PANDA,J. - (1.)THIS is an appeal filed by the State against an order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge, Sambalpur in Sessions Case No. 1(S) of 1974 on 29.8.1974, wherein the respondent was facing trial under Section 302, Indian Penal Code for having intentionally caused the death of his wife Subarnamanjari Dei on 22.8.1973 at his residence in village Rajpur by firing at her from his gun M.O. 1.
(2.)THE prosecution case briefly is thus : The respondent is the erstwhile Zamindar of Rajpur, District Sambalpur. He was given to excessive drinking. By the time of occurrence, he had crossed 40 and both the respondent and the deceased had at least a married daughter aged about 27 (P.W. 10). Yet due to this evil habit of the husband, the couple had not a happy time. On 22.8.1973 at about noon, a gunshot report was heard from the residence of the accused. Soon floated a rumour that the wife of the accused had been shot at. Hearing this P.W. 4, a neighbour rushed to a doctor P.W. 1 who immediately came on a motor cycle. He found the injured already dead and the respondent sitting outside the room on the verandah with his hands tied with a napkin. P.W 1 reported the matter at Brajarajnagar P.S. at 3 -30 p.m. which has been treated as F.I.R. (Ex. 1) in this case. P.W. 12 took up investigation, found a D.B.B.L. gun and a rifle in the room near the head of the deceased. The gun (M.O. I) on examination revealed to have been recently used. On post -mortem certain pellets were recovered from the dead body which were sent to be State Forensic Science Laboratory who opined that they had been released from the empty cartridge (M.O. II) fixed from M.O. I. Finally charge -sheet was submitted against the respondent with the result as aforesaid.
The plea of the respondent was that he was innocent; that he had not the bad habit of drinking; that the gun M.O. I belongs to him; that he was not present at home on the date of occurrence; and that his wife committed suicide.

(3.)THERE are 12 witnesses for the prosecution and none for the defence. Admittedly there are no eye -witnesses to the occurrence. The inmates of the house of the accused such as P.W 5 -the farm servant; P.W. 7 -the maid servant; P.W. 8 -the maid servant's son; P.W. 9 -the cook; and P.W. 10 -the daughter of the accused have been declared hostile by the prosecution. The other material witnesses are P.W. 1 -the doctor who immediately appeared at the scene on getting information from P.W. 4, found the injured dead and the accused sitting in front of the verandah with hands tied and talking incoherently; P.W. 2 -the doctor who held the post -mortem examination; P.W. 3 -the Chemical Examiner, State Forensic Science Laboratory at Rasulgarh to whom the gun and the empty cartridge together with the pellets found in the body of the deceased were sent for examination; and P.W. 4 -a close neighbour who on hearing the gun report and the rumour that the deceased -who was popularly known as Zamindariani, had been shot at rushed to P.W. 1 for medical aid. P.Ws. 11 and 12 are the two Investigating Officers. The former submitted the charge -sheet on 21.11.1973 and it is the latter who recorded the F.I.R. as given by P.W. 1 (Ext. 1) at 3 -30 p.m. on 22.8.1973.