JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - The judgment dated 4th November, 1995 passed by Learned District & Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal, Angul, acquitting the accused persons from the charges under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in S.T. Case No. 120-D/1991 is assailed by the State of Orissa in this Government Appeal. 2. The incident took place way back in the year 1991. It is alleged that on 28.3.1991 Kumar Dehury along with his six children, through two wives was taking dinner. His second wife complained that due to non-availability of curry her children were crying & not able to eat rice. She held Kumar Dehury responsible for the said misfortune. Retaliating to the said statement her husband (Kumar Dehury), it is alleged, stated that no children will die if curry is not served with rice. In course of interrogation, It is stated, Kumar Dehury said that his children will only die if some one practice witchcraft. Hearing the said allegation the accused persons, rushed into the house & questioned Kumar Dehury as to who was practicing witchcraft. Being afraid Kunjei Dehuri (P.W.4), the first wife of Kumar Dehury rushed to the Kamakhyanagar Police Station to report against the accused persons who had forcibly entered into the house. In the meanwhile, it is alleged, the accused persons severely assaulted Kumar Dehury with lathis. After being assaulted Kumar Dehury left the house along with his two sons with an intention to report the matter in the Police Station. On the way he felt thirsty & wanted some water to drink. He sent his two sons to fetch water from his house. When his two sons returned to the spot with water they did not find Kumar Dehury. They reported the matter to their mother, who in turn conveyed the same to the neighbours & wanted help to search her husband, but then as it was dark by then & nobody ventured to go into the forest. On the next day morning, it is alleged, the informant & his children went & found the dead body of Kumar Dehury near a tree. Thereafter, they went & lodged & F.I.R. at Kamakhyanagar Police Station. 3. On the basis of said report the Investigating Officer visited the spot, recorded the statement of different witnesses, took steps to conduct the inquest & sent the dead body for post mortem. Thereafter, they went & lodged & F.I.R. at Kamakhyanagar Police Station. 3. On the basis of said report the Investigating Officer visited the spot, recorded the statement of different witnesses, took steps to conduct the inquest & sent the dead body for post mortem. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted in G.R. Case No. 88/1991 in the Court of S.D.J.M.. Kamakhyanagar. Learned S.D.J.M. after perusing the police papers & on being satisfied that prima facie case was made out, took cognizance of the offence & committed the case to the Court of Session for trial. 4. In course of trial the prosecution got examined seven witnesses. Admittedly, there is no eye witness to the occurrence. Relying upon-the evidence of the Doctor (P.W.7) as well as the post mortem report, Learned District & Sessions -Judge came a conclusion that the death of Kumar Dehury was homicidal in nature. However, after discussing the evidence in extenso, he arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution had totally failed to establish the guilt of the accused persons by adducing cogent & reliable evidence &-acquitted them. 5. It appears that in the meanwhile out of four accused persons, one (Kaibalya Dehury) has expired. Thus, this Government Appeal is confined to only three accused persons. 6. Learned Counsel for the State forcefully submitted that the Learned District & Sessions Judge has acted illegality in acquitting the accused persons, though enough evidence is available on record. It is stated that all the P. Ws. have clearly deposed in Court that they have seen the accused persons assaulting the deceased. That apart, before succumbing to the injuries the deceased disclosed before his first wife (P.W.3) that he had been assaulted by the accused persons. It is submitted that in view of the aforesaid evidence, the order of acquittal may be set aside & the accused persons may be convicted. 7. The submissions of Learned Counsel for the State are strongly repudiated by Mr. Dhal, Learned Counsel appearing for the accused-Respondents. According to him, there is absolutely no evidence much less any cogent evidence to come to a conclusion that the accused persons were the authors of the crime. 7. The submissions of Learned Counsel for the State are strongly repudiated by Mr. Dhal, Learned Counsel appearing for the accused-Respondents. According to him, there is absolutely no evidence much less any cogent evidence to come to a conclusion that the accused persons were the authors of the crime. Alternatively, it is submitted that even if the prosecution case is believed it would reveal that the accused persons being enraged by the derogative words uttered by Kumar Dehury to the effect that they were practicing withchcraft entered into the house & assaulted him. According to Mr. Dhal by such assault no serious injuries were caused. Further, it would be evident from the evidence that after being assaulted Kumar Dehury went to the Police Station to report the incident, which itself reveals that the injuries were minor in nature. But then during night his whereabouts were not known & in the early morning his dead body was found near a tree. According to Mr. Dhal the prosecution had failed to establish as to what happened to the accused persons during the night. 8. After hearing Learned Counsel for the parties, this Court once again went through the evidence, both oral & documentary. P.W.2 is the son of the deceased. In his cross-examination he had clearly stated that his step mother Kunjei left the house & had not seen the assault part. P.W.3 is the second wife of the deceased. According to her as soon as accused persons entered into the house, she left the house & only after some time she came back & found that her husband (Kumar Dehury) had been assaulted. P.W.5 is the daughter of the deceased. According to her, when the accused persons assaulted her father, he took an arrow & defended himself thereby causing injury to one of the accused, i.e. Pardesi. This fact gets corroborated from the doctor's evidence. But then, the doctor's evidence. But then, in course of examination u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure. no question was put to the accused Pardesi as to how he sustained injuries. Apart from the aforesaid facts, no other evidence is available to connect the accused persons with the alleged crime. Perusal of the entire evidence reveals that most of the witnesses were examined by the police after long lapse of time. no question was put to the accused Pardesi as to how he sustained injuries. Apart from the aforesaid facts, no other evidence is available to connect the accused persons with the alleged crime. Perusal of the entire evidence reveals that most of the witnesses were examined by the police after long lapse of time. From the evidence of P.W.4 it appears that she did not know what was written in the F.I.R. She had only signed the paper. A cumulative assessment of all the evidence leads to the conclusion that the District & Sessions Judge has not committed any error & the order of acquittal needs no interference. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the Learned Sessions Judge that too after lapse of eighteen years. Accordingly, the Government Appeal stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed