JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - The judgment and order of acquittal dated 26th August, 1997 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kalahandi-Nuapada, Bhawanipatna acquitting the accused-Respondent from the charge u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code, in short, "IPC" in Sessions Case No. 68 of 1996, is assailed in this Government Appeal. 2. The incident in question relates back to the year 1996. According to the prosecution case, on 11th August, 1996 at about 4 P.M. Niktar Majhi (P.W.2) informed the father of P.W.1 that an unknown person was pressing the head of Anr. person inside the water of Kusuma Nala holding his tuft of hair and the latter was shouting. Hearing the said fact, P.W.1 along with P.W.2 went near the said Nala and found that a 'pot' (dekchi) containing mushroom, a 'Pan' (kadei) and a broom were lying near the tank. They also found that Naika Kabadi (accused) was running away from the spot in a nude condition holding a napkin in his hand and while doing so, P.W.1 was glancing backward. After arriving near the embankment, he did not find his daughter and went inside the water in search of her and found that his daughter was lying dead inside. Thereafter he returned to his village and informed the said fact to the Gramarakhi and other gentlement. Subsequently, on the next date, i.e., on 12.8.1996 the matter was reported at Th. Rampur Police Station. After receiving the report, P.W.1 took up investigation, held inquest over the body, sent the same for post mortem, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements u/s 161, Code of Criminal Procedure seized the material objects, arrested the accused and after completion of investigation, submitted chargesheet. 3. The plea of the defence was one of denial. 4. In order to substantiate their case, prosecution got examined fifteen witnesses. Out of them, P.W.1 is the father of the deceased. He has not seen the occurrence, but then saw the accused running away in a nude condition from the spot. 3. The plea of the defence was one of denial. 4. In order to substantiate their case, prosecution got examined fifteen witnesses. Out of them, P.W.1 is the father of the deceased. He has not seen the occurrence, but then saw the accused running away in a nude condition from the spot. P.W.2 is an eye witness and stated that he found the accused pressing the head of Naringi (deceased) in water of Nal catching her hair, P.W.3 is a witness to the inquest, P.W.4 is an after-occurrence witness and has stated in Court that he had no knowledge as to how the incident took place, P.W.5 is a co-villager who did not support the prosecution case, P.Ws.6 & 7 are seizure witnesses, but then they also did not support the prosecution case and stated that the accused did not confess anything in their presence. P.W.8 is Anr. seizure witness, P.W.9 is a Gramarakhi, who had informed the police about the incident, P.W.10.is a constable who assisted in the investigation, P.W.11 deposed that accused used to commit small thefts. He had no knowledge about the incident, P.W.12 corroborated the evidence of P.W.11 and deposed that accused was a thief and that P.W.2 and his daughter used to oppose the same, P.W.13 is the I.O., who conducted investigation, and P.W.14 is the doctor, who conducted autopsy. 5. After discussing the evidence in extenso, learned Sessions Judge arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution was not able to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and found the accused not guilty of commission of offence u/s 302, IPC and acquitted him u/s 235(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 6. The said order is assailed in thjs Government Appeal mainly on the ground that the Court below while passing the order of acquittal had not considered the gravity of the offence and facts leading to the case and that the Court below had ignored the statement of P.W.2, who saw the incident and told P.W.1 and both P.Ws.1 and 2 found the accused running away from the place of occurrence in nude condition holding a napkin. The said fact coupled with the evidence of the doctor, it is submitted, establishes the prosecution case and the said aspect was not kept in mind by the learned Court below. 7. The said fact coupled with the evidence of the doctor, it is submitted, establishes the prosecution case and the said aspect was not kept in mind by the learned Court below. 7. In course of hearing, learned Counsel for the State reiterated the stand taken in the memorandum of appeal and submitted that the Sessions Court proceeded more on surmises and conjectures than evidence adduced and disbelieved the prosecution witness without any reason and as such, the order of acquittal may be varied. 8. Learned counsel for the Respondent, on the other hand, strenuously repudiated the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the State. According to him, there is not an iota of evidence connecting the accused with the alleged crime. It is submitted, rather, emphatically, that no witness has seen the accused committing the offence. Even P.Ws.2 and 1 who arrived at the spot did not find the accused committing the murder. On the other hand, the only evidence available against the Respondent is that he was running away from the spot in naked condition holding a napkin. It is stated that the Nala is place for taking bath. lt is further submitted that learned Sessions Judge has discussed the evidence in extenso and the conclusion arrived at is just and proper and needs no interference. 9. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length. Perused all the evidence meticulously. P.W.14 is the doctor, who conducted postmortem. He found the following injuries : (i) One abrasion circular 1 C.N. diameter over left elbow; (ii) Four numbers of abrasions over right elbow on dorsal aspect. Placed one below other of 5 mm diameter circular in red colour; (iii) Multiple abrasion over back 5 mm x 1 cm. diameter with circular. It is opined that injury Nos.1 and 2 were simple and anti-mortem in nature whereas injury No. 3 was simple, but post mortem in nature. On dissection, he found that the hyoid bone was fractured in two parts in the mid part of the neck anteriorly. The cause of death was opined to be asphyxia due to drowning. There was also evidence of strangulation in the form of haemotoma underneath the neck muscles. 10. A cumulative reading of the entire evidence of P.W.14 visa-vis the post mortem report (Ext. 9) leads to an irresistible conclusion that the death was homicidal in nature. The cause of death was opined to be asphyxia due to drowning. There was also evidence of strangulation in the form of haemotoma underneath the neck muscles. 10. A cumulative reading of the entire evidence of P.W.14 visa-vis the post mortem report (Ext. 9) leads to an irresistible conclusion that the death was homicidal in nature. The only point, therefore, needs to be determined is as to who was the author of such crime. The prosecution in order to bring home the charges against the accused strongly relies upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. Admittedly in the F.I.R., the name of the accused is not mentioned and it is clearly stated that an unknown person was pressing the head of Anr. unknown person in water holding the tuft of hair. P.W.2 informed the aforesaid fact to P.W.1. Thereafter, both P.Ws.1 and 2 went near the Nala, but they could not trace the deceased. The only incriminating fact they could notice is that the accused was running away from the spot in a nude condition holding a napkin. Though P.W.2 in Court stated that he has seen the accused trying to drown the deceased, but then the said fact was not disclosed by him before the I.O. Even otherwise he did not inform the said fact to P.W.1 inasmuch as the said fact was not mentioned in the F.I.R. In cross-examination he clearly admitted that he becomes blind in night and than he could not identify the voice of Naringi (deceased) but then thought that some lady might be bathing her child. If in fact P.W.2 had seen the accused committing the alleged crime, nothing stood on his way in informing the said fact to P.W.1. Further, the accused while in police custody made a confession about the said fact, but then the witness to such confession has clearly stated in Court that the accused had not made any such confession. The trial Court has discussed the evidence vividly and has arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution could not substantiate their case. 11. After going through the evidence both or a land documentary, we also find there are too many if's and but's in the case and have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution was not able to prove their case beyond all reasonable doubts so as to substantiate the conviction. 11. After going through the evidence both or a land documentary, we also find there are too many if's and but's in the case and have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution was not able to prove their case beyond all reasonable doubts so as to substantiate the conviction. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the order of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Accordingly, the Government Appeal fails and is dismissed. L.K. Mishra, J. 12. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed