JUDGMENT

Dr. D.P. CHOUDHURY, J. - This is a Government Appeal filed by the State against the order of acquittal passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Titilagarh in S.C. No. 35(B)/9 of 1999. We have heard Ms. Sabitri Rath, learned Additional Government Advocate. Even if none appears for the respondent, after hearing argument from the State and perusal of L.C.R., we dispose of herein this Appeal today.

2.The backdrop of the case of the prosecution is that accused Baikuntha Putel is the only son of deceased Jugeswar Putel. The other accused Basanta Putel is the son of accused Baikuntha Putel. It is alleged inter alia by the prosecution that there was strained relationship between the parties prior to the occurrence, for which deceased had filed a maintenance case against the present accused Baikuntha Putel and the said accused was directed to pay maintenance allowance. The deceased was compelled to live on beggary and taking shelter in the temple. It is further alleged that on the occurrence night the accused persons committed murder of the deceased and put his dead body in a gunny bag and threw the same to a village pond. When the dead body was floated in the water, the same was brought to the notice of the villagers and then F.I.R. lodged by one Judhistir Putel. After necessary investigation charge sheet was submitted.

3.The plea of the defence was complete denial to the occurrence and the charge leveled against them.

4.Learned trial Court after analyzing the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the defence, acquitted the accused persons by disbelieving the case of the prosecution.

5.Learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State submitted that the appreciation of evidence by the learned trial Court is erroneous and illegal and there are lot of material on record to prove the circumstantial evidence against the accused persons and all the incriminating facts and circumstances cumulatively and unerringly point out the guilt of the accused persons. She further submitted that even if it is an appeal against acquittal, but there remains enough material on record to show that the evidence on record duly proved guilty of accused. The false plea taken by the defence is additional link to the case of the prosecution, for which the Court is required to interfere with the appeal against acquittal.

6.On going through the judgment of the learned trial Court it appears that the learned trial Court has discussed the evidence in detail. This case is solely based on circumstantial evidence as there is no eye witness to the occurrence.

7.In Nizam & Anr. V. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2015 STPL (WEB) 2348 S.C., the Hon’ble Apex Court have held as follows:-

"9. The principle of circumstantial evidence has been reiterated by this Court in a plethora of cases. In Bodhraj @ Bodha And Ors. vs. State of Jammu & Kashmire, (2002) 8 SCC 45, wherein this Court quoted number of judgments and held as under :-

“10. It has been consistently laid down by this Court that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. See Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1977) 2 SCC 99, Eradu v. State of Hyderbad AIR 1956 SC 316, Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka (1983) 2 SCC 330, State of U.P. v. Sukhbasi (1985) Suppl. SCC 79, Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (1987) 1 SCC 1 and Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P., 1989 Suppl. (1) SCC 560) The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to e shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. In Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab AIR 1954 SC 621 it was laid down that where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances the cumulative effect of the circumst