JUDGMENT

Order of conviction under Section 302 IPC against the accused in S.T. Case No.109A/34 of 1999-2000 is under challenge by the appellant.

2. Appellant Malia @ Abhimanyu Das together with his parents, accused Chandramani Das and Hemalata Das and his elder brother Arun Das were charged for the offence under Sections 364, 302, 404, 201/34 I.P.C. on allegation that on 1.1.1999 at about 7 p.m., Abhimanyu kidnapped the minor girl, Bindu Nahak aged about 14 years from the lawful custody of her mother Parbati Nahak (PW5) and that said Bindu Nahak suffered a homicidal death and her dead body was found on 10.1.1999 and her ornaments were misappropriated by the accused persons by sharing common intention.

3. According to the case of the prosecution, accused Malia @ Abhimanyu Das aged about 19 years had illicit relationship with Bindu a girl aged about 14 years. Mother of Bindu was running a shop and having business transaction as well as social courtesy extended to the accused persons. On 1.1.1999 in the evening hours accused Abhimanyu came and intimated PW5 to go to their house to collect paddy and PW5 proceeded for that purpose. After return to her shop-cum-residence, she found her daughter missing from the house. When she did not find the daughter, she tried to locate accused Abhimanyu Das and she found him missing. She intimated this fact to her husband, Lambodar Nahak (PW12). They were in search of the Bindu and Abhimanyu and on 10.1.1999 PW5 got information about floating of a dead body on the other side of the river “Brahmani”. She went to ascertain and found that to be her daughter. Thereafter, PW12 together with others also went and confirmed about the identity of the dead body of the deceased. The dead body had been put on a gunny bag fixed with a stone. There were injuries on her neck and other parts of the body. PW12, thus, lodged F.I.R. (Ext. 2) before O.I.C. Kaniha Police Station and set the law into motion. PW20, i.e., Dr. Santilata Mohanty, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased confirmed about homicidal death of the deceased due to cut injury on and around the neck. In course of the investigation, PW19, the investigating officer recovered missing ornaments of the deceased on being produced by accused Chandramani. He also recovered the weapon of offence being concealed by accused Chandramani and he also recorded the confessional statement of accused Chandramani and Arun that they had concealed the dead body of the deceased. The seizure of the incriminating articles, i.e. blood-stained wearing apparels etc. were seized and ultimately charge-sheet was submitted. Accused persons denied to the allegation and claimed for trial.

4. In course of the trial, prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses. Amongst them PWs 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16 are the villagers, who did not support the prosecution on the matters of interrogation of the accused, regarding recovery of incriminating materials, ornaments, wearing apparels etc. and also the extra-judicial confession. PWs. 5 and 12 deposed about missing of the girl and also absence of the accused Chandramani from his house at the corresponding time. In that respect PW2 only stated that in that evening he had seen Abhimanyu @ Malia and Parbati, being present in the shop. As noted above, PW20 proved the post-mortem report, Ext. 18 and his opinion report, Ext. 17 stating MO1 as weapon of offence.

5. On assessment of such evidence, learned Addl. Sessions Judge recorded the finding that there is no sufficient evidence to connect the accused Chandramani, Hemalata and Arun with the alleged crime for the offence under Sections 404, 364 and 201 I.P.C. and accordingly acquitted them. While accepting the evidence of PW20 about the homicidal death of the deceased and taking note of missing of the accused from the house during the relevant time and recovery of ornaments from the house where he resides, learned Addl. Sessions Judge found that circumstantially i