JUDGMENT : S.C. Parija, J. - This Government Appeal is directed against the Judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.11.1994, passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar, in S.T. Case No. 6/92 of 1994, acquitting the accused-Respondent from the charges u/s 9(b) of the Explosives Act and Section 302 Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 12.04.1993 at abut 7.30 P.M., a phone message was received at Sahid Nagar Police Station that there was a bomb blast in front of the Stock Exchange Building, Bhubaneswar, in which one person has been seriously injured. On receipt of such information, the I.I.C., Sahid Nagar P.S along with other police officers rushed to the spot and found Kishore Jena was lying dead with multiple injuries on his body. At the spot, Sikhar Jena, brother of the deceased Kishore Jena was present and submitted a written report (Ext.9) before the I.I.C. The said report revealed that since the year 1983 there was strained relationship between the family of the informant and that of the accused and they were in litigating terms for some property of a deity and in that connection, the cousin brother and father of the informant were murdered and in those murder cases, some of the family members of the accused were convicted. Besides that, at the time of auction of Keshura Balighat there was some dispute between the parties and at that time, the accused and his brother had threatened to commit the murder of the informant and his family members. On 12.04.1993 between 7.15 P.M. to 7.20 P.M., while the informant was present in a tyre repairing shop for filling pressure in his scooter, the deceased Kishore Jena along with his friend Prabir Maharathi (P.W.1) came to the betel shop of Panchu Jena (P.W.3), situated near the spot and purchased cigarate. While the deceased Kishore Jena was returning from the shop, talking with Pradipta Maharathi (P.W.2), at that time, the accused Kabuli @ Bhagyadhar Mangaraj along with his brother Kuna Mangaraj and friend Bhagirathi Behera arrived in a scooter and all on a sudden, accused Kabuli threw a bomb aiming at the deceased Kishore Jena and due to explosion of the bomb, Kishore Jena fell down on the road. As soon as he fell down, all the three accused persons assaulted him by means of sword and bhujali. As soon as he fell down, all the three accused persons assaulted him by means of sword and bhujali. Seeing the incident, as the informant raised hullah, the accused persons fled away in their scooter. The informant came near his brother Kishore Jena and found him lying dead with multiple injuries over his dead body. 3. On the written report of the informant, the case was registered and investigation was taken up. Inquest and post-mortem were conducted over the dead body, some incriminating materials like a broken portion of the sword, materials of the exploded bomb and the blood of the deceased were seized from the spot and the accused Kabuli @ Bhagyadhar Mangaraj was arrested. While in custody, the accused gave discovery of the other broken part of the sword. The wearing apparels of the accused as well as that of the deceased were seized and the materials objects were examined by the experts. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused-Respondent and three others, showing them as absconder. As the attendance of the other three accused could not be procured, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions against the accused-Respondent alone. 4. The plea of the defence was one of complete denial and that due to previous enmity, the informant has falsely implicated the accused. 5. The prosecution examined 14 witnesses. P.W. 12 is the informant and he as well as P. Ws.1, 2, 3 and 7 are said to be the occurrence witnesses. P. Ws. 4, 5 and 6 are inquest witnesses and P.W. 8 is a seizure witness. P.W. 9 is the police constable, who escorted the dead body for autopsy. P.W. 10 is the Medical Officer, who conducted the autopsy. P.W. 11 is another brother of the deceased, who stated about another incident taking place on the same day. P.W. 13 is the Executive Magistrate, in whose presence leading to discovery of the weapon of offence was made. P.W. 14 is the Investigating Officer. 6. According to the prosecution, P. Ws 1, 2, 3, 7 and 12 were the eye witnesses to the occurrence. But excepting P.W. 12, the rest of the witnesses did not fully support the case of the prosecution and hence they were declared hostile. P.W. 3 is said to be the owner of the betel shop, in front of which the occurrence took place. But excepting P.W. 12, the rest of the witnesses did not fully support the case of the prosecution and hence they were declared hostile. P.W. 3 is said to be the owner of the betel shop, in front of which the occurrence took place. P.W. 1 is said to be the friend of the deceased, who came to that betel shop along with the deceased and P.W. 2 is the person, with whom the deceased was talking when the occurrence took place. 7. P.W. 1 supported the prosecution case to the extent that he along with the deceased came near the Stock Exchange Building in Bhubaneswar and the deceased went to get a cigarate and at that time he heard the sound of an explosion and found smoke and seeing that, he fled away out of fear. P.W. 3 supported the prosecution story to the extent that he had a betel shop in front of the Stock Exchange Building in Bhubaneswar and there was a bomb explosion near that place, while he was present in his shop. P. Ws 2 and 7 totally denied their knowledge about the occurrence. Neither P.W. 1 nor P.W. 3 stated as to who exploded the bomb and what happened thereafter. Being declared hostile and confronted with their earlier statements recorded u/s 161 Code of Criminal Procedure., they denied to have seen the accused throwing the bomb and assaulting the deceased along with other accused persons and causing death of the deceased. The prosecution suggested to these hostile witnesses that they were suppressing the truth, but no convincing reason was assigned as to why they would suppress the truth, particularly when P. Ws 1 and 2 are said to be the friends of the deceased. 8. The informant (P.W.12) is the brother of the deceased. He admitted that there was strained relationship between his family members and that of the accused and 2 of his family members were murdered and in those murder cases, some of the members of the family of the accused were convicted. Besides, the parties were in litigating terms concerning the property of a deity. 9. P.W. 12 in his examination-in-chief corroborated the FIR. Besides, the parties were in litigating terms concerning the property of a deity. 9. P.W. 12 in his examination-in-chief corroborated the FIR. According to the FIR and evidence of P.W. 12, he had come to a tyre repairing shop situated near the spot for filling pressure in his scooter and at that time the occurrence took place and hence he could see the occurrence. But he could not say the name of the owner of that shop, even though he stated that on many occasions he had gone to that shop for filling pressure in his scooter. It was suggested to P.W. 12 that there was no such tyre repairing shop near the place of occurrence at the relevant time, which he denied. 10. As P.W. 12 had stated in his statement recorded u/s 161 Code of Criminal Procedure. that one Gangadhar Swain was the owner of the tyre repairing shop, the defence led evidence through one Gangadhar Swain (D.W.3), who stated that neither he nor anybody else had a tyre repairing shop in that area within the last 4 to 5 years. He stated that he is the owner of the betel shop situated near the place of occurrence, which fact has not been disputed by the prosecution during cross-examination of the witness. The prosecution suggested to D.W.3 that another person by the same name of Gangadhar Swain had such a tyre repairing shop in that area in the year 1993. D.W.3, who is having a betel shop at that place since 4 to 5 years denied such suggestion. During cross-examination of P.W. 12, the defence challenged the existence of a tyre repairing shop near the spot and the occasion for the presence of P.W. 12 at the time of the alleged occurrence. Though P.W. 12 in his evidence had stated that at the time of occurrence a boy of that tyre shop was present near the spot, the prosecution did not examine the said boy. On the other hand, the defence has led evidence through D.W.3 to show that there was no tyre repairing shop in the area at that relevant time. 11. On the other hand, the defence has led evidence through D.W.3 to show that there was no tyre repairing shop in the area at that relevant time. 11. Considering the evidence on record, more specifically the evidence of D.W.3 and in absence of any clear and cogent evidence from the side of the prosecution, Learned Sessions Judge proceeded to accept the plea of the defence that P.W. 12 had no occasion to come to the spot and see the occurrence and therefore, the possibility of P.W. 12 seeing the occurrence appears extremely doubtful. 12. The further plea of the defence was that the occurrence having alleged to have taken place in the evening hours between 7.15 P.M. to 7.20 P.M. and at that time there being load shedding in the area and due to the bomb explosion, as the area was filled with smoke, it was highly improbable and almost impossible for P.W. 12 to have seen the actual occurrence and to identify the assailants of the deceased. The case of the prosecution is that immediately after the explosion when the deceased fell down, the accused-Respondent and other absconding accused persons assaulted him by means of sword and bhujali, which is claimed to have been seen by P.W. 12. In his evidence P.W. 12 had stated that as the place of occurrence was lighted one, he could see the entire occurrence. The I.O. (P.W.14) in his evidence stated that the informant (P.W.12) did not state before him about the existence of light at the spot of the occurrence. P.W. 3 was present in his betel shop at the time of occurrence and P.W. 1 had gone near the spot along with the deceased when the alleged occurrence took place. The evidence of these witnesses revealed that at the time of the alleged occurrence, there was loadshedding in that area. According to P.W. 1 because of darkness due to load- shedding and smoke due to the explosion, the faces of the persons were not visible. When the presence of these two witnesses near the spot at the time of the alleged occurrence was admitted by the prosecution, the Learned Sessions Judge was inclined to believe that there was loadshedding in the area and there was no light at the time of the occurrence. 13. When the presence of these two witnesses near the spot at the time of the alleged occurrence was admitted by the prosecution, the Learned Sessions Judge was inclined to believe that there was loadshedding in the area and there was no light at the time of the occurrence. 13. From the evidence of P.W. 12, it reveals that the tyre repairing shop, from where he saw the occurrence is situated about 70 to 80 feet from the spot. Thus, in the night hours, when there was load-shedding in the area and at that time there was a bomb explosion, as a result of which, the area must have been filled with smoke, Learned Sessions Judge has found that it could not have been possible for P.W. 12 to see the alleged assault on the deceased, which took place immediately after the bomb blast and to correctly recognize or identify the assailants from a distance of 70 to 80 feet. 14. Coming to the fact that as to who threw the bomb, Learned Sessions Judge found that in the FIR and the evidence adduced by P.W. 12 in the Court suggested that it was the accused-Respondent, who threw the bomb. During cross-examination, it was suggested to P.W. 12 that on 13.04.1993, he had stated before the I.O. that the accused Kabuli directed the other accused persons to assault the deceased Kishore Jena who was going away. Then the other accused Kuna Mangaraj and Ors. threw the bomb. P.W. 12 while denying the suggestion, asserted that before the I.O. he had stated only the name of accused Kabuli Jena as the person, who threw the bomb and none-else. From the evidence of the I.O. (P.W.14), it is seen that on re-examination by him, P.W. 12 had given the statement that the accused Kabuli Jena directed the other accused persons to assault the deceased Kishore Jena and then the other accused Kuna Mangaraj and Ors. threw the bomb. In view of such discrepancy in the statement of P.W. 12, Learned Sessions Judge declined to accept the plea of the prosecution that it was the accused Kabuli, who threw the bomb. 15. threw the bomb. In view of such discrepancy in the statement of P.W. 12, Learned Sessions Judge declined to accept the plea of the prosecution that it was the accused Kabuli, who threw the bomb. 15. Coming to the plea of the defence that the name of P.W. 12 as an eye witness has not been mentioned in the forwarding report of the accused, it is seen that in the forwarding report dated 21.04.1993, the I.O. had named the eye witnesses to the occurrence, in which, the name of P.W. 12 was not mentioned. In absence of the name of P.W. 12 as an eye witness in the forwarding report, which did contain the name of other eye witnesses, Learned Sessions Judge came to find the same to be an additional circumstance, which cast a doubt on the claim of P.W. 12 that he was an eye witness to the occurrence. In absence of any corroboration by any independent witness, Learned Sessions Judge did not find it safe to rely only on the testimony of P.W. 12, who is an interested witness, so as to warrant a conviction against the accused. 16. Regarding the evidence relied upon by the prosecution leading to discovery of broken sword (M.O.III), which is said to be the weapon of offence, the prosecution claimed that the accused gave information or disclosure statement before the Executive Magistrate and two other independent witnesses, while in police custody, leading to discovery of M.O.III from Amari bushes situated in a garage on Cutack-Puri road, locally known as 'Sharma Garage'. The two independent witnesses to the alleged statement of the accused leading to discovery have not been examined by the prosecution. The Executive Magistrate (P.W.13) in his evidence has stated that on police requisition and as per the order of the Sub-Collector-S.D.M., Bhubaneswar, he went to Sahid Nagar Police Station where the accused was detained by the police and in his presence, the accused confessed about the commission of the crime and agreed to lead and give recovery of the weapon of offence from the place where he had concealed the same. He further stated that the accused led and gave recovery of that broken sword from the aforesaid Amari bushes. He further stated that the accused led and gave recovery of that broken sword from the aforesaid Amari bushes. The evidence of the I.O. is that the accused stated before the Magistrate that the broken lower part of the sword, by means of which the murder of deceased Kishore Jena was committed, was kept concealed in the Amari bushes, behind 'Sharma Garage' situated by the side of Cuttack-Puri road and he would give recovery of the same and so saying the accused led and gave recovery of M.O.III from that place. 17. The evidence of the Executive Magistrate (P.W.13) and the I.O. (P.W.14) materially differs from each other regarding the information given by the accused regarding leading to discovery. Learned Sessions Judge from the Case Diary found that the exact information or statement given by the accused in presence of the Executive Magistrate and other independent witnesses has not been recorded in verbatim either in the Case Diary or in the Seizure List. On the contrary, the statement given by the accused before the I.O. prior to the arrival of the Magistrate and other independent witnesses has been recorded in verbatim in the Case Diary. Learned Sessions Judge accordingly came to find that the place of concealment of the alleged weapon of offence was already known prior to the information or statement given by the accused before the Magistrate and the witnesses and therefore, the subsequent statement given by the accused in presence of the Magistrate cannot be treated as an information received from the accused leading to discovery and therefore, Section 27 of the Evidence Act would be wholly inapplicable. 18. Coming to the alleged weapon of offence (M.O.III), the report of the State F.S.L., Rasulgarh, reveals that on examination some blood were detected on M.O. III, but its origin and group could not be determined as the quantity was insufficient. Hence, there was no evidence that the blood found on M.O.III was human blood and it was the same group as that of the deceased. Therefore the Learned Sessions Judge found that the weapon in question cannot be linked with the murder of the deceased. 19. As regard the other broken top portion of the sword (M.O.II), which was seized from the spot and sent to the State F.S.L., Rasulgarh, along with M.O.III, the examination report opined that the broken ends of M. Os. Therefore the Learned Sessions Judge found that the weapon in question cannot be linked with the murder of the deceased. 19. As regard the other broken top portion of the sword (M.O.II), which was seized from the spot and sent to the State F.S.L., Rasulgarh, along with M.O.III, the examination report opined that the broken ends of M. Os. II and III tallied with each other which indicated that they formed one and the same sword before being broken. However, in absence of satisfactory evidence that the sword comprising of M. Os. II and III was used by the accused in committing murder or that the same was seized from his possession or at his instance and there being no expert opinion about existence of human blood either on M.O.II or M.O.III, Learned Sessions Judge came to find that the opinion of the expert does not incriminate the accused. 20. Coming to the finding of same blood group as that of the deceased on the wearing apparels of the accused (M. Os. IV to VII), the chemical examination report revealed that the human blood of Group-A was found on the pant and shirt of the deceased as well as on the pant and shirt of the accused (M. Os. X and XI). The report of the Serologist revealed that the blood found on the wearing apparels was human blood and tallied with each other with regard to ABO grouping system. Learned Sessions Judge found that the blood of the accused has not been examined by any expert to find out his blood group and therefore, the possibility of the blood of the accused being of the same group as that of the deceased cannot be completely ruled out. Accordingly, Learned Sessions Judge came to find that the mere fact of finding of blood of the same group in the wearing apparels of the accused and that of the deceased cannot be utilized as an incriminating circumstance against him. 21. Accordingly, Learned Sessions Judge came to find that the mere fact of finding of blood of the same group in the wearing apparels of the accused and that of the deceased cannot be utilized as an incriminating circumstance against him. 21. With regard to the plea of the prosecution that the accused was absconding after the occurrence, which leads to the presumption regarding his involvement in the alleged offence, Learned Sessions Judge has taken into consideration the fact that mere absence of a person from the village or the area, immediately after the occurrence is not by itself a strong circumstance to believe his complicity in the alleged crime, because when a serious offence like murder is committed in the locality, the persons of the locality usually become panic and leave the locality out of fear of being arrested by the police on mere suspicion or of being falsely implicated in the crime. This mostly happens in the case of those persons who have some strained relationship with the deceased and his family. Accordingly, Learned Sessions Judge found that as there was admittedly strained relationship between the family of the accused and the deceased and merely because the accused could not be apprehended for some time, the same cannot be utilized as a strong piece of circumstance against the accused to hold that he was involved in the commission of offence. 22. Coming to the medical evidence, the Medical Officer (P.W.10) who had conducted the autopsy, had found 11 chop injuries on different parts of the body of the deceased besides burn injury on his right leg and some abrasion and bruises. The cause of death, as opined by the Doctor (P.W.10), was shock due to haemorrhage from injury to the large vessels of the neck. P.W. 10 on examining the alleged weapon of offence (M. Os. II and III) had opined that the chop injuries inflicted on the body of the deceased were possible by the sharp edge and the abrasion and bruises by the blunt edge of the weapon and that the burn injury was due to bomb blast. He also opined that all the injuries were anti-mortem in nature. Accordingly, P.W. 10 opined that the death of the deceased Kishore Jena was homicidal. He also opined that all the injuries were anti-mortem in nature. Accordingly, P.W. 10 opined that the death of the deceased Kishore Jena was homicidal. There being no substantive evidence to connect the accused with the murder of the deceased Kishore Jena, Learned Sessions Judge was of the view that the medical evidence of P.W. 10 does not help in bringing home the charge of murder against the accused. 23. Considering the direct and circumstantial evidence, Learned Sessions Judge came to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that it was the accused who was in possession of the bomb and threw the same causing the explosion and thereby committed murder of the deceased Kishore Jena. Learned Sessions Judge also took into consideration the fact that there existed enmity between the parties and therefore, the possibility of false implication of the accused cannot be completely ruled out. Learned Sessions Judge accordingly found the accused not guilty of the charges u/s 9(b) of the Explosives Act and Section 302 I.P.C. and acquitted him of the charges. 24. On a perusal of the evidence, we find that there are no eye witnesses to the occurrence and the so called eye witnesses, i.e. P. Ws.1, 2, 3 and 7 have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile. The evidence of the informant (P.W.12), who claimed to be a witness to the occurrence, has been found to contain several inherent contradictions and discrepancies and his presence at the spot has been disbelieved. The alleged recovery of the weapon of offence (M.O.III), at the instance of the accused has also been found to be doubtful and not in accordance with the provision of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. There is no other clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence to establish the involvement of the accused in the alleged offence of murder of Kishore Jena, beyond all reasonable doubt. 25. Considering the evidence as discussed above and keeping in view the findings recorded by the Learned Sessions Judge 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 acquitting the accused of the charges, so as to warrant any interference by this Court in the present appeal. 26. 26. Before parting with the case, we are constrained to observe the slip-shod manner in which the prosecution has tried to support the charges and the failure on its part to exercise due care and caution, in collecting clear and cogent evidence to support the charges in order to secure an order of conviction in such a serious case of murder, which is committed in the heart of the capital city of Bhubaneswar. 27. The Government Appeal is accordingly dismissed. A.S. Naidu, J. 28. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed