JUDGMENT : 1. Learned Standing Counsel files a memo together with the report that accused-Respondent No. 2 Sribastha Padhi and accused Respondent No. 3 Basanta Padhi have died respectively on 11.11.2006 and December, 1993. In view of that memo and the information, the Government Appeal stands abated against Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 2. Heard argument from the parties. Hearing is concluded and the judgment is as follows. 3. Pravasini Padhi is the deceased. Accused Dayanidhi Padhi is her husband. The occurrence took place on 03.12.1991. Their marriage was solemnized about 2 1/2 years before the date of occurrence. Accused Dayanidhi and the deceased had been blessed with a male child about three months prior to the date of occurrence. These are all admitted facts available on record. 4. On the date of occurrence, the deceased was found lying dead with multiple cut injuries on her person and with some injuries her infant child was lying in the occurrence room and was crying aloud. That attracted the attention of Jatindra Mohan Naik (P.W.6), a neighbour. He scaled the wall and entered into the house and saw the aforesaid scene and non-presence (absence) of the inmates of the house. Later on the parents and brothers of the deceased were informed so also accused No. 3, the mother-in-law of the deceased. She was, by then, at Burla Medical attending to her another daughter-in-law, who had an abortion. The informant brother of the deceased lodged the F.I.R. alleging murder of the deceased because of ill-treatment and cruelty on account of non-fulfilling their demand for further dowry. 5. In course of the trial, prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses and relied on documents marked Exts.1 to 20 besides the material objects marked M. Os. I to X. Amongst them M.O.-I is the axe and stated by the prosecution to be the weapon of offence. After arrest, nail-clippings of the accused Dayanidhi was collected besides the wearing apparels seized from the occurrence house belonging to the accused persons and the deceased. Amongst the witnesses P. Ws.13 and 14 are the doctors, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and proved the Post-mortem Report, Ext. 10. P.W. 1 is another doctor, who examined the child and granted injury certificate, Ext. 1. Amongst the witnesses P. Ws.13 and 14 are the doctors, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and proved the Post-mortem Report, Ext. 10. P.W. 1 is another doctor, who examined the child and granted injury certificate, Ext. 1. P.W. 17 is another doctor from the F.M.T. Department, who examined the injuries on the accused and submitted his report under the Requisition, Ext. 16. On assessment of the evidence on record, Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sambalpur held that prosecution evidence is next to nothing to prove the charge u/s 498-A/34, I.P.C. In view of the opinion of P.W. 1 with respect to the injuries on the child, charge u/s 307, I.P.C. is not made out, and in the absence of proof of death on account of demand of dowry, the charge u/s 304-B, I.P.C. also fails. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge held that though the deceased suffered homicidal death due to as many as sixteen incised wounds and fracture of parietal and occipital bones and the bone at mandible, but he found that there is no evidence on record to connect any of the accused persons with such homicidal death of the deceased. Accordingly he granted acquittal to all the accused persons. 6. After the death of accused-Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, parents-in-law of the deceased, only the accused husband of the deceased is before us for consideration as to whether he is the author of the homicidal death of the deceased. On perusal of the evidence on record, we find that prosecution has led no evidence to prove that accused Dayanidhi Padhi was present in the house at the relevant time. His nail clippings do not contain group 'B' human blood, i.e., the blood group of the deceased. It is seen that though prosecution witnesses have deposed about availability of the neighbours, but no such neighbour was examined, such as the female folks in the neighbourhood, to show or suggest that they heard the cry of the deceased in course of sustaining the injuries or that any of them had seen the accused Dayanidhi in or around the occurrence house. Under such circumstance, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order of acquittal and accordingly the Government Appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed