JUDGMENT : S. Pujahari, J - Being saddled with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in S.T. No. 84 of 1990 on the file of learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj at Baripada convicting him for a charge under Section 304 Para-II I.P.C. (for short "the I.P.C.") and directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years, files this criminal appeal challenging the same. Bereft of unnecessary details, the prosecution case runs as thus; "The deceased and the appellant are the relations. It is the case of the prosecution that on 13.02.1990 at about 1.15.p.m., the wife of the deceased had been to the well of one Arjun Mohapatra with a bucket to fetch water and while returning from there, she was abused by the mother of the appellant in filthy languages which was reported by her (wife of the deceased) to her deceased-husband. The deceased knowing about the aforesaid, proceeded to the house of the appellant being armed with a lathi and confronted the matter to the mother of the appellant regarding her bad manner shown towards his (deceased) wife. While hot dialogues between the deceased and the mother of the appellant were going on, the appellant appeared there from his house being armed with a lathi and dealt two lathi blows, one of such blows landed on the head of the deceased and other on the shoulder of the deceased, as a result of which he fell down there unconscious and thereafter he was shifted to Betnoti hospital for treatment and wherefrom he was shifted to Baripada Headquarters Hospital for better treatment and while he was undergoing treatment there, he succumbed to the injuries sustained. The matter then was reported to the O.I.C., Betnoti Police Station. On receipt of the aforesaid report, Ext. 1, the investigation was conducted and on completion of the investigation, placed charge-sheet against the appellant as he found a prima-facie case under Section 302 I.P.C. against him." 2. On the basis of the aforesaid prosecution case, the trial court framed court framed a charge under-Section 302 IPC against the appellant and as the appellant did not plead guilt of the charge, the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses and also exhibited certain documents to being home the charge. On the basis of the aforesaid prosecution case, the trial court framed court framed a charge under-Section 302 IPC against the appellant and as the appellant did not plead guilt of the charge, the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses and also exhibited certain documents to being home the charge. The appellant took a plea of denial and the death of the deceased to be accidental, but not adduce any independent witness to support his plea. 3. During course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant submits that this case, there no cogent material to come to a conclusion that the deceased died a homicidal death and the appellant proves a case that the death of the deceased was an accidental fall by preponderance of probability, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is unsustainable in the eye of law. 4. In response, the leaned counsel for the State through fairly submits that in this case, the doctor who had conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased vide Ext. 7, had not specifically opined that the death of the deceased was attributable to the injuries sustained and the deceased died a homicidal death, but he submits that the eyewitness version being available that the appellant dealt lathi blows to the deceased during course of a quarrel, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the court does not need an interference of this Court. 5. It appears from the evidence on record that P.Ws. 1 and 2, who are the wife and son of the deceased, are ever witnesses to the occurrence and P.W.3 is an independent witness. P.W.4 is a post occurrence and witness. From the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3, it emerges that during course of quarrel, the present appellant dealt blow to the deceased, for which he sustained injury and fell down. It also transpires from their evidence that the deceased was removed to the hospital and while undergoing treatment he succumbed to the injury sustained. The doctor, who conducted postmortem examination, has not been examined, but his report, Ext. 7 has been proved. Nothing has been emerged from Ext. 7 that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. Though the Ext. 7 discloses that the deceased sustained injury, but it does not disclose whether the injury was antemortem or postmortem. The doctor, who conducted postmortem examination, has not been examined, but his report, Ext. 7 has been proved. Nothing has been emerged from Ext. 7 that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. Though the Ext. 7 discloses that the deceased sustained injury, but it does not disclose whether the injury was antemortem or postmortem. In absence of same, solely relying on the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses, the trial court appears to have found the appellant guilt of the charge of culpable homicidal not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 Part-III PC. No. doubt, the version of P.Ws. 1 and 2 cannot be rejected on the ground that they are close relations of the deceased, so also on the ground of interestedness, but their evidence is required to be scrutinized with care and caution. Furthermore, it is also well settled that the prosecution is duty bound to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and the appellant need to prove its case by preponderance of probability. The appellant also permitted to take a false plea, the same by itself cannot exonerate the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. When the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, the falsity of the of the defence may further fortify such case of the prosecution is the proposition of law. Here in this case, the appellant had taken a plea that the deceased died of injury sustained in an accidental fall during the course of a quarrel with him. Of course, P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 stated that the deceased sustained injury on account of assault by the appellant, but the trial court believing the same stated that said injury contributed to such death. Their such version is not supported by the evidence of the doctor who had prepared Ext. 7 which is being exhibited on waiver and also the fact that Ext. 6, the bed head ticket discloses that the deceased was admitted in the hospital sustaining injury on accidental fall. In such premises, the same casts a cloud on the version of these eye witnesses to the occurrence. When the version of the eyewitnesses in this regard is not wholly reliable, the version of P.Ws. 6, the bed head ticket discloses that the deceased was admitted in the hospital sustaining injury on accidental fall. In such premises, the same casts a cloud on the version of these eye witnesses to the occurrence. When the version of the eyewitnesses in this regard is not wholly reliable, the version of P.Ws. 4 and 5 that the appellant made extrajudicial confession in the absence of reason of the appellant reposing confidence on them with regard to commission of offence should not have been accepted by the trial court to come to a conclusion that the death of the deceased to be a homicidal in nature, more particularly when the prosecution has failed to examine the doctor conducting postmortem examination and prove the fact that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature and Ext. 6 militates against the eyewitness version and supports the defence plea. Hence, the charge under Section 304 part-II IPC was unsustainable. For the said reason, I am unable to say that the appellant was guilty of charge causing hurt though not a culpable homicide, inasmuch the evidence of the witnesses to the occurrence is found to this Court to be unacceptable in view of the fact that the appellant has proved his case by preponderance of the probability that the injury could have been sustained by the deceased by an accidental fall. Resultantly, for the foregoing reasons, this criminal appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court are hereby set-aside Consequentially, the appellant is acquitted of the charge. L.C.R. received be sent back forthwith. Final Result : Allowed