JUDGMENT : A.K.Mishra, J. This appeal is preferred against the judgment/order dated 26.03.2011 in S.T. Case No. 41/266 of 2009 passed by learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. I, Puri in convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "I.P.C." in brevity) and sentencing him to life imprisonment and fine Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand) in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the prosecution case runs thus:- Deceased Ram Charan Dasji Maharaj had a Gurukrupa Ashram at Sidhamavirpatna of Puri. He had filed a criminal case being G.R. Case No. 1087 of 2007 against accused Punia alias Purna Chandra Naik and two others for having assaulted him when he refused to pay "Dada bati". Thus, both deceased and appellant-accused had inimical relationship. On 2.06.2009 at about 5.15 A.M. the wife P.W.10 and son P.W.11 of the deceased hearing noise came out of the house. They found 2/4 persons running here and there armed with sword and deceased was lying with profuse bleeding injuries on his person in front of the Ashram. The son along with one Prakash Sahu (P.W.1) shifted the deceased to the District Headquarters Hospital, Puri where he was found dead by the doctor. At 7.00 A.M. the son-Madan Mohan Dasji Maharaj-P.W.11 lodged a written report Exhibnit-4 before police, which was registered as Kumbharpada P.S. Case No. 140 of 2009 under Section 302/34 I.P.C. In course of investigation inquest was made. Postmortem was conducted by the doctor P.W.14 vide P.M. report Exhibit-9. On 3.06.2009 appellant-Purna Chandra Naik and one juvenile Purna Chandra Pradhan alias Kabu were arrested. While they were in custody, gave recovery of one sword M.O.- I, which was seized vide Exhibit-2. Sanction order of the Collector, Puri was obtained under Arms Act. During investigation the seizure articles including sword were sent for chemical examination vide Exhibit-19 and report was obtained vide Exhibit-20 and no blood stain was found in the seized sword. After completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted against the present appellant, his father Baikuntha Naik and one juvenile in conflict with law, namely, Kabu alias Chhotu alias Purna Pradhan. The case against juvenile in conflict with law was dealt with in the Juvenile Court. After completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted against the present appellant, his father Baikuntha Naik and one juvenile in conflict with law, namely, Kabu alias Chhotu alias Purna Pradhan. The case against juvenile in conflict with law was dealt with in the Juvenile Court. The present appellant and Baikuntha Naik, after commitment faced trial for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and under Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act. 3. The plea of defence was denial simpliciter. 4. Prosecution in order to prove its case has examined 15 witnesses in all whereas defence examined none. P.W. 11 is the informant and his mother is P.W.10. P.Ws. 2, 7 and 8 are witnesses to the inquest Exhibit.1. P.Ws. 1, 3, 4, 9 and 13 are independent but post occurrence witnesses. P.W.12 is a witness to the seizure Exhibits-6 and 7. P.Ws. 5 and 6 are witnesses to the leading to discovery of seized weapon. P.W. 14 is the doctor, who proved the postmortem report Exhibit-9 and his opinion is Exhibit-10 as to M.O.-I. P.W.15 is the Investigating Officer (hereinafter referred to as "I.O." in short). Learned trial court found that the death of deceased was homicidal in nature and accused had enmity with the deceased. He found that enmity was the motive. The fact of leading to discovery of weapon of offence sword was sufficient to connect the accused-Purna Chandra Naik having committed multiple injuries by means of sword, as a result of which the death of deceased was caused. As against accused Baikuntha Naik, learned trial court found that the confession of co-accused Purna Chandra Naik was weak under Section 30 of the Evidence Act and in absence of other evidence he was given benefit of doubt. Learned trial court also found that the dominant intention of accused Purna Chandra Naik was to cause death by means of sword for which he was not liable for conviction for possession of sword without any authority. Accordingly, he acquitted accused-Baikuntha Naik of all charges and the appellant Accused Purna Chandra Naik of offence under Section 25 & 27 of the Arms Act, while convicting the accused Purna Chandra Naik under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and passing sentence as stated above. 5. Mr. Accordingly, he acquitted accused-Baikuntha Naik of all charges and the appellant Accused Purna Chandra Naik of offence under Section 25 & 27 of the Arms Act, while convicting the accused Purna Chandra Naik under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and passing sentence as stated above. 5. Mr. Niranjan Panda, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that in the case based upon circumstantial evidence when the seized sword was found to have not stained with human blood and recovery was doubtful, the said fact cannot be the basis of conviction as involvement of other accused persons in committing such offence is not ruled out. He further submitted that the wife and the son of the deceased having seen 2/4 persons soon after the incident, the previous enmity can be considered for false implication. According to him the chain of circumstances relied upon by the learned trial court that is enmity and leading to discovery are not sufficient to unerringly point out the guilty of the accused-appellant, because the possibility of others in committing injuries on the deceased is not ruled out. He relied upon the decisions, State of Orissa Versus Ranjan Singh,2012 Supp2 OrissaLR 554 Baichandra Majhi Versus State of Orissa,2012 Supp2 OrissaLR 120 and Atmaram Zingaraji Versus State of Maharashtra, (1997) CriLJ 4406. 6. The learned Additional Government Advocate supported the conviction and sentence on the ground stated in the impugned judgment. 7. We patiently heard bestowing our thoughts to the contentions raised. Perused the lower court records carefully. The death of deceased was homicidal in nature. It is not disputed that doctor P.W.14 has proved the Postmortem report Exhibit-9. He found 16 numbers of cut injuries which were ante-mortem in nature and the cause of death was due to massive haemorrhage and shock. He has also opined on M.O.-I, seized sword, on 17.06.2009 that means after 15 days of the incident, his opinion was marked as Exhibit-10. He has stated that injury No.16, i.e., on the head, is vital and fatal. In cross-examination he has stated that he could not say as to whether M.O.-I sword was used for the commission of the offence. Facts remain proved that the death of deceased was homicidal in nature and injury No.16, i.e., on the head was fatal. 8. This case is based upon circumstantial evidence as no eye-witness was available. In cross-examination he has stated that he could not say as to whether M.O.-I sword was used for the commission of the offence. Facts remain proved that the death of deceased was homicidal in nature and injury No.16, i.e., on the head was fatal. 8. This case is based upon circumstantial evidence as no eye-witness was available. Learned trial court has relied upon two circumstances, i.e., previous enmity and leading to discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. P.W.11, the son of deceased, has stated that 4 to 5 days earlier to the occurrence the accused persons came to their house at night and demanded Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh) from his father towards expenses of the previous case lodged against them by his father. The previous case was G.R. Case No.1087 of 2007 and it was alleged therein that on 30.07.2007 accused Purna Chandra along with his two friends Subash and Kartika had assaulted his father, when he refused to pay the "Dada bati". P.W.10 is the mother of the informant and wife of the deceased. She has also stated in the same way. The I.O. P.W.15 has proved the certified copy of the F.I.R. of the previous case vide Exhibit-14, injury report Exhibi-15 and deposition of the deceased Exhibit-16. For the above material the prosecution is said to have proved the previous enmity between deceased and the accused Purna Chandra Naik for which a case was registered on 30.07.2007. Enmity is a double edged weapon. It can be a ground for assault and also can be a ground for false implication. Previous enmity as motive cannot alone establish the guilty of the person who was inimically disposed of. 9. The other circumstance relied upon the prosecution and which is hotly contested before us is leading to discovery of the sword made admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. At this juncture, the back-drop may be cleared that the co- accused the father of the present accused is already acquitted because his implication on the basis of co-accused statement is found weak. Charge Sheet was submitted against three accused persons and one juvenile in conflict with law has been separately dealt with by the Juvenile Justice Board. 10. On the point of discovery of the fact leading to the recovery of sword M.O.-I, the evidence of P.W.15 the I.O. and two independent witnesses P.Ws. Charge Sheet was submitted against three accused persons and one juvenile in conflict with law has been separately dealt with by the Juvenile Justice Board. 10. On the point of discovery of the fact leading to the recovery of sword M.O.-I, the evidence of P.W.15 the I.O. and two independent witnesses P.Ws. 5 and 6 are to be scanned. P.W. 15, the I.O. has stated that on 3.06.2009 he arrested both the accused persons (present appellant-Purna Chandra Naik and juvenile Kabu alias Chhotu). While in police custody, in presence of P.Ws.5 and 6 they confessed their guilty. He recorded the confessional statement of accused Purna Chandra Naik under Exhibit-3 and accused Purna Chandra Pradhan (juvenile) under Exhibit-13. He further stated that accused Purna Chandra Naik led him and witnesses to Sidhamahavirpatna Temple tank and gave recovery of sword from inside the water. He seized the same under Exhibit-2. In cross examination he has stated that the tank from which the sword was recovered belongs to temple and the sword was recovered from the water of the tank and accused searched the sword from 12 noon to 1.45 P.M. and seizure was made near the tank at 2.00 P.M. He has further stated that he made seal over the sword after obtaining signature of the witnesses with a piece of paper. After obtaining the opinion from the doctor he sent the sword to the State forensic laboratory. He has admitted that blood was not visible on the sword. P.W.5, who accompanied the deceased to the hospital and had witnessed to the inquest, has stated that on the next day in between 10.00 A.M. to 11.00 A.M. he was called by the I.I.C., Kumbharpada and at Police Station found accused Punia and Kabu. Both of them gave a confessional statement and led the police to a pond and gave recovery of the sword from the water where one Champa tree was standing. In cross examination he has stated that the total boundary of the pond was around one acre and in the north of the pond Champa tree was standing. He has also stated that they followed in a bike with the police personnel to that point at about 11.00 A.M. and at the same time the sword was recovered from the eastern direction. He proved his signature in the statement of accused under Exhibit-3. 11. He has also stated that they followed in a bike with the police personnel to that point at about 11.00 A.M. and at the same time the sword was recovered from the eastern direction. He proved his signature in the statement of accused under Exhibit-3. 11. P.W.6 stated that being called by police he went to the police station where he saw accused Purna Chandra Naik and Kabu. P.W.5 was there. Accused Purna confessed, gave statement and both the accused persons along with police personnel proceeded to near the pond and he along with P.W.5 followed them in a bike. Accused Purna bought out the sword from inside the pond. He identified the sword as M.O.-I. He proved his signature in the statement Exhibit-3. The I.O. has admitted that Exhibit-13 and Exhit-3 statements do not bear the time of recording of the same. While the independent witnesses stated that the time of recovery was 11.00 A.M., the I.O. stated it to be at 2.00 P.M. All of them have stated that both the accused persons i.e., the present appellant and juvenile accused Kabu gave statements and then led to the pond and from the pond appellant accused-Purna @ Punia recovered the sword after searching about more than one and half hours in the water. The sword had no blood stain. It may be stated that Exhibit-20 the chemical examination report did not find any blood stain either on the sword or on the banian seized from the accused. The sword was kept with the I.O. till 17.06.2019 on which date doctor P.W.14 verified and gave his opinion under Exhibit.10. The statement of both the accused persons that the sword was in the pond is admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The recovery was made by the present appellant only. There is no evidence to connect the recovered sword M.O.-I as weapon of offence in causing injuries on the deceased. It may be stated that doctor has given his opinion in negative in the cross-examination as to whether M.O.-I was used for commission of the offence. Both the accused persons when stated to have direct knowledge about the sword inside the pond and one accused gave recovery, the appellant cannot be said to be the author of concealment excluding another. 12. Sixteen multiple injuries were found on the body of the deceased. As per P.Ws. Both the accused persons when stated to have direct knowledge about the sword inside the pond and one accused gave recovery, the appellant cannot be said to be the author of concealment excluding another. 12. Sixteen multiple injuries were found on the body of the deceased. As per P.Ws. 10 and 11 wife and son, two to four persons were moving there when the deceased was lying with pool of blood. Only one weapon, i.e., sword is stated to have been used. The discrepancy between the testimonies of independent witnesses P.Ws 5 and 6 as well as P.W.15 (I.O.) regarding the exact location in the pond from where the sword was found and the time when the statement was recorded and seizure was made creates doubt particularly when two persons gave separate statements having knowledge about the sword inside the pond. 13. In our considered opinion the evidence regarding discovery of a fact as to authorship of a sword is not free from doubt and this being not connected as the weapon of offence to the injury caused on the deceased, the circumstance so found does not appear conclusive in nature. The learned trial court has not appreciated this part of evidence in the proper perspective. In a case depending upon the circumstantial evidence, law is enunciated to exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved and the chain of evidence must be completed to exclude any reasonable hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the accused. In the decision, Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda Versus State of Maharashtra, (1984) AIR SC 1622 the Hon'ble Apex Court has stated the principle as follows:- "3.3. Before a case against an accused vesting on circumstantial evidence can be said to be fully established the following conditions must be fulfilled as laid down in Hanumat s v. State of M.P.,1953 SCR 1091. 1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established; 2. The facts so established should be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt and the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; 3. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; 4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and 5. The facts so established should be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt and the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; 3. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; 4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and 5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused." 14. In the wake of above analysis, there being no other circumstance to connect the accused-appellant with the murder of deceased, the prosecution is found to have failed miserably to bring home the charge. Learned trial court's finding on this score is erroneous. Consequent thereupon the appellant-accused is to be held not guilty of the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and is to be acquitted. 15. In the result, the conviction and sentence of the appellant-Punia @ Purna Chandra Naik in S.T. Case No. 41/266 of 2009 passed by learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No.I, Puri, is set aside. He be set at liberty from jail forthwith unless he is required in connection any other case. 16. The criminal appeal is allowed. 17. Return the L.C.R. immediately to the lower court.