JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - The judgment dated 06.11.1995 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal-Angul, Dhenkanal acquitting the accused-Respondent of the charge u/s 302 I.P.C. in S.T. No. 41 of 1993 is assailed in this appeal by the State. 2. The criminal action was set to motion on receipt of an F.I.R. dated 01.11.1992 lodged by P.W.-3 Kailash Patra at Bhuban P.S. According to the prosecution case, as spelt out in the F.I.R., P.W.3 who happens to be the paternal uncle of the deceased Basanti received information from one Golekh Patra that Basanti was assaulted by her husband-Narayan Patra (accused) by means of Iron Pipe (Phunkanali) thereby causing injury on her head. It was alleged that after receiving the said injury, Basanti ran away from her house. On the way near a syphon some of the villagers saw her and on being asked, Basanti told them that her husband had assaulted her severely, as a result of which there was heavy bleeding from her head. She requested them to take her to her father-in-laws house. It was further alleged that when Ramesh Patra-P.W.5 and Chakradhar Patra-P.W.6 were trying to help Basanti, the accused rushed there along with a 'spade', scolded both P.Ws. 5 and 6 as to why they had touched his wife and thereafter dealt blows with the 'spade' on the head of the Basanti. Seeing the occurrence, the said P.Ws. left the place. After receiving such information the informant came to the house of Narayan Patra but then as he was not found he went to the house of Basanti's father-in-law where he found that Basanti was lying dead and her mother-in-law was sitting beside her. 3. After receiving the F.I.R. the Officer-in-Charge, Bhuban P.S. registered a case u/s 302 I.P.C.. which was converted to G.R. Case No. 315 of 1992 of the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Kamakhyanagar. He visited the spot, made inquest over the dead body of the deceased, seized the iron pipe as well as 'spade', took up investigation and submitted charge sheet against the accused. Thereafter, order of commitment was passed, and the Sessions Trial commenced in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal-Angul, Dhenkanal. The plea of the accused was of complete denial. 4. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution got ten witnesses examined. Out of them P.W.1 was the Revenue Inspector who had prepared the spot map-Ext.1. Thereafter, order of commitment was passed, and the Sessions Trial commenced in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal-Angul, Dhenkanal. The plea of the accused was of complete denial. 4. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution got ten witnesses examined. Out of them P.W.1 was the Revenue Inspector who had prepared the spot map-Ext.1. P.W.2 was the Police Constable who accompanied the dead body of the deceased for postmortem. P.W.3 was the younger brother of the father of the deceased who had lodged the F.I.R. P.W.4 was the Grama Rakhi and was a witness to the seizure of the saree, ring etc belonging to the deceased. P.Ws. 5 and 6 were two eyewitnesses. P.Ws. 7 and 8 were two seizure witnesses. P.W.10 was the doctor who conducted the postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. P.W.9 was the Investigating Officer who conducted investigation. 5. P.W.10 the doctor who conducted the postmortem examination found one lacerated wound on the left side face in front of the ear as well as one lacerated wound on the lower part of the occipital area and Anr. lacerated wound on the middle part of the occipital area. The postmortem report-Ext.11 reveals that all the wounds were on the head of the deceased and were ante mortem in nature. The cause of death, according to P.W.10 was due to the injury sustained by Basanti on her head thereby causing damage to brain. After examining the 'spade' (M.O.II) and the iron pipe (M.O.I) the doctor opined that the injuries were possible by such weapons but then in cross-examination he had admitted that the lacerated wounds were also possible by fall. 6. The learned Sessions Judge after discussing the evidence both oral and documentary threadbare arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution had totally failed to establish its case against the accused and held him not guilty and acquitted from the charge. The contention of the State as would be evident from the Memorandum of Appeal is that the injuries being ante mortem and as the Medical Officer-P.W.10 had opined that the death was homicidal the Court below acted illegally in acquitting the accused. It was further averred that P.Ws. 5 and 6 admitted the true facts before the police though they backed out in Court and as such the Court below should have disbelieved their statements. It was further averred that P.Ws. 5 and 6 admitted the true facts before the police though they backed out in Court and as such the Court below should have disbelieved their statements. In short according to the State, the order of acquittal is a result of non-consideration of evidence in proper perspective. 7. After going through the entire judgment as well as the evidence this Court finds that there was absolutely no evidence to connect the accused with the crime. P.Ws. 5 and 6 were stated to be the only eye-witnesses. They were declared hostile. In Court they have deposed that on the given date they saw Basanti running on the street. Near the syphon she fell down and requested them to lead her to her father-in-laws house. That apart, reading of the evidence reveals that Basanti was suffering from "Fits". Her dead body was, however, found in her father-in-laws house. The prosecution had totally failed to explain as to how the body was removed from the syphon to the house of her in-laws. It appears from the F.I.R. as well as other evidence that the mother-in-law of the deceased was found sitting near the dead body. Unfortunately, she has not been examined as a witness. Thus it appears that the material evidence which was available to the prosecution was not produced before the Court. That apart, the Doctor-P.W.10 has not ruled out the probability that the injuries could have been caused by fall. Added to that according to the postmortem report there were only lacerated wounds but then according to the F.I.R. story the accused dealt blows with the sharp side of the spade which would cause incised injuries. Thus the injury report was not in consonance with the ocular statements. The F.I.R. has been lodged on the basis of hear say and the informant had no direct knowledge. All these aspects have been duly dealt with by the learned Sessions Judge in his judgment. He has meticulously considered the oral evidence as well as the documentary evidence. It appears that though the iron pipe as well as the spade were seized, the seizure witnesses have denied the said fact and have, also turned hostile. That apart no bloodstain was found either on the iron pipe or on the spade which were stated to be weapon of offence. It appears that though the iron pipe as well as the spade were seized, the seizure witnesses have denied the said fact and have, also turned hostile. That apart no bloodstain was found either on the iron pipe or on the spade which were stated to be weapon of offence. Taking a cumulative assessment of the entire evidence we find that the Court below has not committed any error. The findings of the Courts below are based on proper appreciation of evidence. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly held that the prosecution had miserably failed to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. This Court therefore declines to interfere with the order of acquittal, that too after so many years. The Government Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed