JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - State of Orissa in this Government Appeal seeks to assail the order of acquittal dated 30th November,1986 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal in Sessions Trial No. 158 of 1992. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that in the night of 28.5.1992 at about 10 P.M. Pravat Kumar Samal went to Govindpur Spinning Mill Colony in his Rajdoot motor cycle, but then he did not return to his house in the said night. The family members under the impression that he might have gone to his father-in-law's place, did not search from him. On the next day, i.e., on 29th May,1992 morning at about 6.00 A.M. Premananda Samal, brother of Pravat Kumar Samal came to know from his paternal uncle Maheswar Samal that the dead body of Pravat Kumar Samal was lying by the side of a small bridge on Govindpur Road. It appeared that he was severely assaulted and sustained cut injuries on his body and his skull was broken to pieces exposing the brain materials and blood. His motor cycle was lying near his dead body so also a 'farsa'. Premananda immediately rushed to the spot and after seeing the incident entertained grave suspicion that his brother was murdered by some Harijan people, who had grudge on him due to differences in connection with an earlier arson case. He reported the matter before Govindpur Police Station. The A.S.I.-in-charge of the said Police Station informed the O.I.C., Sadar Police Station, who came to the spot immediately. It is alleged that Premananda gave oral report to the O.I.C. which was reduced into writing and he signed the same. On the basis of the said F.I.R., investigation commenced and in course of investigation, inquest was held, dead body was despatched for post mortem, blood stained earth and other materials like a piece of the scalp, hairs, one plastic chapel, one farsa etc. were seized. The I.O. conducted raid in the Harijan Sahi and in nearby villages, apprehended the Respondents from the house of one Athani Naik of Kamagara, interrogated them and on the basis of the information supplied by them, recovered the weapons of offence from a bush situated near Raj Athagarh railway station, arrested and forwarded the accused persons to court. were seized. The I.O. conducted raid in the Harijan Sahi and in nearby villages, apprehended the Respondents from the house of one Athani Naik of Kamagara, interrogated them and on the basis of the information supplied by them, recovered the weapons of offence from a bush situated near Raj Athagarh railway station, arrested and forwarded the accused persons to court. On the basis of the materials collected and other information gathered during investigation, the I.O. submitted charge-sheet in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Dhenkanal in G.R. Case No. 322 of 1992. Learned S.D.J.M. after due application of mind, took cognizance of the offence and thereafter committed the case to the Court of Session. 3. The plea of the defence was one of complete denial. It was alleged that due past enmity, they were falsely implicated. 4. In order to substantiate the case, the prosecution got examined 8 witnesses. After discussing the evidence in extenso, the trial court found that there were no eye witness to the occurrence and the entire prosecution case hinges upon circumstantial evidence. After considering the circumstantial evidence putforth by the prosecution learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the circumstances were not at all clinching and the chain of events does not make out a plausible case to connect the accused persons with the crime. Considering the fact of enmity between 'Sabarnas' and 'Harijans' of the village and other factors, learned Sessions Judge held that the prosecution had totally failed to bring home the charges against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequently, they were found not guilty and were acquitted. 5. Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel assails the order of acquittal mainly on the ground that learned Sessions Judge did not rely upon the statement given by the accused in presence of the witnesses with regard to concealment of weapon of offence and recovery thereof. According to Mr. Mishra, in consonance with Section 27 of the Evidence Act, recovery of weapon of offence having been well established, conviction could have been based on the said piece of evidence alone. Relying upon the statement of P.W.7, the doctor, who conducted autopsy, Mr. Mishra submitted that the doctor having opined that the injuries were possible with the weapon seized, learned Sessions Judge acted illegally in not convicting the Respondents. 6. The aforesaid submissions are strongly repudiated Mr. A.K.. Relying upon the statement of P.W.7, the doctor, who conducted autopsy, Mr. Mishra submitted that the doctor having opined that the injuries were possible with the weapon seized, learned Sessions Judge acted illegally in not convicting the Respondents. 6. The aforesaid submissions are strongly repudiated Mr. A.K.. Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents. According to Mr. Mishra, there is no iota of evidence in support of the prosecution case inasmuch as neither there is any eye witness nor there is any clinching evidence leading to the conclusion that the accused persons had committed the offence. Mr. Mishra, further forcefully submitted that admittedly enmity existed between 'Sarbarnas' and 'Harijans', but then the accused persons only because they belong to Harijan community cannot be implicated in the case and learned Sessions Judge after discussing the evidence, both oral and documentary, has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has totally failed to bring home the charges against them. 7. This Court being the final court of facts, once again went through the evidence. P.W.1 is the informant, being the elder brother of the deceased. He had filed the F.I.R., Ext.1. the I.O., P.W.8 in his deposition stated that P.W.1 narrated the incident before him and he reduced it into writing on which P.w.1 signed. But then, P.W.1 in his deposition stated that his younger brother Bharata also went with him to the police station. Bharat wrote the F.I.R. and he gave his signature. P.W.4 is the brother of P.W.1 and is the scribe of the F.I.R. P.W.2 is the A.S.I, of Govindpur Police Station. According to him, a written F.I.R. was submitted to the O.I.C. Thus, it is not known on the basis of which F.I.R. the police conducted the investigation and what has happened to the F.I.R. scribed by P.W.4 and submitted by P.W.1. 8. The evidence of the doctor, P.W.7 is very pertinent. He had conducted post mortem and noticed as many as seven injuries. He has opined that all the injuries were anti-mortem in nature and might have been caused by sharp cutting weapon. According to P.W.7, the brain injuries were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause the death. Thus, there is no doubt that the death was homicidal in nature. Admittedly there are no eye witnesses to the occurrence. 9. P.W.5 did not support the prosecution case. According to P.W.7, the brain injuries were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause the death. Thus, there is no doubt that the death was homicidal in nature. Admittedly there are no eye witnesses to the occurrence. 9. P.W.5 did not support the prosecution case. He was also not examined by the police in course of investigation. P.W.6 also did not support the prosecution case. P.W.8 is the I.O. The only other witness, who throws some light on the incident is P.W.3. He happens to be the seizure witness. According to him, on being called, he accompanied the police along with the accused and the accused persons disclosed the place of concealment of the weapons of offence and thereafter, the weapons were recovered and seized in his presence. In cross-examination, he has clearly stated that the place from where the weapons were recovered was an open place and many people have access to it. He belongs to 'Sabarna' community and he admits with regard to the prevailing litigation between the 'Harijans' and 'Sabarnas'. According to the said witness, two other persons were present at the time of seizure, being Aparti Swain and Ramesh Rout. Surprisingly none of them were examined by the prosecution nor there is any explanation as to why they could not be examined. Off course, multiplicity of evidence on one point is not very much necessary. But then, in view of the statement of P.W.4 that he as well as the members of his village had grudge upon the residents of 'Harijan' village of accused persons, it will not be prudent to rely upon the sole testimony of a partisan witness without any corroboration. The only other evidence, which needs to be looked into, is with regard to the police dog. It appears that the police dog while tracing went into the house of accused Bijoya Naik. Unfortunately, the handler of the police dog was not examined. Thus, the circumstance under which the said dog entered into the house of Bijoya Naik cannot be established. The Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Madhya Pradesh, Nagpur and Bhandara Vs. Hukumchand Mannalal and Co., has observed that tracker dog's evidence cannot be linked to the type of evidence accepted from scientific experts. Thus, the circumstance under which the said dog entered into the house of Bijoya Naik cannot be established. The Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Madhya Pradesh, Nagpur and Bhandara Vs. Hukumchand Mannalal and Co., has observed that tracker dog's evidence cannot be linked to the type of evidence accepted from scientific experts. The dogs are intelligent animals with many thought process similar to the thought processes of human beings and where ever there is thought process, there is always the risk of error, deception and even self deception. In view of the aforesaid clear position, the prosecution should have examined the handler of the dog to throw some light with regard to the incident. 10. So far as recovery of weapons are concerned, merely because the statements recorded u/s 27 of the Evidence Act, were attested by witnesses at the time of recording, it'cannot be accepted as admissible evidence u/s 27(3) of the Evidence Act. The correct procedure for the police officer is to record the statement of the accused u/s 27 in verbatim and not in his own language. It is no more res integra that evidence of an accused relating to confession or disclosure about concealment of weapon, made while he is in custody of a police officer is tainted and therefore, inadmissible. But if recovery is made pursuant to such disclosure, the statement can be presumed to be untainted and can be accepted in evidence. In such circumstances however, onus rests on the prosecution to establish the fact by adducing cogent and reliable evidence. 11. In the case in hand, as stated earlier, though according to the prosecution, the accused persons disclosed with regard to the concealment of the weapon of offence in presence of three witnesses, only one of them was examined. The said witness also, as would be seen from other evidence, had bias against the accused persons. Thus, the said evidence cannot be accepted without a pinch of salt in absence of any corroboration. That apart, the place from where the recovery was made was open for every one. 12. The said witness also, as would be seen from other evidence, had bias against the accused persons. Thus, the said evidence cannot be accepted without a pinch of salt in absence of any corroboration. That apart, the place from where the recovery was made was open for every one. 12. The entire case having been based on circumstantial evidence and law being well settled to the effect that where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances to arrive at a conclusion of guilt is to be fully established and all the facts should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The circumstance should be conclusive in nature and it should be such as to exclude every hypothesis, but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. In the case in hand, the analysis of the entire evidence does not satisfy the aforesaid basic ingredients. Scrutiny of the entire evidence does not inspire the confidence that the accused were guilty of the crime. There are too many if's and buts, which the prosecution failed to explain and it is a fit case where the benefit of doubt should be in favour of the accused. 13. After going through the entire evidence and on being satisfied that the conclusions arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge needs no interference, this Court is not inclined to set aside the order of acquittal after lapse of seventeen years. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. S.C. Parija, J. 14. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed