was declared dead on medical examination. P.W.2 deposed that P.W.3 as well as Rajendra Patra and Prakash Patra, who have not been examined as prosecution witnesses, accompanied him to the hospital. P.W.3 admitted to have accompanied P.W.2 to the hospital. D.W.1 is the Medical Officer who medically examined and declared the deceased dead in the Casualty Ward. D.W.1 deposed that he asked P.W. 2 about the cause of the injuries sustained by the deceased, but P.W.2 could not give the detail and rather said that the occurrence happened as a result of assault at Khanji Padia near Lochapoda. D.W.1 is the Medical Officer who medically examined and declared the deceased dead in the Casualty Ward. D.W.1 deposed that he asked P.W. 2 about the cause of the injuries sustained by the deceased, but P.W.2 could not give the detail and rather said that the occurrence happened as a result of assault at Khanji Padia near Lochapoda. Immediately thereafter D.W.1 appears to have informed the police under Casualty Memo Ext.'A' regarding the incident and requested for arranging post mortem examination. D.W.1 is thus a public servant who attended to the deceased while discharging his duties as a doctor in the hospital. Evidence of D.W.1 to the effect that none of the persons who accompanied the deceased to the hospital could give any detail regarding cause of injuries on the deceased and that the spot of assault was stated by them to be Khanji Padia near Lachapoda is supported by Ext. 'A', Casualty Memo immediately prepared and forwarded to the police station by D.W.1. Evidence of D.W.1 and the contents of Ext. 'A' not only contradict the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 as regards the spot of occurrence, but also leads to suspicion as to whether they were aware of the identity of the assailants of the deceased when D.W.1 asked them regarding details of cause of the injuries on, the deceased. Such circumstances assume importance in view of lack of clarity in the evidence of the eye-witnesses as well as I.O. regarding the exact spot of assault on the deceased. 12. Learned Court below also is found to have taken note of the fact that though P.W.2 testified that the occurrence took place in between 5 P.M. and 5.30 P.M., evidence of D.W.1 and the contents of Ext. 'A' show that the deceased was received in the hospital at 7 P.M. In the formal F.I.R. Ext.2, said to have lodged at 7.15 P.M. at Berhampur Sadar Police Station, time of occurrence is stated to be at 6.15 P.M. P.W.3 also stated that the occurrence took place at about 5.30 P.M. Both P.Ws. 2 and 3 testified that the deceased was shifted to the hospital immediately after the occurrence. Though P.Ws. 2 and 3 testified that the deceased was shifted to the hospital immediately after the occurrence. Though P.Ws. 2 and 3 deposed in Court that the occurrence took place in between 5 P.M. and 5.30 P.M., in case the time of occurrence as stated in the F.I.R. to be at 6.15 P.M. is accepted, the occurrence having taken place in the month of September, evening must have been set in, making it improbable for the witnesses to identify the assailants of the deceased from the place where they stood at a distance from the place of assault. Learned trial Court has also taken note of omission of the informant P.W.2 to indicated in the F.I.R. either regarding presence of P.W.3 at the spot or regarding P.W.3 to have accompanied him to the hospital. Non-examination of the witnesses named in the F.I.R. and examination of P.W.3 not named in the F.I.R. as an eye-witness, coupled with circumstances narrated above also cast shadow on the veracity of the two eye-witnesses. 13. Upon, analysis of the evidence of the two eye-witnesses, it is found that each of them is an infirm witness incapable of being relied upon independently, without corroboration for the purpose of recording any finding on the basis of his testimony. It is well settled that evidence of an infirm witness cannot provide corroboration to the evidence of another infirm witness. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the finding of the learned trial Court that the prosecution has failed to establish charges against the Respondent. There is no scope to interfere with the impugned Judgment. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. L. Mohapatra, J. 14. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed