JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - Respondent, as accused, faced trial in the Court of Learned Sessions Judge, Kalahandi-Nuapada in S.C. No. 76/1995 for commission of offence u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged that he had intentionally caused the death of Prasadi T&i. 2. The occurrence took place In the night of 30.5.1995. On the next day, i.e. on 31.5.1995 at about 3.30 P.M. the brother of the deceased (P.W.6) lodged an F.I.R. at Narla P.S. alleging that some unknown persons assaulted his brother by means of a lathi on his head, while he was sleeping in front Courtyard of his house, as a result of which he sustained head injuries and died. On the basis of the said F.I.R. (Ext. 1), the investigating agency took up the investigation and after completion of investigation submitted charge sheet against the accused. 3. The plea of the accused was complete denial. In order to bring home the charge of murder, the prosecution got nine witnesses examined. Out of them P.W.6 was the informant, P.W.4 was the wife of the deceased and the sole eye witness to the occurrence, P.W.9 was the Investigating Officer, P.W.5 was the doctor who had conducted autopsy. The other five witnesses being the post occurrence witnesses, they do not throw any light on the occurrence. 4. Learned Sessions Judge after threadbare discussion of the evidence had arrived at a conclusion that as the name of the accused did not find place in the F.I.R. (Ext. 1) and the evidence of P.W.4 is not beyond doubt, the prosecution case cannot be said to be convincing. Learned Sessions Judge also found discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses with regard to identity of the accused. Having discarded the prosecution case, Learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused by judgment dated 27.04.1996. The said judgment is assailed by the State in this Government Appeal. 5. According to Learned Addl. Standing Counsel, Learned Sessions Judge acted illegally and with material irregularity in disbelieving P.W.4, who was an eye witness to the occurrence. It is submitted that in order to base a conviction, the testimony of a sole witness is sufficient and as P.W.4 deposed in Court that she had identified the accused, the Court of Session should have accepted the said evidence and convicted the accused. 6. It is submitted that in order to base a conviction, the testimony of a sole witness is sufficient and as P.W.4 deposed in Court that she had identified the accused, the Court of Session should have accepted the said evidence and convicted the accused. 6. Learned Counsel for the Respondent, on the other hand, criticized the evidence of P. Ws.4 and 6 and submitted that the prosecution has totally failed to establish their case beyond all reasonable doubt. According to Learned Counsel perusal of the F.I.R. (Ext. I) vis-a -vis the statement of P. Ws.4 and 6 gives an impression that the prosecution tried to develop the case from stage to stage and the said evidence has been rightly discarded by Learned Sessions Judge. 7. From cross-examination of the witnesses, it appears that the defence tried to make out a case that there was illicit sexual relationship between P.W.6 and P.W.4 and on the night of the occurrence husband of P.W.4, Prasadi Tandi, who was sleeping in the outer Courtyard of the house, in the middle of night, came and found P.W.4 and P.W.6 in a compromising position. On being detected, P.W.6 in order to save the prestige of the family assaulted the deceased on his head and other parts of the body, thereby causing his death. 8. To appreciate the arguments advanced by both the parties, this Court perused the evidence, certified copies of which were produced before us by the Addl. Standing Counsel. It is pertinent to mention here that due to inordinate delay in admitting the aforesaid Government Appeal, the records of the Sessions case were destroyed after the statutory period. However, Mr. Mishra, Learned Addl. Standing Counsel, was able to produce the certified copies of the depositions and the statement of the accused recorded u/s 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure as well as the F.I.R. (Ext. 1). 9. P.W.6 had lodged the F.I.R. (Ext. 1) alleging that some unknown persons assaulted his brother, consequently he died. However, in course of evidence P.W.4, who claims to be the wife and the only eye witness, deposed that she could identify the accused by focusing a torch light. 1). 9. P.W.6 had lodged the F.I.R. (Ext. 1) alleging that some unknown persons assaulted his brother, consequently he died. However, in course of evidence P.W.4, who claims to be the wife and the only eye witness, deposed that she could identify the accused by focusing a torch light. If in fact P.W.4 could identify the accused and after discussing the matter with other family members the F.I.R. was filed, this Court fails to understand as to how the name of the accused was not mentioned in the F.I.R. On the contrary it was mentioned that some unknown persons assaulted the deceased. That apart, the occurrence took place on a pitch dark night and the evidence of P. Ws.4 and 6 reveals that there was no light and it was not possible to identify anybody. According to P.W.4, she identified the accused by means of torch light. P.W.4 had neither produced the torch light before the Police nor she had made any statement to the effect that she could identify the accused by means of the torch light. The Investigating Officer was confronted with the statement made by P.W.4 u/s 161 Code of Criminal Procedure, who admitted that no such fact was ever disclosed to the I.O. in course of investigation. In the F.I.R. (Ext. 1) P.W.6 did not mention the name of the accused. In course of inquest of the dead body also it was not mentioned that the accused had committed the murder. Non-mention of the fact in the F.I.R. (Ext.1), inquest report as well as before the Police in course of investigation definitely throws a cloud of suspicion and creates a doubt in our mind with regard to involvement of the accused in the alleged crime. Learned Sessions Judge after discussing the evidence had come to the conclusion that it would be risky on the part of the Court to accept the theory of torch light, introduced by P.W.4 for the fist time in Court. Admittedly the occurrence took place in the dead of the night and it was not possible to identify the assailants in the absence of any light. If in fact P.W.4 had identified the accused, nothing prevented P.W.6 to mention the name of the accused in the F.I.R. (Ext. 1) which was lodged on the next day. Admittedly the occurrence took place in the dead of the night and it was not possible to identify the assailants in the absence of any light. If in fact P.W.4 had identified the accused, nothing prevented P.W.6 to mention the name of the accused in the F.I.R. (Ext. 1) which was lodged on the next day. P.W.9, the Investigating Officer, in his deposition had deposed that m course of investigation P.W.6 had stated before him that while his brother (deceased) was sleeping in the outside Courtyard of the house, some unknown persons came and dealt lathi blows on him. P.W.4 also had stated before the Investigating Officer that some unknown persons assaulted her husband. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this Court agrees with the conclusion arrived at by the Sessions Judge that it will be risky on the part the Court to believe for a moment that the accused is the assailant of the deceased and caused his death. In other words, a genuine doubt arises in the mind of the Court regarding complicity of the accused in the alleged crime. Law is well settled that such doubt should be always in favour of the accused. In the light of the aforesaid discussions, this Court finds that the Sessions Judge has not committed any illegality and the order of acquittal is just and proper and declines to interfere with the same and that too after a lapse of fourteen years. Accordingly, the Government Appeal stands dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed