JUDGMENT : S.C. Parija, J. - The order of acquittal dated 10.07.1996 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kalahandi-Nuapada, in S.C. No. 20 of 1996, is under challenge in the present Government Appeal filed by State of Orissa. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, in the early morning of 30.9.1995, the mother-in-law and husband of the accused Golapi went to Bagmunda for working in the soil conservation as labourers. The accused, her minor daughter aged about one year and the deceased, who was aged about six years, were only in their house. The accused left her house on the same day (30.9.1995) at about 8 A.M. along with her minor daughter and the deceased Piko Dei for collecting firewood. She went to Majhipada burial ground of their village. She left her daughter there and was collecting firewood. At that time, her daughter cried and so she directed the deceased to carry her daughter but the deceased did not listen to her. The accused out of anger brought stones and brutally assaulted the deceased, as a result of which, she sustained severe injuries on the fore-head, head and other parts of her body and fell down on the ground and succumbed to the injuries at the spot. Finding the deceased to be dead, the accused dragged her to a distance and concealed the dead body behind the bushes and went home. At about 1.30 to 2.00 P.M., the mother and brother of the deceased came and searched for her but could not get any trace of her. On the request of the mother of the deceased, P.W.2 and Ors. searched for the deceased and P.W. 2 found the dead body of the deceased lying inside his cultivable land, where there were bushes of Palas and Amari plants under a Mahua tree. P.W. 2 informed the fact to the villagers and reported the said fact to the police on the next day as there was water in the river and they could not go in the night. On receiving the report of P.W. 2, regarding the death of deceased Piko Dei, P.W.8 registered U.D. Case No. 6 of 1995 and directed P.W.1 to enquire into the matter. During enquiry, P.W.1 visited the spot, held inquest over the dead body of Piko Dei and sent the same for post-mortem examination. On receiving the report of P.W. 2, regarding the death of deceased Piko Dei, P.W.8 registered U.D. Case No. 6 of 1995 and directed P.W.1 to enquire into the matter. During enquiry, P.W.1 visited the spot, held inquest over the dead body of Piko Dei and sent the same for post-mortem examination. On receipt of the post-mortem report on 5.10.1995, P.W.1 made further enquiry and during such enquiry, it came to light that the accused has committed murder of deceased Piko Dei and accordingly P.W.l drew up a plain paper FIR and lodged it before the OIC, Kegaon Police Station, which was registered as Kegaon P.S. Case No. 68 of 1995 under Sections 302/201 Indian Penal Code. On 1.10.1995, at about 11.30 A.M., during inquest, the I.O. seized two stones stained with blood (M. Os. I and II). He seized sample earth and blood stained earth from the spot. On 5.10.1995, the I.O. seized saree of the accused (M.O. III) and also the wearing apparels of the deceased. 3. During investigation, the I.O. (P.W.8) visited the spot and prepared the spot map and arrested the accused and sent the M. Os. for chemical examination. After completion of the investigation, the I.O. submitted charge sheet against the accused under Sections 302/201 Indian Penal Code. 4. The plea of the defence was that of complete denial. 5. The prosecution examined 8 witnesses in support of the charge against the accused. The case of the prosecution rested mainly on two grounds: (a) last seen theory, i.e., before her death, the deceased Pika Dei was seen accompanying the accused to the jungle for fetching firewood; (b) the extra judicial confession of the accused made before P.W.6. 6. Admittedly there is no eye witness to the occurrence. P.W.4 had stated in his evidence that she saw the deceased Piko Dei and the accused were proceeding on the village lane, while he was returning home from his land. In his cross-examination, P.W.4 stated that he saw the deceased at a distance of 3 to 4 cubits from the accused while they were walking on the road and many other persons were also passing on that way at that time. He further states that at that point of time, the people of his village used to go to different places in order to ease themselves. He further states that at that point of time, the people of his village used to go to different places in order to ease themselves. Barring the statement of P.W.4, there is no other evidence to show that the accused and the deceased Piko Dei were going together to the jungle to fetch firewood. 7. P.W.6 in his evidence stated that after four days of the occurrence, he asked the accused regarding the case, stating that if she will not tell the truth, the police has threatened them to harass all the villagers and thereafter the accused confessed before him that she has committed murder of Piko Dei. Learned Sessions Judge while considering the evidence of P.W.6 vis-a-vis the provisions of Section 24 of the Evidence Act, has come to hold that the alleged confession of the accused was on the basis of threat and inducement that unless she speaks the truth, the police has threatened to harass all the villagers. Accordingly Learned Sessions Judge was of the view that the so-called extra judicial confession is not voluntary and is also not true. 8. Coming to the evidence of the doctor (P.W.7), it is not seen that the autopsy over the dead body of Piko Dei was conducted on 2.10.1995, on police requisition at 9 A.M., P.W.7 in his evidence has categorically stated that as per the post-mortem report (Ext. 8), the death of Piko Dei might have occurred after 9 A.M. of 1.10.1995 and that the death is instantaneous. However, according to the case of the prosecution, the death of Piko Dei had occurred sometime on 30.9. 1995, before midday. 9. From the evidence of witnesses it reveals that the dead body of the deceased was lying in a place where stones like M. Os.I and II were penalty available and a Mahua tree was also there. The doctor (P.W.7) had stated in his evidence that if a person falls from the tree over the stone lying underneath it, he or she may receive injury as were present on the body of the deceased. Further, P.W.2 in his evidence had stated that many boys, girls and adult persons used to climb the Mahua tree and break dry branches from it. On the basis of such evidence, Learned Sessions Judge proceeded to hold that the possibility of the deceased having fallen from the tree cannot be absolutely ruled out. 10. Further, P.W.2 in his evidence had stated that many boys, girls and adult persons used to climb the Mahua tree and break dry branches from it. On the basis of such evidence, Learned Sessions Judge proceeded to hold that the possibility of the deceased having fallen from the tree cannot be absolutely ruled out. 10. On an analysis of the evidence of witnesses and the attending circumstances, Learned Sessions Judge came to hold that there is a genuine doubt as regard to the complicity of the accused in the alleged offence and while giving the benefit of such doubt to the accused, Learned Sessions Judge has acquitted her of the charges. 11. Admittedly there are no eye witness to the occurrence in the present case. Further, there is no clear and cogent evidence to establish the involvement of the accused in the alleged offence. As regard, the extra judicial confession alleged to have been made by the accused before the Ward Member (P.W.6), the same does not inspire confidence. Even otherwise, the confession having been made on the threat and/or persuasion, the same cannot be said to be voluntary. It also does not stand to reason that the accused instead of making any confession of her guilt before her family members and relatives, choose to confide on the Ward Member (P.W.6). Moreover, the possibility of the deceased Pika Dei having fallen from the Mahua tree and sustained injury, resulting in her death, cannot be absolutely ruled out. 12. Considering the evidence of the witnesses vis-a.-vis the findings of the Learned Sessions Judge, as recorded in the impugned Judgment and the reasons assigned in support of the same, no impropriety or illegality can be said to have been committed by the Learned Sessions Judge in passing the order of acquittal, so as to warrant any interference by this Court in the present appeal. The Government Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed