STATE Vs. NILAMBAR RATH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24 -8 -1986 passed by the 1st. Additional District Sessions Judge, Cuttack acquitting all the three Respondents of the charges of murder criminal conspiracy and of minor offences like house trespass and theft from the dwelling house.

(2.) BRIEFLY put the facts of the case are these Ratnamani Parida, a lady Health Visitor attached to Indupur Primary Health Centre (P.H.C.) of Cuttack district (P.W. 1), the informant in this case} lodged a report with Kendrapara police that during her absence, in the night of 23/24 -6 -1983 some unknown culprits entered her dwelling house and committed the murder of her old mother, Jhumpei Bewa, her minor son Arun aged about 13 years and Bijoya, a friend of her son aged about 14 years, and that some of her personal belongings were stolen away. In the F.I.R. she had however suspected Respondent Khirod Kumar Das, a cook of the P.H.C. and his friend Hagura @ Jitendranath Jena with whom she had prior ill -feeling and strained relationship. After recording the F.I.R. P.W. 25, the C.I. of Police Kendrapara, registered a case and took up investigation. He had taken various steps in the investigation of the case, like taking photographs of the spot, pressing into service the Scientific Experts from the Foresic Science Laboratory, Bhubaneswar. Besides holding the inquest over the dead body of the three deceased he sent the dead bodies for post -mortem examination, examined some witnesses and recorded their statements. P.W. 23, the successor in Office of P.W. 25, took charge of the investigation of the case on 21 -7 -1983 and took some further steps in investigation. On 6 -8 -1983 he, however, made over charge of the investigation to P.W. 26, the Inspector of the Crime Branch, who finally submitted charge -sheet on 3 -10 -1983 against the three accused -Respondents. In course of investigation some letters and a pair of canvas shoes connected with the alleged crime were seized and steps were taken for obtaining the reports regarding the foot prints of the shoe and also matching of the blood groups. Confessional statement of the Respondent Hagura was also recorded during the course of investigation. On completion of investigation charge -sheet was placed against the accused -Respondents under Sections 120 -B, 302, 459 and 380, I.P.C. All the three Respondents have stood trial for offence under Section 120 -B, I.P.C., while Respondent Khirod under Sections 302, 459 and 380, I.P.C. and Respondents Hagura and Nilambar under Section 302 read with Section 109, I.P.C.

(3.) IN this case prosecution has examined 26 witnesses including the informant, several Investigating Officers, two Doctors conducting the authority, experts from S.F.S.L., Rasulgarh and a few witnesses to speak regarding the incident. There is no direct evidence to prove the case of the prosecution and the prosecution has sought to prove its Case through circumstantial evidence appearing against the Respondents. The learned trial Judge on a careful scrutiny of the -entire evidence on record and taking into consideration the various items of circumstantial evidence, placed before him, namely, enmity between the accused persons and P.W. 1, presence of the accused persons at the Indupur P.H.C. on the date of occurrence, recovery of a pair of canvas shoes (M.O.I) suspected to have been stained with blood from the quarters of the senior Medical Officer of the P.H.C., and the statement of Respondent @ Jitendranath Jena (Ext. 31) recorded under Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure by the J.M.F.C., Kendrapara has not accepted the prosecution case against the accused -Respondent. In other words, he found that the circumstantial 'evidence was not conclusive enough to prove the guilt of the accused Respondents of the various offences with which they were charged. Accordingly he has recorded the order of acquittal of all the three Respondents.