JUDGMENT : C.R. Dash, J. The sole convict is the appellant. He has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand), in default to suffer R.I. for further period of one year. The fine amount is directed to be paid to the informant-Bute Khora-P.W.2, daughter of the deceased and Kesu Khora, widow of the deceased as compensation under Section-357 of Cr. P.C. 2. The occurrence happened at about 9 P.M. in the night of 10.05.2013. Bute Khora (P.W.2) reported the matter in Pottangi Police Station on 11.05.2013 at about 10 A.M. 3. The prosecution case as unfolded shows that, in the previous night about 9 P.M., when the informant’s father Sandara Pangi was sleeping on the Varandah of his house, convict Pilku Pangi (present appellant) with his wife Bunde Pangi (since acquitted), started assaulting him. Hearing the sound of assault, she (informant) came out from the house and tried to free her father from the clutches of Pilku Pangi (appellant) and his wife Bunde Pangi. The informant was also assaulted by the culprits. 4. Regarding the manner of assault, it is alleged that, while Bunde Pangi caught hold of both the hands of the deceased from his back, the convict Pilku Pangi brought a Spade and dealt blows on the head and belly of the deceased, as a result of which, the deceased died at the spot. It is further revealed from the report that the occurrence had been witnessed by the informant’s neighbor Pui Pangi (P.W.4). Out of fear, other villagers did not dare to come to the spot. Sometime thereafter, the informant went to call his cousins to come over the spot. 5. On the basis of the F.I.R. lodged by P.W.2, the matter was investigated into and both Pilku Pangi (appellant) and his wife (Bunde Pangi) were incriminated in the offence alleged and Charge Sheet was submitted against them for offence under Section 302/34 IPC. 6. The defence plea is one of complete denial and false implication. 7. The prosecution examined ten witnesses in order to bring to home the charge framed against the accused persons. P.W.2 is the informant and eye witness to the occurrence, P.Ws. 6. The defence plea is one of complete denial and false implication. 7. The prosecution examined ten witnesses in order to bring to home the charge framed against the accused persons. P.W.2 is the informant and eye witness to the occurrence, P.Ws. 3, 4, 5 & 6 are alleged eye witnesses, P.Ws.1 & 5 are witnesses to seizure, P.Ws.6 & 7 are witnesses to inquest over the dead body, P.W.9 is the Medical Officer, who conducted Autopsy over the dead body, P.Ws.8 & 10 are the Investigating Officers. 8. Learned court below has rightly come to the finding that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. So far as the eye witnesses are concerned, it has been held in paragraph-8 of the impugned Judgment that, P.Ws.2, 3, 5 & 6 have not seen the occurrence of assault. In reaching such conclusion, learned trial Judge has cautiously and very fairly discussed the entire evidence of the aforesaid witnesses on record. The only witness, on which learned trial court has relied, is the evidence of Pui Pangi (P.W.4). 9. On discussion of the entire evidence on record, however, learned trial court has held that, prosecution has not been able to prove that accused Bunde Pangi (wife of the appellant) is involved in the alleged transaction and consequently, learned trial court has acquitted her. 10. Admittedly, the night of occurrence was a dark night. According to the spot map (Ext.7) and evidence of P.W.4, the distance between the spot, i.e., front Verandah of the house of the deceased and front Varandah of his (P.W.4)’s house is intervened by the village road of 15 ft. width. It is asserted by P.W.4 that, sitting on his Varandah, he has seen the occurrence of assault by the appellant. According to P.W.2 (informant), who is none other than the daughter of the deceased, her father was sleeping on the front Varandah of their house. 11. Though, it is a dark night, learned court below has held thus:- “Though the place is dark, but since both the accused and the deceased are his neighbours it would not be difficult on his part to see the incident and recognize them which occurred merely 15 fts. from him. P.W.4’s subsequent acts further fortified his reliability. As per him, due to fear psychosis he did not go to the spot and following day he went there. from him. P.W.4’s subsequent acts further fortified his reliability. As per him, due to fear psychosis he did not go to the spot and following day he went there. This is natural reaction event in course of a transaction. Had he heard the incident from other persons, he would have been looked into in suspicion, but when he saw the incident and reacted having kept confining himself in his house, soon after the incident, he cannot be disputed over such conduct. It is natural on a human being to react on his own mind, perception and sensitivity. So, in the light of the totality of the evidence as given by P.W.4, I do not see to deny to go by him what he has witnessed and reacted over the incident.” 12. From the aforesaid narration, it is found that the learned trial court has accepted the evidence of P.W.4 on two counts. Those are:- (i) Since he is neighbourer of both the appellant and the deceased, he could recognize the appellant even in darkness. (ii) His reaction of confining himself to his house after the occurrence. 13. Hon’ble the Supreme Court, in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Makhan, (2008) 10 SCC 615 (617) has held that, even in darkness known persons can be identified from the manner of speech, style of walking and several other peculiar features. 14. P.W.2 in his evidence has testified that the alleged incident took place in the night; she was in the house after taking her dinner; at first both accused were quarrelling with her father, but she had not come out from the house taking the same as not serious. However, when she heard sound of assault on the head of her father, she came out from the house and confronted the accused persons as to why they assaulted her father. The accused persons threatened to kill her, as a result of which, she went into her house out of fear. But in the very next paragraph, P.W.2 has testified that, both the accused persons came and assaulted her father without having gandagol with him. In cross-examination paragraph-6, she has testified that, when she came out from the house, the assault on her father had already been completed and her father was lying senseless and nobody was there then. But in the very next paragraph, P.W.2 has testified that, both the accused persons came and assaulted her father without having gandagol with him. In cross-examination paragraph-6, she has testified that, when she came out from the house, the assault on her father had already been completed and her father was lying senseless and nobody was there then. The factum of quarrel preceding the assault gives a justification of identification by voice but from the evidence of P.W.2, it is clear that, there was no such gandagol. P.W.4 is also silent about the factum of quarrel preceding the act of assault. So far as picking of quarrel or threatening the accused by the deceased just preceding the occurrence is concerned, P.W.4 has turned hostile and he has been cross-examined under Section 154 of the Evidence Act. In paragraph-7 of his cross-examination, P.W.4 has specifically testified that, he has not heard any gandagol (quarrel) between the accused person and the deceased at the time of occurrence. In paragraph-5 of his cross-examination, he (P.W.4) has clearly testified that, there is no electricity in the village road and it was not a moonlit night. In the said paragraph-5, he has further testified that, nothing was visible about the happening on the road from the place, where he was sitting. He has further testified that, he has not gone to the village road in the occurrence night. P.W.4 has not testified about the peculiarity of the accused persons by which he identified them. Identification by voice is thoroughly ruled out in view of the evidence of P.Ws.2 & 4. P.W.4 ipse dixit having testified that, from where he was sitting, nothing was visible about the happening on the road and it was a dark night and there was no Moonlight and he, having not testified about the identification of the witness, specifically from their voice, gait and other peculiar features, it is difficult to rely on sole testimony of P.W.4 so far as the assault on the deceased is concerned. 15. We are further constrained to stand by our aforesaid finding in view of the narration made in Columns-7 & 9 of the inquest report (Ext.3). The inquest report was prepared in between 2 P.M. to 2.30 P.M. on 11.05.2013. P.W.4 has testified that, Police examined him at about 11 A.M. on 11.05.2013. 15. We are further constrained to stand by our aforesaid finding in view of the narration made in Columns-7 & 9 of the inquest report (Ext.3). The inquest report was prepared in between 2 P.M. to 2.30 P.M. on 11.05.2013. P.W.4 has testified that, Police examined him at about 11 A.M. on 11.05.2013. So, by the time of inquest report, the I.O. had ample knowledge about the assailant. But in Columns-7 or 9 of the inquest report, no name of assailant has been mentioned. This aspect in the inquest report reinforces our view so far as veracity of P.W.4 is concerned. 16. Accordingly, we are of the view that, it is not safe to base the conviction of the appellant on the sole testimony of P.W.4 without any corroboration in material particular. 17. Mrs. Saswata Pattnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate relies on the evidence of P.W.8, the I.O. in paragraph-3 of his examination-in-chief wherein he has testified thus :- “………On 17.05.2014 I apprehended the accused and examined them. They admitted to have assaulted the deceased by a spade, resulting his death at the spot. Accused Pilku stated to have concealed the weapon of offence (spade) under his bed in presence of the witnesses and accordingly I prepared his statement U/S. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Thereafter accused led me and the witnesses to his house and brought out the alleged spade and produced before me……..” 18. There is, however, no independent witness to give credence to the aforesaid assertion of the I.O. (P.W.8). 19. P.W.6 in paragraph-2 of his testimony has testified that, Police seized the alleged spade in his presence from the possession of accused Pilku and prepared seizure list vide Ext.4. He is totally silent about the statement of the appellant, which assumes relevance under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. This piece of evidence also does not inspire our confidence at all. 20. In the net result, the appeal is allowed. The conviction of the appellant in Criminal Trial No.187 of 2013 and the sentence recorded therein by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Koraput are set-aside. The appellant be released forthwith from the custody, if his detention is not required in any other case. M.S. Sahoo, J. - I agree.