JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - The judgment and order of conviction dated 11.12.1995 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Balasore convicting the accused-Appellant u/s 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life in S.T. No. 15/142 of 1994 is assailed in this Criminal Appeal. 2. The prosecution case was set to motion in response to an F.I.R. lodged by P.W.9 before the Officer-in-Charge, Bhograi Police Station stating as follows: The Appellant had married one Sumati about 22 years back. They had no issue. Sumati inherited some of the parental properties. The accused-Appellant a wayward person, had sold the said lands without the knowledge of Sumati. Consequently, dissension cropped up between them. On 22.2.1994 the accused-Appellant was present in his house till 7.00 P.M. and thereafter left. On the morning of 23.2.1994'some of the villagers found the door of the house of the Appellant was closed from inside. They broke open the door and found Sumati lying dead inside the room. The Grama Rakhi-P, W.11 reported the matter at Bhograi Police Station and Station Diary entry was made. The Officer-in-Charge on the basis of said report proceeded to spot where P.W.9-Sukumar Das the brother of Sumati (deceased) submitted a written report which was treated as an F.I.R.and on the basis of the same investigation was carried on by P.W.11. Inquest was held over the dead body as per Ext.7. The dead body was sent for postmortem. The accused-Appellant was arrested and other connected materials were seized. After completion of investigation P.W.11 submitted charge sheet and the learned S.D.J.M. on being satisfied that a prima facie case is made out, took cognizance of the offences and committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial. The plea of the accused-Appellant was that he left the house on 22.2.1994 at 7.00 P.M. and he had no knowledge about the incident. 3. In order to establish its case, the prosecution got eleven witnesses examined. Out of whom P.W.s.1 and 2 did not support the prosecution case and they turned hostile. P.W.3 was the photographer who took photographs of the dead body as per direction of P.W.11 the Investigating Officer. P.W.4 was the seizure witness. P.W.5 was the nephew of the deceased and had scribed the F.I.R. Ext. 2. P.W.6 was a post occurrence witness. Out of whom P.W.s.1 and 2 did not support the prosecution case and they turned hostile. P.W.3 was the photographer who took photographs of the dead body as per direction of P.W.11 the Investigating Officer. P.W.4 was the seizure witness. P.W.5 was the nephew of the deceased and had scribed the F.I.R. Ext. 2. P.W.6 was a post occurrence witness. P.W.7 was the brother of the deceased who deposed with regard to the marriage solemnized between his sister Sumati and the Appellant about 20-22 years back. He had also stated that both the them led a blissful conjugal life. According to him on receiving information he came to the house of Sumati and found that a 'Kajalpati' (a sharp edged weapon) was stabbed in the neck of Sumati. P.W.8 was the husband of Anr. sister of P.W.7. According to him, the accused was in his house till 9.00. P.M. The said statement was corroborated by P.W.9 Anr. brother of the deceased. P.W.10 was the Medical Officer who conducted postmortem and found eight abrasions in the body of the deceased, which were ante-mortem in nature. According to the Doctor the injuries were caused by sticking of the 'Kajalapati" to the neck and the same were postmortem in nature. P.W.11 was the Investigating Officer. 4. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge after discussing the evidence in extenso came to the conclusion that the accused-Appellant and his wife-Sumati were not pulling well and there was altercation with regard to sale by the accused-Appellant of landed property donated to Sumati by her father. It was further held that the prosecution was able to establish that the accused-Appellant was the author of the crime and accordingly convicted him. 5. The said findings are strongly repudiated by Mr. Dhal, learned Counsel for the Appellant. According to Mr. Dhal, all the findings arrived at by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge were based on surmises and conjecturers and there was absolutely no cogent evidence. Relying upon the evidence of P.W.10, Mr. Dhal, submitted rather forcefully that the injuries caused by 'Kajalapati' having been found to be postmortem in nature and as there was no other fatal injury on the body of the deceased the learned Addl. Sessions Judge acted illegally in coming to the conclusion that the death was homicidal in nature. Mr. Relying upon the evidence of P.W.10, Mr. Dhal, submitted rather forcefully that the injuries caused by 'Kajalapati' having been found to be postmortem in nature and as there was no other fatal injury on the body of the deceased the learned Addl. Sessions Judge acted illegally in coming to the conclusion that the death was homicidal in nature. Mr. Dhal, further submitted that there were no evidence, much less any believable evidence to reveal that there was any ill-feeling between the accused-Appellant and Sumati (deceased). The statements of the near relatives are based On only surmises and conjectures. It is stated that as there were materials available on record to show that the Appellant was absent from his house on the night of occurrence and the door was locked from inside, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge acted illegally in arriving at a conclusion that the prosecution established that the accused was the author of the crime. In short, according to Mr. Dhal, the conclusions arrived at being based on no reliable evidence, it is a fit case where the order of conviction may be set aside. 6. All these submissions are repudiated by Mr. Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate. According to Mr. Mishra, enough materials are available to reveal that there was ill feeling between the accused-Appellant and his wife-Sumati and the reason for such ill feeling being the Appellant bad sold the lands which were gifted to Sumati by her father without informing her. The death according to Mr. Mishra had occurred in the house of the Appellant and he was available in house till 9.00 P.M. thus the conclusion is irresistible that the Appellant was the author of the crime. 7. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length. Perused the evidence meticulously. This is a peculiar case where the Doctor evidence reveals that the injuries found on the body of the deceased were mostly abrasions and were simple in nature. It appears that the 'Kajalapati' was thrust to the middle of the neck. After examining the said injury the Doctor had clearly opined that the same was postmortem in nature. The prosecution unfortunately did not take any pain to investigate as to who stabbed 'Kajalapati' in the neck of Sumati-deceased. The said angle of the case remains unexplained. The Doctor-P.W.10 had not given any clear opinion as to whether he death was homicidal or suicidal in nature. The prosecution unfortunately did not take any pain to investigate as to who stabbed 'Kajalapati' in the neck of Sumati-deceased. The said angle of the case remains unexplained. The Doctor-P.W.10 had not given any clear opinion as to whether he death was homicidal or suicidal in nature. A suggestion was made to the Doctor as to whether the death could have been by asphyxia. The Doctor had given symptoms of death caused by asphyxia but then had not opined that the death of Sumati was due to asphyxia. On the other hand, his opinion was reserved till receipt of the chemical examination report of viscera. Unfortunately the said report neither was produced before the court nor was marked as exhibit. Thus the cause of death of Sumati remained a unsolved mystery, more so because according to the Doctor the injuries found were not the cause of death or fatal. Apart from the said fact, it appears that a suicide note was found by the prosecution. The said note was sent to handwriting expert and after examination of the same a report was submitted to the effect that the same was written by Sumati (deceased) in her own handwriting. The said aspect was not dealt with by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge at all. A scrutiny of the evidence further reveals that the room was locked from inside and in order to enter into the house the door had to be opened by applying force. Admittedly the Appellant was not inside the room. The discussion made above leads this Court to a conclusion that the prosecution had totally failed to establish the guilt of the accused-Appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. This is a case where the cause of death is shrouded in mystery. The room where the dead body was found was locked from inside. A weapon was inserted on the neck of the body after death. Last but not the least, the suicide note was written by the deceased in her own handwriting. 8. On the basis of the aforesaid conclusion this Court finds that this is a fit case where the benefit of doubt should be extended to the accused-Appellant. Accordingly, this Court sets aside the order of the conviction and sentence passed in S.T. No. 15/142 of 1994 by the learned Addl. 8. On the basis of the aforesaid conclusion this Court finds that this is a fit case where the benefit of doubt should be extended to the accused-Appellant. Accordingly, this Court sets aside the order of the conviction and sentence passed in S.T. No. 15/142 of 1994 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Balasore and acquits the accused-Appellant of the charge u/s 302 of I.P.C. The authorities are directed to release the accused-Appellant forthwith, if his detention is not required in connection with any other case. The Criminal Appeal is accordingly disposed of. S.C. Parija, J. 9. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed