JUDGMENT : B.N. Mahapatra, J. - This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order Dated 12.04.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadrak in Sessions Trial No. 28/40 of 2002 convicting the Appellant u/s 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'Indian Penal Code') for committing the offence of murder of his wife Umamani Nayak (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated runs as follows: Appellant Muralidhar Nayak and the deceased Umamani Nayak were husband and wife. They got married in 1986-87. At the time of marriage, there was a demand of dowry of Rs. 5,000, out of which Rs. 2,000 was paid at the time of marriage. For non-payment of the balance amount the deceased was subjected to cruelty both physical and mental and was driven out of the matrimonial house on some occasions, whereafter she was again left in the house of the Appellant after settlement. In the night intervening 4/5.01.1997 Appellant, his elder brother Gadadhar and sister-in-law Chanchala ' Basanti and their son Ranjan quarrelled with the deceased. Early in the morning, her dead body was found with deep cut injuries on different parts of the body in the bedroom of Muralidhar and deceased in their residence at Gopalpur. PW-1, Smt. Bhamamai Das the elder sister of the deceased came to the house of the Appellant and found her sister (deceased) dead. She lodged an FIR at Naikanidhi Police Station on the basis of which law was set into motion. During investigation, the Officer-in -charge while conducting inquest in presence of the Tahasildar, Basudevpur and witnesses found deep cut injuries on the person of the deceased and opined the case to be a murder, vide inquest report Ext. 2. He sent the dead body to District Headquarters Hospital, Bhadrak for post mortem examination. On post mortem, it was found that the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage. Sample earth and blood stained earth from the spot room vide Ext. 5 and wearing clothes of the deceased vide M. Os. I to IV were seized vide Ext. 6 after post mortem examination. On chemical' examination of the material objects extensive human 'A' group blood was found vide report Ext. 4. Sample earth and blood stained earth from the spot room vide Ext. 5 and wearing clothes of the deceased vide M. Os. I to IV were seized vide Ext. 6 after post mortem examination. On chemical' examination of the material objects extensive human 'A' group blood was found vide report Ext. 4. Though all the accused were found absent in the house during spot visit, subsequently accused Gangadhar and his son Ranjan were arrested on 03.02.1997, and 06.05.1997 respectively. After completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted against them and they were committed in S.T. No. 18/8 of 2002 to face the trial. Accused Muralidhar, who was initially shown as absconder in the charge sheet, was subsequently arrested on 30.12.2001 and committed in S.T. No. 28/40 of 2002 to face the trial. The accused persons were tried under Sections 498-A/302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegations of cruelty and commission of murder of the deceased Umamani. The Learned Sessions Judge taking into consideration both oral and documentary evidence found accused Gangadhar Naik and Ranjan Kumar Naik not guilty of the charges under Sections 498-A 1 302/34, Indian Penal Code and acquitted them of the said charges. He has also acquitted accused Muralidhar Naik, the husband of the deceased, of the charge u/s 498-A/34, Indian Penal Code. However, the Learned Sessions Judge found accused Muralidhar Naik guilty of the offence u/s 302/34, Indian Penal Code and convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. 3. The defence plea was complete denial of the prosecution case. 4. The prosecution in order to bring home the charges against the accused examined as many as ten witnesses while three witnesses were examined by the defence. On behalf of the prosecution, six documents were admitted into evidence while one document was admitted into evidence on behalf of the defence. PW -1, the sister of the deceased, is the informant. She stated about the demand of dowry and torture meted out to the deceased by the accused family. During his examination in Court, PW-2 was declared hostile by the prosecution. PW-3 is a witness to the inquest, who stated that he was present when inquest was conducted over the dead body of the deceased. He further stated that the dead body was lying by the side of the canal. PWs. 4 and 5 are the Asst. During his examination in Court, PW-2 was declared hostile by the prosecution. PW-3 is a witness to the inquest, who stated that he was present when inquest was conducted over the dead body of the deceased. He further stated that the dead body was lying by the side of the canal. PWs. 4 and 5 are the Asst. Surgeon and Medical Officer of the DHH, Bhadrak respectively. They conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and opined that the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage. PW-6 is the scribe of the F.I.R. PW-7 is another witness to the inquest who stated to have noticed the spot where the dead body was lying. PW-8 is the I.O. PW-9, is the daughter of the deceased who stated about the assault on the deceased by the accused persons on the date of occurrence. PW-10 is another I.O., who submitted the charge sheet. Three witnesses, who were examined by the defence, stated that the Appellant was the master of an Opera party and used to remain absent from his house all the time due to pre occupation of opera show and he was absent during the period the incident took place. DW-1 is Golak Rana. DW-2-Ramesh Chandra Nayak is son of the Appellant through his first wife. DW-3-Subash Chandra Sethi, who is a Constable of Naikanidhi P.S., produced the station diary. 5. Mr. Sahoo, Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that there is no direct evidence about the commission of murder. So far as charge u/s 302, Indian Penal Code is concerned, PW -9-Sailabala Naik, the daughter of the deceased seems to be the vital witness to the occurrence. The Trial Court has disbelieved the version of PW-9, who was a minor girl of about 8 years old at the time of occurrence. PW-1 did not utter a single word about the presence of PW-9 in the house at the relevant point of time when the occurrence took place at night or in the subsequent morning. If the evidence of PW -9 is disbelieved, then there is no other evidence to show that the Appellant was present in the house on the date of occurrence. There is also no extra -judicial confession or any other evidence leading to discovery of any incriminating material at the instance of the Appellant. If the evidence of PW -9 is disbelieved, then there is no other evidence to show that the Appellant was present in the house on the date of occurrence. There is also no extra -judicial confession or any other evidence leading to discovery of any incriminating material at the instance of the Appellant. In the present case, the chain of circumstances is not complete so as to unerringly point to the guilt of the Appellant. Since evidence of PWs-1 and 9 has been disbelieved by the Trial Court, it is not proper to convict the Appellant u/s 302/ 34, Indian Penal Code on the basis of the residual evidence. It is a case purely based on circumstantial evidence where motive assumes great importance. In support of his contention, Mr Sahoo placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Surinder Pal Jain Vs. Delhi Administration. Relying on another decision of the Apex Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra Mr. Sahoo argued that for establishing a case of murder against an accused exclusively on circumstantial evidence five conditions mentioned in the said judgment are to be fulfilled. PW-9 is a minor girl of about 8 years, whose name does not appear in the FIR, nor her statement has been recorded by the I.O. as she is not a charge sheet witness. This Court in Gadadhar Mohapatra v. State of Orissa 32 (1990) Ori Judi Deci 11 (Criminal), held that when a vital witness has not been examined by Police at all, his evidence has to be considered with the greatest caution and it is not safe to rely upon such evidence to cause a conviction unless corroboration to the same is available otherwise. 6. Learned Counsel appearing for the State on the other hand supported the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Learned Sessions Judge and contended that the Appellant having failed to demolish the basis on which the Trial Court convicted him, the said judgment deserves to be confirmed and the appeal is to be dismissed. 7. Now the question that falls for consideration by this Court is whether on the basis of evidence available the charge u/s 302, I.P.C. is found to have been established against the Appellant. This needs careful scanning of the evidence on record. 8. There is certain dispute with regard to the place of homicidal death of the deceased. 7. Now the question that falls for consideration by this Court is whether on the basis of evidence available the charge u/s 302, I.P.C. is found to have been established against the Appellant. This needs careful scanning of the evidence on record. 8. There is certain dispute with regard to the place of homicidal death of the deceased. For this purpose, it is necessary to examine the inquest report. The inquest has been done in presence of the Executive Magistrate. PW-7 proved the inquest report. PW-7 stated that in his presence inquest was conducted. The Executive Magistrate was also present at that time. The body was lying in the bedroom of the deceased. He found injuries and protruding intestinal materials and injuries on the thighs and found blood on the floor as well as on the walls of the room. PW-3 also admitted the facts mentioned in the inquest report. PW-1 also found the aforesaid injuries on the person of the deceased. The inquest report prepared by the OIC, Late Raghab Swain, shows that the dead body was found in the bedroom of the deceased and the accused Muralidhar. The blood stained earth collected from the spot-house and the blood stains on the sweater, saya, blouse, sari (M. Os. I to IV) of the deceased were found to have contained human blood 'A' group. In view of the above consistent evidence, evidence of PW 3 and DW-2 that the dead body was lying by the side of the canal a place away from the residential house, is found to be false. All these lead to an irresistible conclusion that the deceased was killed by means of a sharp cutting weapon in the bedroom of accused and deceased in the occurrence night. 9. PW-3 was an inquest witness from the occurrence village. In this cross-examination it has been brought out that the Appellant was working in a Jatra Party. Statement of PW-3 given in cross examination does explain the long absence of the Appellant from the house. In his examination u/s 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, Appellant Muralidhar stated that he was working in a Jatra Party and had returned to his house in the month of Magha, i.e., four to five months after the occurrence. Statement of PW-3 given in cross examination does explain the long absence of the Appellant from the house. In his examination u/s 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, Appellant Muralidhar stated that he was working in a Jatra Party and had returned to his house in the month of Magha, i.e., four to five months after the occurrence. He has not disclosed in his statement that in which Jatra Party he had been working or the places to which he moved from time to time during the period he left the house till his return. DW -1 who belongs to some other police station area stated that he was working in Chandabali Pathar Goda Opera in which Muralidhar was working as "Nata Master" (Dance Teacher). Even though he stated that under the agreements they were working in the Jatra Party, no such agreement was filed to give credibility to the statement of DW-l. DW-1 further stated that in 1996 after Gamha Pumima accused Murali and he left for Jatra purposes to Dhenkanal, Angul, Alutama for two to three months and in February, 1997 they came to Bideipur Munimela for doing Jatra, wherefrom Murali came to his village and did not return. During the period from Bhadrab till February, 1997 accused Murali had never gone to his village. The places mentioned by DW -1 are not far off or inaccessible. Those are connected by bus and train services. In the present days of advanced electronic media, message passes through within a fraction of minute. In the circumstances, it is difficult to believe the plea of the Appellant that he got the death message of his wife after five months. Such plea seems to be false and not believable. The statement of his son (Murali's son through first wife), who was sixteen years old at the time of occurrence, that he could not give information to his father as Jatra Party was moving from place-to-place, equally appears to be unbelievable and false. 10. The Station Diary Entry No. 82 at 11 A.M. on 05.01.1997 (Ext. A) discloses that P.W. 3-Udayakar Biswal of the occurrence village reported at the police station that Appellant Murali had left the village after killing his wife in the night of 04.01.1997 leaving the dead body inside the house. Upon such information, a constable was deputed to guard the dead body. A) discloses that P.W. 3-Udayakar Biswal of the occurrence village reported at the police station that Appellant Murali had left the village after killing his wife in the night of 04.01.1997 leaving the dead body inside the house. Upon such information, a constable was deputed to guard the dead body. No question has been put to him by the accused with regard to Ext. A. The contents of the Ext. A are not disputed. It has been marked as exhibit at the instance of the accused, which can be a vital peace of evidence against him. 11. At the time of occurrence, PW-9, the daughter of the accused was eight years of age. The family of the accused as stated by DW-2 is depending on agriculture. In such family, it is quite natural that a daughter of eight years old was supposed to be in the residential house with the parents in the occurrence night. In defence, it has not been explained that in the occurrence night she was not present at the occurrence house where the parents were residing. PW -9 in her evidence in Court stated that she was in the occurrence house in the fateful night and had seen the occurrence. The accused persons at about 8 P.M. on 04.01.1997 quarrelled with her mother and assaulted her. Thereafter, she came with her mother (deceased) to sleep in a room from where the accused persons dragged her mother to another room. Her mother was crying and asking her to come to her. When she came to her, she found her mother lying dead with intestinal matters coming out with injuries on both thighs and hands. She narrated the incident to the village people that all the accused persons had killed her mother. Particularly, there is no cross examination by the defence on this crucial aspect of the case, so far PW -9 is concerned. Virtually, this part of the evidence of P.W. 9 remained unshaken and the same has been rightly believed by the Trial Court. 12. The version of P.W. 9 against her father is also of great importance and cannot be ignored light heartedly merely because she was minor at the time of occurrence. It is quite natural that a daughter would never say against her father unless there is truth. 