JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - The judgment and order of acquittal dated 22nd July,1999 passed by learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Berhampur acquitting the Respondent from the charge u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, "I.P.C. ")'in S. C. No. 1/96/S. C. 416/95 GDC is assailed in this appeal by the State of Orissa. 2. The accused-Respondent is a lady. She was arrested on 20.10.1995 on the allegation that she had committed murder of a four year old female child, named, Sangita. Adumbrated in brief, the prosecution case as unfolded during trial, is that Harikrushna married accused Uttara and two sons and one daughter were born out of the said marriage. Unfortunately, Harikrushna died. Thereafter. Uttara married Krutibas, the younger brother of Harikrushna. Out of the said wed-lock also two sons were born. While the matter stood thus, Krutibas came in contact with Manita, daughter of one of his field servants. Both of them eloped and got married at Puri. Sangita is the daughter of Manita through Krutibas. After staying at Surat for quite some time, Krutibas and Manita alongwith their daughter Sangita returned to their village and stayed in the said house. On 12.8.1995 at about 11 A.M. it is alleged, Uttara called Sangita, gave her some food at-about 11 A.M. and took Sangita with her towards the field. The mother of Sangita searched for her daughter at about 1.00 P.M. and came to know from some of the villagers that Sangita had gone with the accused. The family members searched for the giri, but could not trace her. In course of such search, they found the dead body of Sangita floating inside a well belonging to Maheswar Pradhan around 10 P.M. Suspecting complicity of the accused in the crime, Gangadhar Pradhan questioned her in presence of the villagers. It is stated that she admitted to have pushed the girl into the well. On the next day, Saita Barikv the maternal grand-father of Sangita lodged an F.I.R. at Buguda Police Station. On the basis of the said F.I.R. a P.S. case was registered, which was subsequently converted to G. R. Case No. 326 of 1995 and investigation commenced. After recovering the dead body, conducting inquest, examining the witnesses, the I.O. submitted charge-sheet. Learned SDJM, Bhanjanagar after taking cognizance of the offence committed the case to the Court of Session for trial. 3. In. After recovering the dead body, conducting inquest, examining the witnesses, the I.O. submitted charge-sheet. Learned SDJM, Bhanjanagar after taking cognizance of the offence committed the case to the Court of Session for trial. 3. In. order to establish the case, the prosecution got examined 14 witnesses and exhibited several documents. 4. The plea of the defence was of complete'denial. In her statement recorded u/s 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, she took the stand that after the death of her first husband, she had a miserable life and was looked down by her in-laws and Ors. . Krutibas after returning from Surat married her and they led a blissful married life for some time and thereafter Krutibas eloped with Manita and they married at Puri. They also went to Surat, stayed there for some time and returned to their village with their daughter. According to her, she had never given any food to Sangita on the date of occurrence and she had no connection with the alleged crime. She was all along working in the field and a false case had been foisted against her. 5. Out of the witnesses examined, P.W. 1 is the father-in-law of the accused. He is a witness to the inquest. P.W. 2 is a co-villager who had noticed the accused while she was going along with her son and Sangita towards the field. P.W. 3 is also a co-villager. He noticed the dead body of Sangita floating inside the well. According to him, the accused confessed before the villagers that she took Sangita and pushed her into the well. P.W. 4 is a co-villager of the accused, who she saw the accused going with her son and Sangita. P.W. 5 spoke about the past life of Krutibas. He was present when the accused said to have made the confession. P.W. 7 is a petition writer, who scribed the F.I.R., Ext.2 and is a witness to the inquest, P.W. 8 is Anr. witness, who saw the accused going along with his son and Sangita, P.W. 10 noticed the dead body floating in the well, P.W. 11 is the mother of Sangita, P.W. 12 is the O.I.C., who received information. P.W. 14 is the doctor, who conducted autopsy. Learned 1st Addl. witness, who saw the accused going along with his son and Sangita, P.W. 10 noticed the dead body floating in the well, P.W. 11 is the mother of Sangita, P.W. 12 is the O.I.C., who received information. P.W. 14 is the doctor, who conducted autopsy. Learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge after discussing the evidence in extenso and disbelieving the confession said to have been made by the accused on the ground that the same was made in front of a Gramarakhi and hostile persons, held that the prosecution was not able to establish the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and benefit of doubt goes in her favour. 6. According to learned Counsel for the State, Gramarakhi not being a police officer, the Addl. Sessions Judge committed an error in rejecting the confession said to have been made by the accused in his presence. The further contention of learned Counsel for the State is that several witnesses had seen the accused walking towards the field along with her son and Sangita, but thereafter Sangita's whereabouts were not known. Under the said circumstances, the last seen theory is clearly attracted and as the accused failed to give any explanation, much less any satisfactory explanation, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge should have convicted her on the said ground alone. 7. Mr. S. D. Das, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent, on the other hand submits that there is absolutely no cogent evidence to connect the accused with the alleged incident, their is no eye witness to the occurrence nor the chain of circumstances is complete. According to Mr. Das, not a single witness has deposed before the Court as to the time when Sangita went with the accused. In absence of such vital evidence, learned Addl. Sessions Judge has rightly entertained a doubt. Mr. Das, further submitted that the confession appears to have been extracted from the accused by adopting coercive methods by the villagers and in-laws in presence of Gramarakhi and the same not being a voluntary one, has rightly been discarded. 8. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length. Perused the materials and documents available on record. This Court also went through the evidence both oral and documentary. Admittedly, there is no direct evidence connecting the accused with the alleged crime. 8. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length. Perused the materials and documents available on record. This Court also went through the evidence both oral and documentary. Admittedly, there is no direct evidence connecting the accused with the alleged crime. The main circumstance, which the prosecution hinges its case, is that Sangita was last seen with the accused, but then perusal of the evidence of the P.Ws. reveal that they had seen the accused going to the field along with her son and Sangita. The time at which they saw the said incident is not stated by any of the witnesses. Thus, it cannot be said that Sangita was last seen with the accused. That apart, there is no evidence with regard to what happened to the son of the accused, who has not been examined. A feeble attempt is made by the learned Counsel for the State to connect the crime with the accused on the ground that according to the witnesses after giving food to Sangita, the accused took her with her and in the post mortem examination food was found in the stomach of the dead body, but then, there is no evidence as to what food the accused had given to Sangita and what was detected from the stomach of Sangita. Surprisingly, Krutibas, the husband of the accused and father of the deceased Sangita, though available, was not examined. Non-examination of vital witnesses, which would have thrown some light on the occurrence, vitally affects the prosecution case. No evidence is also available to reveal if a small child could accidentally fall into the well or not. It appears, the accused was all along working in the field with Ors. . Thus, such conduct also goes a long way to show with regard to the involvement of the accused with the alleged crime. The reasoning given by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge to the effect that confession having been made before Gramarakhi is not acceptable, is an apparent error in law. It is no more res Integra that a Gramarakhi is not a police officer and confession made before a Gramarakhi does not attract operation of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. (see: 1992 (5) OCR 636 Khageswar Khatua v. State). 9. The Respondent is an old lady. She might be around her fifties by now. She was in custody for quite some time. (see: 1992 (5) OCR 636 Khageswar Khatua v. State). 9. The Respondent is an old lady. She might be around her fifties by now. She was in custody for quite some time. Be that as it may, fact remains, the prosecution was not able to establish its case with regard to the involvement of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. A scrutiny of the entire evidence gives an impression that several gaps remained unfilled by the prosecution. In a criminal proceeding, the degree of proof is stricter than what is required in a civil proceeding. In a criminal trial, however, intriguing may be the facts and circumstances of the case, charges made against the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubts and the requirements of proof cannot lie in the realm of surmises and conjectures. A scrutiny of the evidence adduced in the case and in the light of the aforesaid dictum, this Court finds that the prosecution has totally failed to establish the charge against the accused and it is a fit case where benefit of doubt should be given to the accused. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the Court below. However, before parting, we want to express our anguish with regard to the discussions made by the learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge. Perusal of the entire judgment gives an impression that he has proceeded only on surmises and conjectures. While disposing of a session's case, the Court has to stick to the evidence on record instead of expressing his impression or thoughts. Probabilities and possibilities are unknown to criminal jurisprudence. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, however, did not keep the aforesaid settled principle in mind while disposing of the case. Be that as it may, as the conclusion arrived at by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge appears to be just and correct, we are not inclined to interfere with the same. 10. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. S.C. Parija, J. 11. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed