JUDGMENT VINOD PRASAD, J. - Appellants Bidyadhar Prahraj/A1, his wife Smt. Sabiri Samantaray/A2, and their daughter Pragna Parmita Prahraj @ Rinku/A3, assail and challenges impugned judgment and order dated 30.3.2015 whereby Sessions Judge, Jajpur, in C.T.Case No.76 of 2010, State of Orissa versus Bidyadhar Prahraj and other, (G.R. Case No.120 of 2008, J.M.F.C., Jajpur Road, emerging from P.S.Case No. 120 of 2008, u/ss. 302/201/24 I.P.C., Police station Jajpur road, district Jajpur), has convicted A1 & A2 u/s.302/34 and 201/34 I.P.C. and has sentenced them to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10000/- (Rs.Ten Thousand only) and in default in payment of fine to serve additional 6 months (six months) R.I. on the first count, five (5) years R.I. with fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only) and in the event of default to undergo six (6) months further R.I. on the second count, whereas A3 has been convicted u/s.302/109/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10000/- (Rs.Ten Thousand only), the default sentence being further six (6) months R.I. Benefit of set off has been conferred in all the convicts and sentence of A1 & A2 are to run concurrently are further directions. 2.Embarking upon adumbrated prosecution story, eschewing trivial and insignificant factual matrix, which was slated down in the FIR, elicited during investigation and later on trotted out before the learned Trial Court, it emerges that one Mayadhar Moharana/PW9 has a house, with three tenanted portions, at Ward No.5, Forest Guest House, Jajpur Road, district Jajpur and he resided in the western portion on the ground floor of that house along with his family including Jayanti Moharana (wife). Buna (elder son), Janmejaya Moharana alias Bapuni/PW1 ( younger son), Mrs. Jyoti Moharana/PW10 (eldest daughter) and Trupti @ Kandhei (younger daughger). On he same ground floor all the appellants along with Bapuni (son of A1 & A2), were tenants of PW9 in the eastern side, since 6.8.2006.A1 was the classmate of PW9 in Vyasa Nagar College, and hence he had intimate acquaintances with PW9.Present occurrence occurred in this eastern portion on the ground floor under occupation of the appellants. Both the portions on the ground floor were separated by a channel gate which was usually locked. Appellant’s dining hall lay towards east and said channel gate adjoining the kitchen. Both the portions on the ground floor were separated by a channel gate which was usually locked. Appellant’s dining hall lay towards east and said channel gate adjoining the kitchen. A1 was a lecturer in Economics while A2 was a lecturer in Oriya in Vyasa Nagar College on the ill-fated incident day, while A3, aged about 25 years, was employed as an officer in ICICI Bank, Talcher, since four months ago, Gopabandhu Das/PW13, (General Manager VISA Steel Ltd.) and Pradhan Karua/PW14, (Sr. Manager, VISA Steel Ltd.) along with their families were tenants of PW9 towards western and eastern portion, respectively, on the first floor of aforesaid house. 3.Turning to deceased relationships, Narhari Rana and Jaidev Rana, bolth initially residents of village Khedarpur, were cousin brothers.Sanjay Rana (Deceased) and Gitanjali Rana/PW12, were real siblings, bolth being issues of Late Jayadev Rana. Sanjaya Rana (deceased), by vocation, was a jeweller having a jewellery shop at Khuladi Chhak in Fuladi locality in district Balasore. Ranjan Rana/PW8 was cousin brother of the deceased, while Ravindra Kumar Biswal/PW7 was his friend. 4.Further prosecutgion case is that Gitanjali Rana/PW12 had to appear in an examination at district Bhubaneshwar and therefore Sanjay Rana (deceased) accompanied her in train and while travelling Sanjay Rana (deceased) developed acquaintance with A3, which, in due course, through mobile conversations and intermittent visits to the house of A3.turned into a love relationship.A3, who at that point of time was working with CURVEY, had promised to marry Sanjay Rana (deceased). It also emerges from statements of PW12 that A3 was in financial difficulty and therefore she had asked the financial help from the deceased and, because of their infatuated relationship, the deceased had obliged her by advancing a loan of Rs.70000/- (Rs. Seventy Thousand only).Subsequent to this A3 got employment with ICICI Bank, Talcher, and post joining the Bank job, that, it is alleged, that she started avoiding the deceased, who became very frustrated and lost his mental equilibrium.To resurrect his personality, the frustrated lover had even gone to Jammu and Kashmir. PWs. Seventy Thousand only).Subsequent to this A3 got employment with ICICI Bank, Talcher, and post joining the Bank job, that, it is alleged, that she started avoiding the deceased, who became very frustrated and lost his mental equilibrium.To resurrect his personality, the frustrated lover had even gone to Jammu and Kashmir. PWs. 7, 8 and 12 had knowledge about this love relationship, advancing of money and alleged ditching by A3.Four days prior to his murder the deceased had informed PW12 that A3 had called him to return advanced money and therefore he is going to bring back A3 or at least will get his money back, as according to PW7 & 8, deceased entire business had been ruined and he had become impecunious. 5.When the situation stood as above, that the incident in question happened on a Sunday 21.7.2008 at about 7.30 P.M., inside the tenanted portion in possession of the appellants, when Mayadhar Moharana/PW9, along with his daughter/PW 10 were watching TV and P”W1 and his sister Trupti were studying in another room. PW9 heard unusual ‘GAN’, ‘GAN’, sound emanating in the house. Inquisitively, PW9 accompanied by his son PW1, tried to locate the source of the sound and when he approached the interlinked door he cognitively sensed that the sound is emerging from the appellant’s residential portion. Initially PW9 vainly, tried to know the reason from the interlinked door, but the same was closed and therefore he came to the channel door, which too was locked from inside, and where, PW9 was informed by A2 that somebody was assaulting A1, her husband. At this time both, A1 and the unknown person (deceased), while assaulting reach other, rolled and came near the channel door described by PW9 as ‘Gadagadi Hoi Asile’. Unknown person/deceased was wielding a Kata, and pressing throat of A1, PW9, unsuccessfully, remonstrated the assailant not to assault A1, as the assailant went on hurling blows on A1.When wife A2, clasping feet of the assailant, beseeched him to spare her husband, the miscreant left A1, caught hold of A2 and forcefully banged her head against the wall.Unable to rescu3e A1 & A2, because of closed channel door from inside, that, P.Ws.1 and 9 came out and raised alarm attracting local inhabitants and other persons at the spot. PW1, at the instructions of PW9, locked the channel door from outside as well to prevent the assailant from scampering from the spot. Bidyadhar Prahraj/A1, after confining the assailant in the bathroom, asked PW9 to open the interlink channel door and then, both A1 and PW9, opened the channel door by which firstly A1 with trickling of blood from his body, came towards the residential portion of PW9, and requested to carry him to the hospital PW9 went to call his other tenants, but meanwhile A1 also brought out A2 through the channel door and then the grill was again locked. Voice of assailant could not be heard by PW 1 & 9 since the channel door was opened till the arrival of the police. Intruder was also not found in the dining space as he was spotted moving in another room. 6.Mayadhar Moharana/PW9 reported the incident to the police through a written FIR which was registered hy IIC, P.S. Jajpur road, on the incident day itself at 8.30 p.m. as U.D. Case No.13/08, and S.I. Rakhal Chandra Rout/PW11 was deputed to conduct the investigation into the crime. 7.According to PW11, initially the dead body was unknown but later on it came to be identified. Inquest over the cadaver was performed and inquest report Ext.4 was inked.Dead body chalan is Ext.5 and Final report about the U.D. Case is Ext.6. In the U.D. Case, one katari, one knife and blood stained cloths were seized vide seizure memo Extg.7.Wearing cloths of the deceased were seized vide seizure memo Ext.2.After receipt of Post Mortem Examination report of the deceased, which disclosed deceased’s death to be homicidal that S.I. Rakhal Chandra Rout/P:W11, lodged a formal FIR at the Police Station Jajpur Road, as Ext.8, containing his signature as Ext.8/1, on 28.7.2008 at 12.30 p.m. which FIR/Ext.8 was registered by IIC, Jajpur Road as P.S. Case No.120 of 2008, u/s.302, 201, 34 I.P.C. Ext. 8/4 is the Formal FIR containing signature of PW11 as Ext.8/5. 8.S.I.Gobind Chandra Swain, P.S. Jajpur road/PW 16, on the instructions of IIC, Jajpur Road Police Station, commenced investigation into the crime, examined the informant, visited place of the crime and sketched spot map Ext.12, sketch Map Ext.13 and thereafter examined other witnesses. Two already prepared seizure lists were seized by the I.O./P.W.6, who also submitted a report to take action against A1 & A2 to D.P. 1. Two already prepared seizure lists were seized by the I.O./P.W.6, who also submitted a report to take action against A1 & A2 to D.P. 1. Accused were also produced before O.F.S.L. Rasulgarh for their polygraph tests. On 30.8.2008.polygraph test report was received by PW 16, which is Ext.9.Accused appellants were arrested on 18.9.2008, while they were endeavouring to surrender in Court and post their arrests they were forwarded to the Court. Seized material exhibits were forwarded for chemical examination to S.F.S.L. through forwarding report Ext.10 and C.E. Report is Ext.11. Charge sheet against the appellants was laid in Court after wrapping up the investigation for offences u/s.302/109/34 I.P.C. 9.Dr. Kulamani Barik/PW 6, an O&G Specialist, C.H.C. Danagadi, had conducted autopsy examination on the cadaver of the deceased on 22.7.2008 at 5.05 p.m. and he had found that his (deceased) eyes were open, pupil dilated, conjunctive congested, mouth closed and tongue was inside the mouth. Besides, doctor PW 6 has also noted following facts : (iv)Acid burn (brownish black in colour) present in the following parts as reflected below: All were ante mortem in nature. (a) Both lips of mouth, right side of cheek in irregular shape with dimension of 4" x 2". (b) Back of trunk having a size of 8" x 4". (c) Left scapula irregular in shape having a size of 4" x 4". (d) Back of left forearm multiple in number with sizes varying from 2 inches x 3 inches to 4 inch x 3 inch. (v)Bruise (ante mortem) 2 inch x 2 inch in size on lower part of the throat over first, second and third tracheal rings. On disSection, bruising and extra vacation of blood noted in subcutaneous tissues. (vi) Multiple bruise (ante mortem) seen on back of trunk, right buttock and the size were varying from 3 inch x 2 inch to 4 inch x 2 inch. Those were read colour. (vii) All the viscera were intact and most of them are congested. (viii) Visceral membrances were congested. (ix) Stomach was intact and congested. It contained about ½ Kg. of undigested particles of rice and dal. No abnormal smell was detected from those contents. (x) Blood stained forth coming out of nostrils. Those were read colour. (vii) All the viscera were intact and most of them are congested. (viii) Visceral membrances were congested. (ix) Stomach was intact and congested. It contained about ½ Kg. of undigested particles of rice and dal. No abnormal smell was detected from those contents. (x) Blood stained forth coming out of nostrils. 10.Asphyxia occasioned due to compression of lower part of neck which resulted in blockage of upper end of trachea was the primary cause of deceased demise, who, according to the doctor was assaulted by two or more persons with acid and blunt objects. Death of deceased was homicidal in nature and 12 to 18 hours had lapsed since he had demised. Post Mortem examination report of the deceased is Ext.3. 11.The two injured spouses A1 and A 2 were medically examined by Medical Officer in the District Hospital, Jajpur Road. Dr. Gouri Shankar Sarangi/DW 3 and Dr. Biswajit Sahu/DW 4..DW 3 examined A 1 on 21.07.2008 at 8.30 PM and he was found to have sustained following injuries on his person. 1) Incised would 2” x ½” x ½” over back of scalp. 2) Incised wound ½” x ½” on the left hand. 3) Incised wound 2" x ½” x ½” over left side neck. 4) Incised wound ½” x ½” x ½” over right side neck. 5) Incised wound 1"x ½” x ½” over the scalp. 6) Incised wound over scalp 2" x 2" x ½”. 7) Lacerated wound over the palm of the left hand. 8) Lacerated wound over left side of neck with size 2" x 1" x1" 12.Medical Examination Report qua A1 is Ext. C. Post medical examination A1 was referred to SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack for better management of his injuries, as he was in a serious condition as according to DW3 only timely medical help had saved the life. Same day DW 3 also examined Savitri Samantaray/A2, who had been inflicted with following physical injuries: 1) Incised wound cutting left ear pinnac. 2) Incised wound over left side scalp 4" x ½” x ½”. 3) Incised wound over right side back 2" x 1" x ½”. Medical examination report of A2 is Ext. D. 13.Professor N.K. Pradhan and Dr. B. Sahoo had also treated A! 2) Incised wound over left side scalp 4" x ½” x ½”. 3) Incised wound over right side back 2" x 1" x ½”. Medical examination report of A2 is Ext. D. 13.Professor N.K. Pradhan and Dr. B. Sahoo had also treated A! After his admission in SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack on 22.07.2008 in the male accident ward (Ortho) vide Indoor Registration No.1378.According to Biswajit Sahu/DW 4, an Orthopaedic Surgeon A1 had sustained fracture of fourth metacarpal bone of left hand and he was discharged from the hospital on 29.07.2008 vide discharge Certificate Ext. E. 14.Charge sheet against the accused resulted in registration of G.R.Case No.510 of 2008 before JMFC, Jajpur Road. The committal Court, finding the disclosed offences exclusively triable by Sessions Court, aftr observing legal committal formalities, committed the case of the appellants to the Court of Sessions for trial on 22.3.2010 15.Sessions Court registered C.T. Case No.76 of 2010, State Vs. Baidyadhar Praharaj and others, against the appellants and learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jajpur, on 26.04.2010, charged appellants A1 and A2 with offences under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 I.P.C. and since both the appellants adjured both the charges, they were prosecuted. Identically A3, was charged under Sections 109 read with Section 302 I.P.C., and since she also denied the charges and claim to be tried that her trial also analogously commenced. 16.Prosecution, hankered by success, examined in all sixteen witnesses, out of whom Janmejaya Moharana/PW1, Tripti Moharana/PW 2, Akshya Kumar Malik/PW4, Rabindra Kumar Biswal/PW7, Rajan Rana/PW8, Mayadhar Moharana/PW 9 (informant), Mrs. Jyoti Moharana/PW 10, Miss. Gitanjali Rana/PW12 and Nabaghana Sethi/PW 15 are the fact witnesses who have deposed regarding various factual matrix involved in the case. Govind Chandra Mishra/PW 3, Akshaya Kumar Malik/PW 4 and Suresh Chandra Mohanty/PW 5 are all Constables, who have evidenced regarding various seizures and preparation of Memos thereto by the I.Os. Dr. Kulamani Barik/PW 6 is the autopsy doctor, Gopabandhu Das/PW 13 and Pradhan Karua/PW 14, both were tenants of the informant and are post occurrence witnesses. The two I.Os. are S.I. Rakhal Chandra Rout/PW 11 and S.I. Gobinda Chandra Swain/PW 16. Dr. Kulamani Barik/PW 6 is the autopsy doctor, Gopabandhu Das/PW 13 and Pradhan Karua/PW 14, both were tenants of the informant and are post occurrence witnesses. The two I.Os. are S.I. Rakhal Chandra Rout/PW 11 and S.I. Gobinda Chandra Swain/PW 16. 17.All the three accused while refuting incriminating evidences appearing against them in the prosecution evidences came out with their own version about the incident wherein they pleaded that an unknown assailant had infiltrated into their house and had assaulted A1 and his wife A2 with Tangia and Katuri causing them serious injuries. The victims were rescued from their house and the police have implicated them in a false case. To lend credibility to their defence version, appellants Bidyadhar Praharaj/A1 and Pragna Paramita Praharaj/A3, both testified in Court as DWs 1 & 2.They also examined Dr. Gourisankar Sarangi/DW 3 and Dr. Biswajit Sahoo/DW 4 to prove the injuries sustained by both the appellant spouses. 18.Leaned trial Judge, on examination of case materials tendered before him concluded that guilt of the appellants for the framed charges have been successfully established to the core beyond any shadow of doubt and consequently pronounced a verdict of guilty against the appellants and convicted and sentenced them as above, which judgment and order has been impugned in the instant appeal by all the convicted accused. 19.Having resurrected the facts as above, that we have heard Mrs. Amrita Panda, learned Advocate for A1 and A2, Mr. Devesh Panda, learned Advocate for A3 assisted by Shri P.P. Mohanty and Shri J.K. Katikia, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and have also vetted through the trial Court record and evidences searchingly and minutely to separate the grain from the chaff in an endeavour to exhume the truth. 20.Assailing and castigating impugned judgment it is harangued by appellants’ counsel that prosecution has miserably failed to establish the charges against the appellants and its entire case rests upon unexplained contorted story without having any ring of truth in it. Truncated facts only projects garbled picture of the entire incident whereas the defence version appears to be more authentic and only probable and acceptable story. Demonstratably, which is apparent from the testimonies of prosecution witnesses themselves charge for committing murder was failed to be proved. Truncated facts only projects garbled picture of the entire incident whereas the defence version appears to be more authentic and only probable and acceptable story. Demonstratably, which is apparent from the testimonies of prosecution witnesses themselves charge for committing murder was failed to be proved. Earliest intimation to the police, which should and ought to have been registered as FIR about the incident was withheld from the Court and hence the very genesis of the incident is shrouded in mystery. Elaborating the submission it was incisively urged that earlier FIR conveyed to the police through Mritunjaya Moharana was suppressed from being proved in the trial. Testimonies of PW 7 & 8 that scribing of the FIR was expatiated by somebody unerringly indicate that the intimation to the police was insulated with the deliberations and consultations and hence FIR looses its corroborative value completely eroding credibility of the prosecution allegations and castes a doubt on its authenticity. 21.Belated recording of FIR is an additional adverse circumstance creating suspicion about the truthfulness of the allegations leveled. For nailing the appellants and foist a false case it was selectively excluded’ from the FIR that collected mass of people had intruded into the house and had murdered the deceased. Absence of blood on the attires of the deceased is indicative of the fact that the incident did not occur as alleged by the prosecution and thereby probablises defence version. Eye witnesses account are ‘dressed up/trumped up’ without having any ring of truth on it. Investigation is perfunctory and manipulated and site plan map dos not depicts correct picture harangued learned Counsel. Neither the acid bottle was recovered nor any finger print of the intruder was picked up from the spot ostensibly to feign a false story against the appellants submitted appellant’s Counsel. At no point of time, it evinces from the evidence of any of the fact witnesses that the appellant intended to commit murder of the deceased. Informant turned hostile dissipating prosecution version as credible and infallible. Exhibited FIR lodged after a week was a calculative intentional and deliberate move to nail in the appellants. No worthwhile explanation was offered for the occasioned delay and whatever has been deposed by the I.O. is puerile. Motive attributed to the appellants never existed and in that respect, the entire prosecution story is faint and is a myth. Exhibited FIR lodged after a week was a calculative intentional and deliberate move to nail in the appellants. No worthwhile explanation was offered for the occasioned delay and whatever has been deposed by the I.O. is puerile. Motive attributed to the appellants never existed and in that respect, the entire prosecution story is faint and is a myth. It is next submitted that none of the prosecution witnesses are reliable and their testimonies are incredible to be accepted as truthful and honest. Prosecution has tendered before the Court a tailored evidence with many loopholes in it, which does not at all convincingly established the prosecution story and, therefore, the impugned judgment is susceptible and prone to castigation and criticism. Medical report damagingly nixes prosecution version. It is vehemently submitted that after the two injured were rescued from the house that the local inhabitants and collected mob intruded inside and annihilated the deceased and since incident occurred inside the appellants house that a false case was foisted against the family. It seems quite likely that after murdering the deceased the uncontrollable mob because of his criminal act had even tried to destroy the evidence by pouring on him, which prognosis cannot be adjured. It is further submitted that according to the prosecution evidence the son of the informant, PW 1, had arrived at the Police Station at 7.45 PM and at 7.47 PM police has started for the spot and till then no dead body was found inside the house of the appellant. Next it was urged that PWs.2, 9, 10 and 13 had turned hostile and had not supported the prosecution evidence which is an additional adverse circumstance against the prosecution. For A3,Shri Deves Panda, learned Counsel contended that she was charged with a palliative offence with the aid of Section 109 of IPC but has been convicted for graver offence with the aid of Section 34 IPC and, therefore, her conviction and sentence are not sustainable. No material was brought forward even to prima facie establish the charge against A3 of her being an abettor of the crime. She was a married woman on the date of the incident and had nothing to do with the incident in question. In support of his submission, learned Counsel relied upon testimonies of P.Ws. 7, 8 and 12. No material was brought forward even to prima facie establish the charge against A3 of her being an abettor of the crime. She was a married woman on the date of the incident and had nothing to do with the incident in question. In support of his submission, learned Counsel relied upon testimonies of P.Ws. 7, 8 and 12. 22.Arguing conversely and refuting appellants’ contentions learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that prior to the discovery of the dead body of the deceased inside that portion of the house in which the appellants abode, nobody else had entered into that portion and, therefore, the appellants could be the only perpetrators of the crime. It is for them to divulge as to how and in what manner deceased was strangulated to death and who attempted to disfigure his face and obliterate the murder evidence by pouring acid over his face as those facts are in the special knowledge only of the appellants (A1 and A2) therefore, burden and onus shifts on the accused to explain the circumstances in which deceased lost his life. Since defence plea and evidence remains unconvincing and inchoate, which does not appear to be truthful and they have been justly held guilt of the crime. Since A 3 had called the deceased on flimsy and false pretext tol repay the loan amount, therefore, she is a privy to the crime as an abettor with common object. Co jointly all the accused to get them extricate out of the murder crime have concocted a false story. Injuries sustained by both A1 & A2 contradict their defence version and house owner being friend of the appellants foisted a false story to save his friend and his family. It is incomprehensible that the deceased will arrive at the spot house without being called as he had knowledge about the vocational work place of A3 in district Talcher, who was residing there along with her husband. Defence story that A3 was a married woman does not have any corresponding convincing testimony as it seems that the said plea is brought forth to extricate A3 out of the incident. Defence story that A3 was a married woman does not have any corresponding convincing testimony as it seems that the said plea is brought forth to extricate A3 out of the incident. Prosecution has successfully anointed guilty of the appellants to the core without admitting any other hypothesis and, therefore, the charges against the appellants have been proved and resultantly the appeal sans merits and be dismissed and conviction and sentence of the appellants be confirmed is the epilogue of the harangued submission by leaned Additional Government Advocate. 23.We have bestowed our rapt attention over rival submissions and in that light have critically examined the entire evidences both oral and documentary. 24.Ab initio, it is discernible that the present is one of those peculiar cases where the genesis of the incident commenced inside the house of the appellant and the disclosures made by them to the landlord. Follow up investigation by the police surfaced that the deceased was actually throttled to death by the appellants and they are the real perpetrators of crime hence they were charge sheeted and faced trial and were convicted. Thus the prosecution had to face a piquant problem of establishing the crime with the disclosures made by the appellants and consequently it has examined three sets of witnesses. First reference is regarding appellants’ version about happening of the incident of the deceased being the intruder burglar who had assaulted A1 & A2 who were saved by the landlord and collected people, second set of prosecution witnesses consisting of P.Ws. 7, 8 and 12, disclosed motive and the appellants being the real culprits who had called the deceased and annihilated him, and third set consists of formal and investigatory witnesses. 25.In a vexed scenario as above it is imperative and apt to scan the appeal recapitulating those facts-in-issue which are uncontroverted and uncontested. Examining the record from such an angle it is discernible that significant irrefutable and vital aspects in which both, the prosecution and defence are conformable to each other, absolving the prosecution of its prime and primary responsibility to prove those facts by tendering creditworthy, cogent and reliable evidences, as too well settled trite law is that facts admitted need not be proved, includes relationship inter-se between the appellants, acquaintances between A3 and the deceased and telephonic contacts between them. In addition indisputable is also the fact that some fiscal relationships also existed between them. Date, time and place of the incident during course of which presence of A-1, A-2 and the deceased inside the tenanted portion of the house of the appellants on the ground floor, place of murder being kitchen of the appellants, tussle between A1 the deceased, use of sharp edged weapon during the incident are also un-controvertible convincingly established facts. Evidences further makes it unerringly evident besides above admitted facts that other undeniable aspects are that the deceased was throttled/strangulated to death inside appellant’s kitchen and subsequent to his death an attempt was made to conceal his identity by disfiguring his face by pouring acid over his corpse. Resultantly, in the light of existing admitted or untrammeled facts as above, from chiseling of evidences, it is apparent that creditworthy acceptable evidences exist on record and it can be safely concluded that the occurrence did occur at the date, time and place of the incident alleged by the prosecution, in which both A1 & A2 and the deceased were definitely involved. 26.Having concluded as above when the facts are vetted concerning various other facets and issues involved in the incident, it appears that the claim by first set of witnesses corroborating claim and assertions by the appellants, which includes depositions of witnesses Janmejaya Moharana/PW1, Tripti Moharana/PW2, Mayadhar Moharana/PW 9, Mrs. Jyoti Moharana/PW 10, Gopabandhu Das/PW 13 and Pradhan Karua/PW 14, does not seems to be convincing and actual narration of happening. According to their testimonies, on the incident day, at the relevant time when PW 1 was dinning, PW 9 & 10 were watching TV, PW 2 was sleeping, that they heard a peculiar sound ‘Gan-Gan’ emanating in their house. Initially they tried to locate the source of the sound and when they came to the closed interlinked channel gate, separating their portion with that of the appellants, they realized that the sound was emanating from inside the tenanted portion of appellants house. Meanwhile A2 told PW 9 that somebody was assaulting A1 and in the meantime A1 and the unknown stranger (deceased) came rolling over jostling with each other. Stranger (deceased) was holding Kata and was catching A1 by his neck. Albeit PW9 forbade the stranger from desisting to assault A1, he did not pay any heed. Meanwhile A2 told PW 9 that somebody was assaulting A1 and in the meantime A1 and the unknown stranger (deceased) came rolling over jostling with each other. Stranger (deceased) was holding Kata and was catching A1 by his neck. Albeit PW9 forbade the stranger from desisting to assault A1, he did not pay any heed. A2 when intervened and beseeched the stranger (deceased) to spare her husband, stranger (deceased) dashed her head against the wall. Vulnerable PW9 raised helping calls attracting other persons at the spot. Interlinked door was opened by A1 who came over to the side of PW9 and informed that the stranger (deceased) was locked in the bathroom. When PW9 had gone to call PWs 13 & 14 that A1 also brought out his wife A2 and then, on the instructions of PW9 that PW1, had locked the gate from outside as well to prevent the stranger (deceased) from escaping from the house of the appellants. Nobody heard the voice of the deceased thereafter. According to PW 9 during this entire episode he had seen only A1, A2 & the deceased inside house of the appellants. When the police came grill was still locked and by opening the interlinked grill that the police entered into the house of the appellants that they detected corpse of the deceased inside kitchen room with no blood was oozing out from his cadaver and he had worn a Banyain. It is also narrated that at the instance of PW 9, that his son PW 1 had rushed to the police station to report the incident to the police. This version by PW 9 more or less was spelt out, in their own ways, by rest of the witnesses of the first set who, mostly are family members of PW 9.Doctors’ evidence examined as DW 3 and DW 4, leave no manner of doubt and proves that both A1 and A2 had sustained physical injuries on their persons, and A1 had received incised wounds, which could have been inflicted by sharp edged weapon. Cumulative scrutiny of above material on record leaves many unanswered questions. Firstly it does not explain how the deceased was throttled or strangulated to death and who poured acid over his body and how his dead body came into kitchen of the appellants. Cumulative scrutiny of above material on record leaves many unanswered questions. Firstly it does not explain how the deceased was throttled or strangulated to death and who poured acid over his body and how his dead body came into kitchen of the appellants. Uncontested unambiguous statement of PW 9 in paras 4, 5 and 12 of his deposition that : “4......... I did not hear the voice of the deceased from the time when the interlinked door was opened. I had not heard the sound or voice of the deceased at or after the bringing of the wife of Baidyanath. I did not see any other person inside the house of Bidyadhara except Baidyadhara, Savitri and the deceased from the beginning of the rescue of Savitri. 5.Then police came, the grill was locked, so the police entered into the house of accused persons through my house, by opening the interlinked door. After entry into the rooms of the accused person, police found the dead body of the deceased in the kitchen room of the accused persons. Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx12.“Police is the first person to enter into the rooms of the accused persons, after rescue of Savitri by Bidyadhara,” leaves no manner of doubt that when the deceased was done to death only A1 & A2 were inside their house with the deceased and none else and hence the only witnesses to disclose as who and how the deceased lost his life can be only appellants A1 & A2 and none else. It is for them to explain, as is required u/s.106 Evident Act, to come out with correct narration of events having special knowledge about the same. Since none of the witnesses of first set discloses about the core issue of death of the deceased we find their deposition partially authentic concerning entire episode, which are relatable only to the admitted facts and nothing beyond that. At this juncture we find appellants contentions that the collected mass of persons had annihilated the deceased and in a fit of anger had multilated his face, to be facetious and ludicrous. Bereft of any material and in absence of even scanty evidence in that score we cannot fetch out a third story. There are two concrete versions and therefore either one has to be accepted or both have to be discarded. Bereft of any material and in absence of even scanty evidence in that score we cannot fetch out a third story. There are two concrete versions and therefore either one has to be accepted or both have to be discarded. For us it is permissible to carve out a nascent version sans evidence on record. 27.Second set of evidence was trotted out by PWs 7, 8 and 12. From the testimony of Miss.Gitanjali Rana/P.W. 12, sibling sister of the deceased, it evinces that the deceased was a jeweller having a jewelry shop in Kuhladi Chhak. While travelling and escorting her in Dhauli Express train from Balasore to Bhubaneswar, as PW 12 had to appear in an examination, that she and the deceased, being fellow passengers, developed acquaintances with A3, which in due course, with exchange of phone numbers, conversations and messages, with the passage of time, developed in a close bondage of love between the deceased and A3. Over phone consersations the acquaintances turned into a love relationship between deceased and A3 and the deceased used to visit house of A3 once or twice a month. Deceased thereafter had informed PW 12 that A3 required some money and she had asked his help and consequently deceased had parted away with Rs.70000/- (Rs. Seventy Thousand only) to A3. Deceased was sure that A3 will marry him but after getting into bank job that A3 started avoiding the deceased who became frustrated and for cooling down his sentiments that he went to J & K. Four days prior to his murder that the deceased informed PW 12 that A3 had telephoned him to return his money. A3 left his house informing PW 12 that either he will return with A3 or will get his money back. Four days thereafter that PW 12 came to know that the appellants had murdered her brother. This version by PW 12 is corroborated by other two witnesses PWs 7 & 8, who also confirmed that A3 was in love with the deceased but post getting job in bank she ditched him. PW 8 is the cousin brother of the deceased. They also confirmed that because of spending money over A3 that the deceased had ruined his business and had become impecunious. PW 8 is the cousin brother of the deceased. They also confirmed that because of spending money over A3 that the deceased had ruined his business and had become impecunious. PW 7, a friend of the deceased also evidenced that on 16/17th July, that the deceased had told him that he is going to bring A3 and four days after the news of his death arrived through police. PW 7 had come to Jajpur police to identify him from his photographs.From the Danagadi hospital PW 7 had received the corpse of the deceased and had brought it to Balasore where he was cremated. This witness had also slated the FIR which was lodged by brother of the deceased on 24.7.2008 at 5.30 p.m. Deceased had informed PW 7 about his love affair with A3. Many omissions were put to this witness which were denied by him, but these are mainly concerned with admitted facts and hence are trivial and significant. PW 7 has denied that A3 was married to Debi Prasad Samantray on 7.4.2007 and that she was not in love with the deceased. Ranjan Rana/PW 8, cousin brother of the deceased, received information concerning death of the deceased on 24.7.2008 at about 1 or 1.30 P.M. Accompanied with PW 7 he had come to Jajpur and had identified corpse of the deceased. Concerning facts about the relationships between the deceased and A 3 he had divulged conformable evidence like PW 7 & 12. PW 8 had advanced Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the deceased which he had spent in helping A 3 by adding another Rs. 20000/-. This witness also confirmed that after getting job in ICICI Bank that A3 had refused to marry him (deceased) as he no longer remained compatible to him. 28.As it emerges from the above stated evidences of witnesses of the second set, fit is evident that the same spelt out motive for the crime and also indicate reason for presence of the deceased inside the house of the appellant on the date of the incident. These witnesses therefore are witnesses of attending circumstances which led to happening of the incident. They have not tried to implicate A1 and A2. Their entire depositions centres around the deceased and A3 and their relationships. Such a narration seems to have a ring of truth in it. These witnesses therefore are witnesses of attending circumstances which led to happening of the incident. They have not tried to implicate A1 and A2. Their entire depositions centres around the deceased and A3 and their relationships. Such a narration seems to have a ring of truth in it. Since A1/DW1 as well as A3/DW 2 also lend credence to some extent about said facts we are of the view that the version of the second set of witnesses is convincing and acceptable. 29.Cross judging of both the versions coupled with defence evidence leads us to conclude that claim by A1 and A2 that the deceased was unknown to them is a false statement and their version of burglary is a myth. Assertions by PW 12 that the deceased used to visit house of A3 goes without challenge by the defence and since A3/DW 2 has admitted these facts in her depositions, it unerringly indicate that all the appellants knew the deceased since prior to the incident and the deceased used to visit appellants’ house. In this connection evidence of PW 9, who had no relationship with the deceased and, in fact, is a friend of appellant A1, is significant when he had deposed that - Q.4: Had the person who had entered into the house would have been unknown, then the inmates would not have allowed that person to enter into their house and to stay inside ? Ans; The person who had entered into the house of Bidyadhara must be and it is known to Bidyadhara and his family members. Q.No.5: Had the person been unknown, then the inmates would have knocked my interconnected door for help ? Ans: Yes, had the person been unknown, Bidyadhara would have called me through the interconnected door and the person who was inside the house of Bidyadhara was known to Bidyadhara. Had he been a thief or culprit, he would have entered into the house secretly or in midnight. Later I was confirmed that the deceased was well known to the inmates of house. Q. No.6 : Now you say, how the deceased was known to the family members of the accused persons ? Ans. Had he been a thief or culprit, he would have entered into the house secretly or in midnight. Later I was confirmed that the deceased was well known to the inmates of house. Q. No.6 : Now you say, how the deceased was known to the family members of the accused persons ? Ans. Later I could know that the deceased had love affairs with the daughter of Bidyadhara and so he was inside the house of Bidyadhara.” 30.Thus initial story by the appellants that they did not know the deceased since prior to the incident is a fake version and consequently present cannot be a case of mistaken identity. Even A3 has deposed that “in the year 2007 while travelling in train Dhauli Express i met with the sister of the deceased who was a job seeker at the relevant time. She sought my help to get a job as she was a very much need of a job. Thereby took my Mobile number after which there was an interaction between myself and sister of the deceased. Subsequently, the deceased wanted my help to find out a job for his sister. Initially, I avoid to receive the call of the deceased but subsequently when it turned out to be the brother of that girl I had interaction with the deceased over phone for some time. Two to three months after this happening inside the train, the deceased suddenly went to my office at Bhubaneswar for discussion about the job for his sister. The deceased asked me to provide money by way of loan to the tune of Rs.20,000/-. I did not accept the proposal of the deceased and straight way refused the payment of money after which the deceased went away.” DW 2 has also evidenced that “On repeated call by mobile I disclosed before the accused that I am a married women (woman) and don’t change (chase) me and mend your attitude towards me etc. Thereafter the deceased made ghost call to me on various occasions and being perturbed I issued threat to the deceased to report against him before the police unless he stops calling me repeatedly. Thereafter the deceased gave threat to finish my family and ruined me.” These depositions credited with further testimonies of A3/DW 2 that I knew the deceased before his death in my house. Thereafter the deceased gave threat to finish my family and ruined me.” These depositions credited with further testimonies of A3/DW 2 that I knew the deceased before his death in my house. In the month of November, 2008 the deceased proposed to marry me over phone. Ate the first meeting inside the train.......” unerringly indicates closeness between the two and hence it seems more likely that the appellants had prior association with the deceased. It is because of this reason that at no point of time A3 took any legal action against the deceased in spite of her allegations that he was harassing her over phone and was insisting her to marry him since last three months and had even visited her office in the bank. It is very difficult to digest that both the appellants A1 & A2 had no knowledge about the relationships between A3 and the deceased. It is equally bizarre that the A3 will not inform it to her husband had she been married by that time. She had not disclosed her marital status at any point of time earlier and even while testifying she had referred herself as daughter of A1 and not as wife of some body. All these factors are significant and indicate that the claim of the defence through testimony of the father DW1, that it was a case of burglary with assault on the point of Bhujali and Katari does not seems to hold water and seems to be concocted version and, to the contrary, claim by PWs 7, 8 and 12 seems to be the correct narration of events. 31.Analogous to the above issue is another fact that the deceased seems to have been spending money on A3 and was also a visitor to his house. Because of his blind love his business had ruined and he had already become insolvent. Because of spurning of his marriage proposal by A3, it seems, that the deceased had lost his mental equilibrium and had gone in depression and to overcome and rejuvenate himself that he had even gone to J & K/Assam for some time. The incident occurred when he had returned from this stress releasing psychology tour. Thus one thing that comes to the fore is that both the sides knew each other very well and resultantly prosecution story on this score cannot be doubted. The incident occurred when he had returned from this stress releasing psychology tour. Thus one thing that comes to the fore is that both the sides knew each other very well and resultantly prosecution story on this score cannot be doubted. Very significantly it is to be noted that while cross-examining the witnesses of the first set by counsel for A3, they were never questioned regarding entire defence story trotted out A3/DW 2. It appears that the defence plea is a totally nascent version, which was articulated only for the sake of defence in the trial and, therefore, we are of the view that the prosecution claim of advance of money by the appellant, a jeweller by vocation, is much more credible than the defence plea and, therefore, we believe the prosecution version on the said aspect. 32.Turning now to the actual incident it seems that frustrated deceased, who had become impecunious, after informing his sister and friend, had come to the house of the appellants hankered with the idea to take back A3 or get his money back armed with sharp edged weapon, a kata, bhujali or Katari. It further transpires that both A1 and A2 allowed access to the deceased inside their house and then closed the channel gate and the door. Thereafter something transpired amidst them and rankled with the prevailing atmosphere that bullyragging ensued followed by assault by the appellant with kata, bhujali or katari on A1 causing him incised wounds. This fight between appellants (A1 & A2), and the deceased seems to have continued for some during course of which PW 9 and his son and daughter also came and witnessed fight between both the sides and also A1 and A2 sustaining bleeding injuries in the manner as has been already described herein before. It further seems probable that during tussle with both the appellants somehow deceased lost the battle ground became helpless and unarmed and both the appellants, A1 and A2 got an opportunity to throttle him to death inside their house and thereafter poured acid over his face to diminish his identification. It further seems probable that during tussle with both the appellants somehow deceased lost the battle ground became helpless and unarmed and both the appellants, A1 and A2 got an opportunity to throttle him to death inside their house and thereafter poured acid over his face to diminish his identification. It is because of this reason that doctor Kulamani Barik/PW.6 has stated that various bruises found on the cadaver of the deceased could not be possible by accidental fall and that compression of lower portion of neck is possible in a tussle or scuffle between two or more persons or victim and two or more persons from the rival side and there was intentional pressure exerted for a considerable period of time. PW 6 had refused defence suggestion that he had prepared a fabricated report. We also don’t find any motive or ostensible reason for the doctor to fabricate autopsy report of the deceased. At this moment, we would like to advert to appellants submission that time elapsed since death as mentioned in the autopsy report does not tally or conform with time of incident, to be puerile and ludicrous. Since appellants themselves have not traversed time of the incident, to doubt time of death of the deceased will be gibberish and therefore we rebuff raised argument. We invigorate out conclusions by drawing corroborative support from statements of PW 9 that both A1 and the deceased assaulting each other had rolled over towards him. Extract of deposition of PW 9 mentioned herein above further cements our conclusion respecting actual happening. From unimpeachable evidences on record it is demonstrably apparent that there was a fight between A1 and A2 on the one hand and the deceased on the other in which both the sides did sustain injuries and the deceased was throttled to death. 33.Since critical appreciation of evidences as above leads to an infallible conclusion that the date, time, place of the incident with participation of A1, A2 and the deceased and acquaintance between them, wielding of Katari or bhujali as weapon of assault, are all successfully established facts that we find the contentions of the appellants’ counsel regarding existence of three FIRs – first at 7.45 pm. By PW1, second by PW 9 at 8.30 p.m. and third by the I.O. to be facetious not requiring any detailed examination. By PW1, second by PW 9 at 8.30 p.m. and third by the I.O. to be facetious not requiring any detailed examination. We further find that castigating submission that till FIR no dead body was detected inside appellants house to be a tenuous contention in as much as nobody was allowed to enter into the portion of the house which was kept locked till arrival of the police as has been deposed by PW9, a friend of AI, who had no reason to feign a false story against his own friend. Another snipping by the appellants that PWs. 2, 9, 10 and 13 had turned hostile is a garbled argument which does not pulverize undeniable facts nor does it deprive prosecution of its creditworthy allegations. In fact a feeble attempt has been made by the defence witnesses to contort true facts to project a mendacious version. We further find the trivial incongruities, inconsistencies, embellishments, as submitted by appellants counsel do not dislodge various pivotal issues which are too well proved to be doubted. Another contention by the appellants that since deceased clothes were not stained with blood and therefore appellants, who by that time had already sustained bleeding injuries, could not have been the murderer, we find it to be valueless and axiomatic in the wake of clinching uncontroverted evidence by both the sides that but for the three persons whose presence is undeniable at the incident scene, nobody else was present inside the incident spot and by the time access was opened, deceased was already dead. Neither DW 1 or DW2 had stated any fact which can caste suspicion on the prosecution allegations even on preponderance of probability, and indicate that some other persons might have intruded into crime spot and would have throttled the deceased to death. Irrefutable is the fact that defence story is a figment of prevaricative imagination except to the extent that both the parents had, in fact, sustained injuries during course of the incident. It seems that entire assailing of the impugned judgment by the appellants is based on unfounded premise that before arrival of the police other persons had barged into appellants house and had throttled the deceased to death but such a hypothetical premise is totally at variance with established facts and the evidence is to the contrary nixing such arguments. It seems that entire assailing of the impugned judgment by the appellants is based on unfounded premise that before arrival of the police other persons had barged into appellants house and had throttled the deceased to death but such a hypothetical premise is totally at variance with established facts and the evidence is to the contrary nixing such arguments. However there is some force in appellants submission that investigation is perfunctory, callous, un-damnable and impeachable, but this fact should not vex our mind at all because of the reasons mentioned herein above specially when the examination of record and scrutiny of evidences is confined and circumscribed only to determine as to whether case of appellants is true or the allegations that they are the perpetrators of the crime is a correct version ? Other harangued contentions concerning recording of accused statements u/s.313 Cr.P.C. and formulating complex question, irregularity in framing of charges, are concerned, they do not require detail examination for the reason that no prejudice is caused to the accused at any point of time nor they have expressed their reservations about the same at any point of time before the trial Court. They now cannot be permitted to rue that they have been prejudiced, as they have been unsuccessful in specifically urging the manner in which prejudice has been caused to them.We would like to remind that Courts are expected to examine broader probabilities of evidences rather than swayed by insignificant truncated contradictions and discrepancies which are not fatal to the prosecution case and does not diminish its authenticity. 34.Having opined as above when we advert to the crime committed by the appellants we noticed certain circumstances which apparently demonstrate that so far as A3 is concerned she had no role to play in the actual incident and hence she cannot be determined to be abettor of the crime nor she can be held liable with the aid of Section 34 I.P.C. of having shared the same common intention with rest of the accused. None of the witness has confirmed her presence during course of the incident. She was courageous enough to appear as DW2 and prosecution has miserably failed to get it elicited from her that she had knowledge about the incident. Her plea that she was away from incident house and was staying at her work place could not be demolished by the prosecution. She was courageous enough to appear as DW2 and prosecution has miserably failed to get it elicited from her that she had knowledge about the incident. Her plea that she was away from incident house and was staying at her work place could not be demolished by the prosecution. There is no evidence at all of her being abettor of the crime as is required u/s.109 I.P.C. Even if it is to be believed that she did call he deceased to repay the loan money, she cannot be imputed with the motive that she desired that the deceased be murdered, such an opinion by the learned trial Judge is wholly unfounded, based on no material and is purely hypothetical and conjectural. Moreover evidence on this aspect is purely hearsay, as telephonic conversation between appellant A3 and deceased was told by the deceased to PW 12, and consequently the said evidence is inadmissible and could not have been relied upon for any purpose. Even if it falls within the scope of Sec. 32 of the Evidence Act, the same does not establish the crime as it only proves moltive and nothing else against A3 nor does it anoint to guilt. Further since A3 was absent from her house at the relevant point of time, she cannot be saddled with a fact required to be proved as a fact that she shared the same common intention with other two accused. There is total absence of any incriminating material associating her with the actual happening. Possibility that in her absence when the deceased had approached her parental house armed with a Katari or Bhujali and because of some undisclosed reason, A1 and A2 and the deceased scuffled with each other cannot be completely ruled. Albeit appellants have not disgorged the genesis of the incident and they have spelt out an unappealing concocted story, the veracity of which version is extremely doubtful, but undeniable proven fact is that A3 was not present at all when the incident occurred. Therefore, Section 34 I.P.C. cannot be pressed into consideration to hold A3 guilty of the crime, because she seems to be totally unbeknown about the fatidic happening. Learned trial Judge had totally misdirected himself when he has opined that presence at the spot is not essential for an abettor. But now she had abetted the crime, of which she was totally unaware, is not understandable. Learned trial Judge had totally misdirected himself when he has opined that presence at the spot is not essential for an abettor. But now she had abetted the crime, of which she was totally unaware, is not understandable. Opinion by the learned trial Judge in this respet is miserably faulty. There is world of difference between a conspirator and an abettor and probably learned trial Judge has failed to realize this. No charge u/s.120B was framed against A3 and hence her conviction as abettor of the crime or with the aid of Section 34 I.P.C. is illegal and fallible and the same cannot be sustained. We further supplement our view by recapitulating that the incident seems to have occurred a the spur of the moment which is totally at variance with the idea that A3 had abetted the crime. There does not exist any material on record to indicate, even hypothetically, that A3 knew that there will be squabbling between her parents and the deceased and her parents will be assaulted with Kata and will sustain grievous injuries on their head and torso. Bruises suffered by the deceased indicate that both the sides had fought with each other. In this respect submissions of Sri Deves Panda, learned Advocate for A3 has enough substance to absolve her of the all the crimes and extricate her from being held guilty. Her appeal deserves to be assoilzie in he favour and she deserves acquittal. 35.Cogitating over the offence committed by A1 and A2, it emerges from meticulous examination of record and roving inquiry into various facets of cropped up issues, that in their respect also the impugned judgment is faulty and unsustainable. Learned trial Court has completely ignored significant admitted facts and his entire exercise is pedantic and erroneous. Even an unassailable admitted facts these appellants could not have been held guilty of murder for too many reasons and at the worst their crime will not traverse ambit and scope of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable u/s.304 (II) I.P.C. only. Real possibility of existence of grave and sudden provocation was very imminent and was well discernible from admitted evidences itself, which seems to be the actual fact. We invigorate our opinion by pointing out that the deceased seems to have approached house of the appellants armed with Katari or Bhujali. Real possibility of existence of grave and sudden provocation was very imminent and was well discernible from admitted evidences itself, which seems to be the actual fact. We invigorate our opinion by pointing out that the deceased seems to have approached house of the appellants armed with Katari or Bhujali. This he must have carried with him for the reason that in case need be he will safeguard himself from it or use it as weapon. It is undeniable fact that death of the deceased was preceded with a scuffle in which both A1 and A2 had sustained serious injuries by sharp edged weapon and they had genuine and real apprehension regarding safety of their persons. Hence irrefutable conclusion is that grave and sudden provocation was in existence and throttling of the deceased took place amidst such an atmosphere. However, at the same time it can be safely assumed that the deceased could not have been throttled had he was still holding Katari or Bhujali and therefore, the probability that the deceased was throttled only when he had become unarmed is the only pragmatic conclusion. Thus pressing the neck of the deceased in a fight between A1 and the deceased must have in an endeavour to overpower him and since neither of the sides have divulged entire incident truthfully, that we are of the opinion that initially appellants had a genuine cause to exercise right of private defence against the attack made by the deceased and till that stage they could hot have been held guilty, but after the deceased became helpless and unarmed then throttling him amounts to exceeding right of private derfence in a situation pervaded and prevailed by grave ahnd sudden provocation. Here we would hasten to add that prosecution has not at all snipped or disputed genuineness of the injuries sustained by both the appellants and remained content by suggesting to defence doctors DWs 3 and 4 that they had concocted medical reports. We have not found any reason for the independent doctors to fabricate medical reports of the appellants. Ext. E, discharge ticket of A1 from SCB Medical College Hospital further lend credence to our view. We have not found any reason for the independent doctors to fabricate medical reports of the appellants. Ext. E, discharge ticket of A1 from SCB Medical College Hospital further lend credence to our view. Thus there is no room for doubt that both the appellants were caused injuries during course to the same incident and their crime cannot be taken out of scope of 304 (II) I.P.C. and bracketed within the fold of 302 I.P.C. as private defence assault cannot be weighed in golden scales. Examination and vetting of facts and discernible circumstances leads us to opine that no offence of murder is disclosed against the appellants A1 and A2.Reason for genesis of the fight between A1 and the deceased is hazy and suspicious.Thus A1 and A2 could be convicted only u/s. 304 (II) I.P.C. However so far as offence u/s.201 I.P.C. is concerned both A1 and A2 are found guilty as but for them nobody else could have thrown acid on the dead body of the deceased and hence they have been rightly convicted and sentenced for that offence. 36.Wrapping up and perorating the appeal, we hold that prosecution has miserably failed to anoint guilt of Pragna Paramita Prahraj/A3 and she deserved to be acquitted of all the charges. Her conviction and sentence by impugned judgment and order both are unsustainable and consequently we set it aside and acquit Pragna Paramita Prahraj/A3 of all the framed charges. Pragna Paramita Prahraj/A3 is on bail. She need not surrender. Her personal and surety bonds are discharged. 37.Adverting to Bidyadhara Prahraj/A1 and Savitri Samantaray/A2, their conviction u/s.201/34 is infallible and sustainable and hence their appeal in respect of their conviction and sentence for the offence u/s201/34 I.P.C. is dismissed in toto. However, their conviction u/s302 I.P.C. and sentence of life imprisonment, both are unsustainable and hence their appeal in respect of that offence is partly allowed and while their said conviction and sentence u/s 302/34 I.P.C. is set aside, they are convicted for offence u/s.304 (II) I.P.C. In the facts and circumstances and looking to the fact that incident might have occurred because of action by deceased himself and it was he who seems to have started the assault that we consider it appropriate to sentence both the aforesaid appellants Bidyadhara Prahraj/A1 and Savitri Samantaray/A2, with five (5) years R.I. with fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand Only) on each of those appellants. In the event of default in payment of fine both the appellants shall serve additional 6 months R.I. Both Bidyadhara Prahraj/A1 and Savitri Samantaray/A2 are in jail since the date of their conviction through impugned judgment and order and hence they shall remain in jail to serve out remaining part of their sentence. The period as under trial served by both A1 and A2 shall be set off against their sentences and their sentences shall run concurrently. 38.The appeal is allowed in part as above. 39.Let the copy of the judgment be communicated to the learned Trial Judge as well as concerned Jail Superintendent, where the appellants are confined. K.R. MOHAPATRA, J. I agree. Appeal allowed in part.