12. The version of P.W. 9 against her father is also of great importance and cannot be ignored light heartedly merely because she was minor at the time of occurrence. It is quite natural that a daughter would never say against her father unless there is truth. It is not in dispute that PW-9 was not examined nor her statement was recorded during investigation. It might be due to the fact that she was then a child witness. In a case of such brutal murder of the wife in the bedroom, the accusing finger is always pointed towards the inmates of the house. In Dalip Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab AIR 1979 SC 1173 , the Apex Court held that when the version about incident is found to be truthful the Courts should be justified in believing the evidence of child witness. In Nivrutti Pandurang Kokate and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra the Apex Court held that a child witness if found competent to depose to the facts and reliable, one such evidence could be the basis of conviction. In other words, even in the absence of oath the evidence of a child witness can be considered u/s 118 of the Evidence Act provided that such witness is able to understand the questions and give rational answers thereof. The evidence of a child witness and credibility thereof would depend upon the circumstances of each case. 13. Apart from the above, the Appellant is expected to explain as to under what circumstances his wife was killed in the bedroom on the occurrence night. Instead of explaining the same, he took the plea of alibi. Law is well settled that strict proof is required to prove the plea of alibi and the burden always lies heavily on the accused. Apex Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Narsingrao Gangaram Pimple held that the plea of alibi must be proved with absolute certainty so as to completely exclude the possibility of the presence of the person concerned at the place of occurrence. In the case at hand, the plea of alibi has not been properly explained by the accused. The Trial Court disbelieved the plea of alibi with cogent reason. False alibi itself may not in all cases be incriminating circumstance, but, in the instant case, that is not the only consideration. The unnatural conduct of the accused also assumes much importance. In the case at hand, the plea of alibi has not been properly explained by the accused. The Trial Court disbelieved the plea of alibi with cogent reason. False alibi itself may not in all cases be incriminating circumstance, but, in the instant case, that is not the only consideration. The unnatural conduct of the accused also assumes much importance. Accused Muralidhar Naik was found absent in the morning when the dead body was found in his bedroom. He had not attended the inquest or autopsy or funeral rites. Even after the date when he claims to have been aware of the death of his wife, i.e., after a period of five months he has not cooperated in the investigation of the case nor has he explained as to how the deceased was killed. He avoided Police till submission of the charge sheet, i.e., 19.12.1997. He was shown as absconder in the charge sheet. He was arrested on 10.12.2001, i.e., five years after the death of his wife. He has only offered an explanation justifying his long callous and criminal absence from the house for that period. No question or suggestion has been made to any of the prosecution witness including PW-9 for such absence. Needless to say that on the death of one's wife, an innocent husband is to react promptly. He should always prefer to face any consequence to unravel the mystery behind the murder of his wife. In the instant case, the accused instead of doing so, preferred to remain absconded to avoid possibility of arrest by the police. Such post occurrence conduct of the accused is certainly unnatural. In a criminal trial, the post-crime conduct of an accused assumes importance. The conduct of absconding of an accused is also a factor, which can be used for cementing the prosecution evidence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Lakshmanaiah taking into consideration the conduct of the accused while connecting him with the homicidal death of his wife held as follows: The Trial Court relying upon the testimony of P.W. 14, PW. 20 and P.W. 22 came to the conclusion that the circumstance relied upon by the prosecution to the effect that the Respondent was going towards bus-stand holding suit-case in his hand at about 6.30 p.m. on January 12, 1979 was proved. 20 and P.W. 22 came to the conclusion that the circumstance relied upon by the prosecution to the effect that the Respondent was going towards bus-stand holding suit-case in his hand at about 6.30 p.m. on January 12, 1979 was proved. There is no discussion, not even mention, of this circumstance by the High Court. According to us, the Trial Court rightly relied upon this circumstance in connecting the Respondent with the crime. The High Court has also not discussed the circumstance that the Respondent was absconding till the night of January 16, 1979 when he was arrested which is surely a link in the chain of circumstances to establish that the Respondent one had committed the offence of murder of his wife. All the above discussed circumstances would prove that the Respondent alone had killed his wife Nagarathnamma and the prosecution brought home the offence against the Respondent beyond any shadow of doubt. The Apex Court in Subedar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and Others, taking into consideration the postcrime conduct of the accused-husband who remained absconded after the homicidal death of his wife and surrendered in the Court one month after the occurrence, only when the proceedings u/s 82 and 83, Code of Criminal Procedure. were initiated against him, and, his photograph appeared in newspaper, held that the explanation of the accused that he had gone to perform the death ceremony was unconvincing and the circumstance of his abscondence along with his other post-crime unnatural conduct buttressed the prosecution case of homicide against the accused. 14. The Apex Court in Babu Singh Vs. State of Punjab held that it is well settled that if the witness is found to be independent and reliable and is believed to be present at the scene of occurrence, then his evidence cannot be rejected on the sole ground that his name has not been mentioned in the FIR. Nonmention of name of a witness may be an honest omission, inadvertent mistake or may be due to various other conceivable reasons. The Apex Court in Nirpal Singh and Others Vs. State of Haryana held that the name of the witness examined on trial not having been mentioned in the FIR though may have some relevance, but by itself could not entail rejection of his evidence. The Apex Court in Nirpal Singh and Others Vs. State of Haryana held that the name of the witness examined on trial not having been mentioned in the FIR though may have some relevance, but by itself could not entail rejection of his evidence. Therefore, non-mention of the name of PW-9 in the FIR itself cannot be a ground to discard her evidence, who stated to have seen the occurrence, if intrinsically nothing has been brought out in the cross-examination to impeach her testimony. In these circumstances, we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that non-mention of the name of PW 9 in the FIR is sufficient to impeach veracity of her statement. 15. It was also further argued on behalf of the Appellant relying upon the case of Lalo Choudhary Vs. State of Bihar, that where the witness, who was not examined by the Police and whose name did not appear in the FIR, deposed for the first time in the Court, the Court cannot place reliance on his testimony while deciding the guilt. Law is well settled that there is no bar for the prosecution to tender any person as a witness, even if he has not been examined by the Police during investigation. In State v. Baikunthanath Mohanta and Ors. AIR 1960 150 (V 47 C 46), the Orissa High Court held that the provisions of Section 173(4) are directory and even after the commencement of the trial the prosecution may prove additional documents in the usual way provided the accused gets a full opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses in the light of those documents. In State v. Mohd. Sultan Sheikh 1977 CRLJ 1109 , the Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that the legislature could never have intended to shut out material and relevant evidence to be examined at the trial only because the investigating officer, due to his negligence, carelessness or otherwise failed to examine that evidence during investigation. It is not only the right of an accused to have proper and full opportunity to defend himself, but also it is the right of the prosecution to have a fair opportunity to establish its case and that right cannot be made subservient to the whims and caprices of an investigating officer. It is not only the right of an accused to have proper and full opportunity to defend himself, but also it is the right of the prosecution to have a fair opportunity to establish its case and that right cannot be made subservient to the whims and caprices of an investigating officer. This being the position of law, non-examination of PW-9 In course of investigation hardly has any relevance to impeach her statement. 16. It has also been argued that the prosecution has failed to establish any motive on the part of the accused Muralidhar which assumes great significance. In this context, a decision of the Apex Court in JT 1993 (2) SC 206 was relied upon by Mr Sahoo. Existence of motive, which operates in the mind of an assassin, is very often not known. However, in the case at hand, the evidence on record shows that accused Muralidhar and his wife Umamani disliked each other. This may be sufficient evidence of motive in the circumstances. The Apex Court in Bubedar Tiwari's case (supra) held as follows: The evidence regarding existence of motive which operates in the mind of an assassin is very often than (sic) not within the reach of others. The motive may not even be known, to the victim of the crime. The motive may be known to the assassin and no one else may know what gave birth to the evil thought in the mind of the assassin. A crime can take place even without premeditation or preplanning in the context of a particular situation, on the spur of the moment. In any case the evidence on record is sufficient to show that the two spouses disliked each other. 17. In the above premises, the charge u/s 302, Indian Penal Code against the accused-Appellant is established. 18. There is no controversy over the legal propositions laid down by the Apex Court and this Court, which have been relied upon by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant, but in view of the reasons stated herein above, the principles enunciated in those cases are of no help to the Appellant. 19. After giving our thoughtful consideration to the evidence on record, we are not persuaded to take a different view other than the view taken by the Learned Sessions Judge. 19. After giving our thoughtful consideration to the evidence on record, we are not persuaded to take a different view other than the view taken by the Learned Sessions Judge. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Learned Sessions Judge. 20. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. L. Mohapatra, J. 21. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed