JUDGMENT : RAJANI DUBEY, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.02.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in S.T. No.27/2016 whereby and whereunder appellants have been held guilty for commission of offence and sentenced as described below:- CONVICTION SENTENCE Under Section 302/34 IPC R.I. for life with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount to further undergo additional S.I. for 03 years. Under Section 364 of IPC R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs.1000/- in default of fine amount to further undergo additional S.I. for 02 years Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently 2. The prosecution story, leading to conviction of the appellants is that on 13.12.2015, Gokulram (PW-1), husband of deceased, lodged a oral report in police station Manpur to the effect that on 11.12.2015, he had gone in search of job on cycle and when on 12.12.2015 at around 2.00 pm, he returned his home he found that his wife (since deceased) was not present in the house. Upon inquiring from his son Pramod whereabouts of deceased, he showed his ignorance. Thereafter, Gokulram (PW-1) went to Bharritola market and while returning from the market, at around 5.00 PM, Prem (accused/appellant) met him on the way and called him to his home. Thereafter, he immediately went to the house of Prem (accused/appellant) where he informed Gokulram (PW-1) that his wife has been killed and hidden in their maize field. Thereafter, Gokulram (PW-1) went with village Kotwar, Ranjit Hidko, Doulat Hidko and other villagers & saw that Gokulram’s wife was murdered and hidden in maize filed covering with a fertilizer sack. As it was night on 12.12.2015, therefore, he went to the police station on 13.12.2015 and on his oral complaint, merg (Ex.P-1) was registered followed by an FIR (Ex.P-2) against unknown person. 3. On 13.12.2015, inquest on the body of deceased was prepared vide Ex.P-4 by Mukesh Yadav, Inspector (PW-19) and dead body of deceased was sent for postmortem examination to Community Health Center, Manpur vide Ex.P-23-A, where Dr. Nishant Sori (PW-17) and Dr. Seema Thakur (PW-18) conducted postmortem examination on the body of deceased who gave their report under Ex.P-23 noticing following injuries :- (i) Lacerated wound in the size of 2 cm x 1 cm x 2 cm above right eyeball under the eye orbit. Nishant Sori (PW-17) and Dr. Seema Thakur (PW-18) conducted postmortem examination on the body of deceased who gave their report under Ex.P-23 noticing following injuries :- (i) Lacerated wound in the size of 2 cm x 1 cm x 2 cm above right eyeball under the eye orbit. (ii) Lacerated wound in the size of 2 cm x 1 cm x 2 cm in nasal septum. (iii) Lacerated would in the size of 2 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm in chest. (iv) Lacerated wound in the size of 1 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5cm in chest. (v) Contusion in the size of 10 cm x 5 cm in chest in bluish red color. (vi) All the injuries were caused by hard and blunt object. The doctor has opined the cause of death of deceased to be hypovolumic shock due to injuries in vital organ etc. (Brain and lungs) and the death was homicidal in nature. 4. The police prepared spot map vide Ex.P-6. Spot map was also prepared by Patwari vide Ex.P-7. From the spot, white- green colour fertilizer sacks and 03 Nos. of white plastic bags were seized in presence of the witnesses vide Ex.P-9. Bloodstained soil and plain soil were seized from the spot vide Ex.P-10. Vaginal slides of deceased, petticoat, underwear, saree etc. were seized vide seizure memo Ex.P- 19. On 16.12.2015, memorandum statement of accused Guman Singh was recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act vide Ex.P-12, and at his instance, axe used in the commission of crime, one spade, one white colour 5 liter jerrycan were seized vide seizure memo Ex.P-12. The accused/appellants and other accused persons were arrested vide Ex.P-28 to Ex.P-31 and sent to Community Health Center, Manpur for medical examination vide Ex.P-35 to P-38, where Dr. Girish Khobragade (not examined) medically examined the accused/appellants and other accused persons and found them to be capable of performing sexual intercourse. The seized articles were sent for its chemical examination to FSL Raipur vide Ex.P-32 and FSL report was obtained by the prosecution under Ex.P-34, according to which, human blood was found on soil and saree (Article – A and C). Blood was also found on axe but its origin could not be confirmed being disintegrated. 5. The seized articles were sent for its chemical examination to FSL Raipur vide Ex.P-32 and FSL report was obtained by the prosecution under Ex.P-34, according to which, human blood was found on soil and saree (Article – A and C). Blood was also found on axe but its origin could not be confirmed being disintegrated. 5. After completing usual investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused-appellants and other accused persons under Sections 364, 376(d), 302, 201, 34 of IPC to which the accused-appellants abjured their guilt and pleaded for trial. 6. So as to hold the accused-appellants guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses. Statements of the accused-appellants and other co-accused persons were also recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. 7. The learned trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, while acquitting the accused/appellants from the offence under Section 376(d), 201 of IPC and other accused persons from the offence under Sections 302/34, 376(d), 364, 201 of IPC, convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is contrary to law and material available on record, which deserved to be set aside. There is no eye-witness to the incident and the prosecution case is rests upon circumstantial evidence but the chain of circumstantial evidence is not complete to implicate the accused/appellant in the crime in question. The learned Trial Judge convicted the appellants only the basis of suspicion but it is settled in law that howsoever strong the needle of suspicion moves, it cannot take the place of evidence. Learned counsel further submits that none of the prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution case and the learned Trial Judge passed the impugned judgment only on the ground that the accused/appellants and the deceased were last seen together. There is huge gap between the last seen and recovery of dead body of deceased and possibility of third person coming between cannot be ruled out. There is huge gap between the last seen and recovery of dead body of deceased and possibility of third person coming between cannot be ruled out. The finding recorded by the learned Trial Court is bad in eye of law as it is settled position of law that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt but the learned Trial Court recorded the finding that the appellants did not contradict about the blood in articles. So, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is liable to be set aside. In support of his submission, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment dated 21.05.2025 of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Padman Bibhar Vs. State of Odisha in SLP (Cri.) No. 17440 of 2024 and Kanhaiya Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan , (2014) 4 SCC 715 . 9. On the other hand, learned State counsel supporting the impugned judgment of conviction submitted that the learned trial Court minutely appreciated oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution. The prosecution has been successful in proving the complete chain of circumstantial evidence to bring home the guilt of the appellants. Learned State counsel further submits that the appellants were last seen with deceased taking her forcibly and on next day the dead body of deceased was recovered and the old enmity between the appellants and deceased has also been proved in the case which was the motive behind the crime. The appellants did not offer any plausible explanation that when they parted the company of deceased and thereafter with whom and where the deceased went. The learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant. So, this appeal being without any merit deserves to be dismissed. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 11. It is apparent from the record of the learned trial Court that the learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 364, 376(d), 302/34 and 201 of IPC against the appellants and other co-accused persons & after appreciating oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court while acquitting the appellants from the offence under Sections 376(d), 201 of IPC and other co-accused persons from the offence & Sections 364, 376(d), 302/34 and 201 of IPC, convicted the present appellants as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 12. Hence, this appeal. 12. The first question which arises for consideration before this Court is whether the death of deceased was homicidal in nature or not. 13. Gokul Ram (PW-1) has stated that on the date of incident he had gone to village Konde and after staying there whole night, he came back on second day and went to market. While returning from market, accused Prem Singh met him on the way who told him (this witness) that his wife has been thrown in maize field after killing. Thereafter, he went to village Kotwar and informed the incident. He has also stated that he also informed the incident to Barsu and Devaram and after that they went to the place of incident where he saw the dead body of his wife covered with wood and sack of fertilizer. He has also stated that thereafter he lodged the report of incident in police station and police recorded merg (Ex.P-1) followed by FIR (Ex.P-2) in which he admitted his signature on ‘A to A’ part. He has also admitted his signature on notice of panchanama (Ex.P-3), inquest memo (Ex.P-4) and dead body supurdnama (Ex.P-5) on ‘A to A’ part. 14. Mukesh Yadav (PW-19), Inspector, has stated that on 13.12.2015, Gokul Ram (PW-1) made a report in police station to this effect that accused Premlal informed him (PW-1) that body of his wife hid in the maize filed after killing. On the basis of this report, he recorded merg intimation (Ex.P-1) followed by FIR (Ex.P-2) against unknown person. He has also stated that thereafter he issued notice (Ex.P-3) for preparing inquest memo and prepared inquest on the body of deceased vide Ex.P-4 and sent the body of deceased for postmortem examination to C.H.C., Manpur vide Ex.P-23A. 15. Dr. Seema Thakur (PW-18) is the autopsy surgeon who conducted postmortem examination on the body of deceased and noticed following injuries :- (i) Lacerated wound in the size of 2 cm x 1 cm x 2 cm above right eyeball under the eye orbit. (ii) Lacerated wound in the size of 2 cm x 1 cm x 2 cm in nasal septum. (iii) Lacerated would in the size of 2 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm in chest. (iv) Lacerated wound in the size of 1 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm in chest. (ii) Lacerated wound in the size of 2 cm x 1 cm x 2 cm in nasal septum. (iii) Lacerated would in the size of 2 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm in chest. (iv) Lacerated wound in the size of 1 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm in chest. (v) Contusion in the size of 10 cm x 5 cm in chest in bluish red color. All the injuries were caused by hard and blunt object. The doctor has opined the cause of death of deceased to be hypovolumic shock due to injuries in vital organ etc. (Brain and lungs) and the death was homicidal in nature and gave her report under Ex.P-23. 16. The autopsy surgeon has also stated that on 29.12.2015, the clothes of deceased like saree, petticoat and undergarment were brought before her for query report of postmortem, wherein she was asked to ascertain whether the stains of semen were found on the clothes or not ?, and she answered the query vide Ex.P-26 that some spots have been found on the clothes and discharged outer area of perineum but she could not definitely say that semen present in the vagina were of different persons, and therefore, she prepared vaginal slides and handed over the same to the constable for its chemical examination. 17. The prosecution sent the seized article to FSL for its chemical examination and a report thereof was also obtained, and according to the FSL report (Ex.P-34), sperm and semen was found in vaginal slides (Article -F), petticoat (Article – G), underwear (Article – H) and saree (Article – I). Thus, looking to the evidence of Dr. Seema Thakur (PW-18) and postmortem report (Ex.P-23), it is proved beyond doubt that the death of deceased was homicidal in nature. 18. The next question which arises for consideration by this Court whether it is the accused/appellants who after kidnapping the deceased killed her. 19. Admittedly, the conviction of the appellants is based on circumstantial evidence of last seen and in order to prove the complete chain of circumstances, it is imperative for this Court to go through the evidence of last seen i.e. Padma (PW-6), Pramod Kumar (PW-7) and Kamteela Bai (PW-14). 20. Padma (PW-6) is the child witness. The learned trial Court after satisfying itself that the child witness is able to answer the questions put to her rationally, examined her. 20. Padma (PW-6) is the child witness. The learned trial Court after satisfying itself that the child witness is able to answer the questions put to her rationally, examined her. She has stated that she along with her mother Kamteela Bai (PW-14) had gone to the house of deceased for chicken (pullet) but she refused to give it. She has also stated that she had seen accused/appellants Bisahu and Ishwar standing backyard of the house of deceased. Accused/appellant Bisahu had gagged the mouth of deceased and accused/appellant Ishwar took her dragging. This witness, in para 7 of her cross-examination, has admitted the suggestion of defence that his mother Kamteela Bai did not yell. Rajesh was sleeping in his house, therefore, they did not go to his house and tell him about the incident. Rajesh was not their neighbour. She has admitted that her mother did not tell Rajesh knocking his door that accused/appellants Bisahu and Ishwar had taken the deceased forcefully after gagging her mouth. She has also admitted that next day, her mother and father did not go to police station and informed the police about gagging of mouth of deceased and taking her forcefully by the accused/appellants. 21. Pramod Kumar (PW-7) is the child witness aged around 9 years and son of deceased. The learned trial Court after satisfying itself that the child witness is able to answer the questions rationally put to him, examined him. He has stated that accused/appellants Bisahu Ram and Ishwar had come to his house. Before the accused/appellants arrived, Padma (PW-6) and her mother (PW-14) had come to his house asking for a chicken but his mother did not give them chicken. He has also stated that accused/appellant Bisahu and Ishwar had taken his mother with them after gagging her mouth. The police had come to his village and enquired from him and he had told the police about his mother. He has also stated that he was frightened when the accused/appellants took his mother after gagging her mouth and due to fear he went to his mother-in-law and slept with her. The police had come to his village and enquired from him and he had told the police about his mother. He has also stated that he was frightened when the accused/appellants took his mother after gagging her mouth and due to fear he went to his mother-in-law and slept with her. In cross-examination, this witness has stated that while recording his police statements (Ex.D-3 and D-4) he had told the police that the accused-appellants had come to his house, they took his mother saying that some guest were calling her and thereafter his mother did not return, but if the said statement is not written in his police statement, he cannot tell the reason. This witness has admitted the suggestion of defence that when he woke up at morning, his mother was not present in the house. He denied this suggestion that he is naming the accused/appellant Bisahu and Ishwar at the behest of his father. 22. Kamteela Bai (PW-14) has stated that on 11.12.2015 at around 8.00 pm, she had gone to deceased’s house with her daughter Padma (PW-6) to ask for chicken but she denied to give her chicken. She has also stated that when she came out of deceased’s house, she heard her sound, so she turned back and saw that accused/appellant Bisahu was pressing deceased’s mouth and accused/appellant Ishwar was pushing her from behind. She got scared and went to her house and informed her husband about the said incident but her husband paid ignorance and said her to go to sleep quietly and thereafter they both went to sleep. She has also stated that next day, she came to know that deceased was killed and her body was thrown in the maize field. In cross-examination, this witness had admitted this suggestion that she did not yell when she saw while deceased being taken by the accused/appellants after pressing her mouth. She has also admitted that she and her daughter did not make any attempt/effort to stop the accused/appellants while the deceased was being taken away by them. This witness has also admitted that neither her husband nor she went to Patel, village Kotwar and Sarpanch to inform about the incident. Next day also they did not inform police, panch, sarpanch and kotwar. She has also admitted that the police had come 3-4 time for investigation then also they did not informed the incident to anyone. This witness has also admitted that neither her husband nor she went to Patel, village Kotwar and Sarpanch to inform about the incident. Next day also they did not inform police, panch, sarpanch and kotwar. She has also admitted that the police had come 3-4 time for investigation then also they did not informed the incident to anyone. 23. During investigation, memorandum statement of accused Guman Singh was recorded vide Ex.P-12, and at his instance, one axe, spade and white colour 5 liter jerrycan were recovered from the maize field of accused Prem Singh and seizure was made under Ex.P-13. The articles seized during the investigating were subjected to its chemical examination from the FSL and as per FSL report (Ex.P-34), blood was found on soil, saree and axe which were recovered at the instance of accused Guman but the origin of blood could not be confirmed being disintegrated. The learned trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, recorded its finding that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against accused Guman and Prem Singh beyond reasonable doubt and thus acquitted them from the charges under Sections 364, 376(d), 302/34 and 201 of IPC, and no acquittal appeal was preferred by the prosecution against their acquittal. 24. The conviction of the accused/appellants is based on the evidence of last seen by Padma (PW-6), Pramod Kumar (PW-7) and Kamteela Bai (PW-14). The learned trial Court finds that the statements of all three witnesses are trustworthy and reliable who have seen the present accused/appellants while taking the deceased forcefully gagging her mouth but close scrutiny of the evidence of last seen by Padma (PW-6), Pramod Kumar (PW-7) and Kamteela Bai (PW-14) makes it clear that they did not disclose the factum of taking the deceased by the present accused/appellants after gagging her mouth to anybody and they remained silent for about 3-4 days, and as per the prosecution, these witnesses saw the incident on 11.12.2015 at around 8.00 pm. Merg intimation (Ex.P-1) was lodged by Gokulram (PW-1) on 13.12.2015 on 9.30 am and FIR (Ex.P-2) was registered on 13.12.2015 at 9.35 am against the unknown person. The police recorded the statement of Gokul Ram (PW-1) on 13.12.2015 vide Ex.D-1, wherein he suspected accused/appellants Bisahu and Ishwar for causing the murder of his wife. Merg intimation (Ex.P-1) was lodged by Gokulram (PW-1) on 13.12.2015 on 9.30 am and FIR (Ex.P-2) was registered on 13.12.2015 at 9.35 am against the unknown person. The police recorded the statement of Gokul Ram (PW-1) on 13.12.2015 vide Ex.D-1, wherein he suspected accused/appellants Bisahu and Ishwar for causing the murder of his wife. The statement of Pramod Kumar (PW-7) was recorded by the Investigating Officer on 13.12.2015 vide Ex.D-3, wherein he did not disclose this fact that he had seen both the accused/appellants pressing mouth of the deceased and what he stated in his police statement that he was with his grand-mother and went to sleep at 7.00 pm after dinner and when he woke up at 7.00 am, his mother was not present in the house and being asked, he told that he did not know whereabouts of his deceased mother. Later, second police statement of Pramod Kumar (PW-7) was recorded by Investigating Officer on 16.12.2015 vide Ex.D-4, wherein he has stated that accused/appellants Bisahu and Ishwar had caught hold of his mother, gagged her mother and dragged her. Police statement of Kamteela Bai (PW-14) was recorded on 16.12.2015 vide Ex.D-5, wherein she disclosed the factum of dragging the deceased by accused/appellants Bisahu and Ishwar. It is apparent from the merg intimation (Ex.P-1), FIR (Ex.P-2), inquest memo (Ex.P-4) that all these documents were prepared on 13.12.2015 and before 16.12.2015 all three witnesses (PW-6, PW-7 and PW-14) had not stated against the present accused/appellants. 25. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Padam (supra) held in para 15 to 21 as under :- 15. From the above evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 it emerges that when they were taking bath, other villagers were there on the bathing ghat, and that the appellant and the deceased had gone to collect the cashew nuts. However, when the appellant was inquired about the whereabouts of the deceased and he was confronted, he did not admit the guilt rather accompanied PW-3 in search of the deceased near the river and cashew jungle. This conduct of the appellant suggests that he did not run away from the village nor admitted his guilt as probably he had nothing to hide. 16. This conduct of the appellant suggests that he did not run away from the village nor admitted his guilt as probably he had nothing to hide. 16. True it is that in the autopsy report, PW-17 found that the death is homicidal, due to fracture skull causing massive haemorrhage, but the issue is whether there is sufficient conclusive evidence to establish that the appellant has committed the murder. 17. PW-13 (Mahadev Sikaka) is also a witness of 'last seen together'. He saw the appellant and deceased going towards village Madhapadar at around 12 noon and after some time he saw the appellant returning alone and then asked him about the deceased to which he did not reply and after asking for three to four times, he replied that he had gone nearby village for some work and thereafter the appellant hurriedly took his bath and went away. According to this witness, the appellant's wife (Sanju Bihar) is cousin of the deceased. After marriage, the appellant had gone to Kerala and did not return. When his wife fell ill and was taken to the hospital by her relatives, the appellant returned from Kerala and suspected his wife's illicit relations with a co- villager and due to anger, he had killed Akash. However, in cross- examination, he admits that the police had not recorded his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Therefore, this fact about motive is narrated by him for the first time in court hence the same cannot be relied upon. Interestingly, PW-3 father of the deceased has not stated anything about the motive in his examination- in-chief. According to PW-3, the appellant is his nephew being son of his brother-in-law. Thus, the appellant and PW-3 are close relative. 18. However, the crucial question is whether the evidence of last seen together is sufficient enough to convict the appellant. The stone allegedly used for committing murder was recovered near the dead body but the same is not in consequence of any memorandum statement of the appellant. As a matter of fact, the I.O has not recorded any memorandum statement of the appellant. In fact, it is the case of the prosecution that the appellant neither admitted the guilt nor got the weapon or dead body recovered at his instance. As a matter of fact, the I.O has not recorded any memorandum statement of the appellant. In fact, it is the case of the prosecution that the appellant neither admitted the guilt nor got the weapon or dead body recovered at his instance. Even the chemical examination report is inconclusive although human blood was found on the shirt and on the stone, but the blood group was not matched. 19. The present is a case where except for the evidence of 'last seen together' there is no other incriminating material against the appellant. 20. This Court in Kanhaiya Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan has held that evidence on last seen together' is a weak piece of evidence and conviction only on the basis of 'last seen together' without there being any other corroborative evidence against the accused, is not sufficient to convict the accused for an offence under Section 302 IPC. The following passage from the judgment in paras 12 and 15 can be profitably referred: "12. The circumstance of last seen together does not by itself and necessarily lead to the inference that it was the accused who committed the crime. There must be something more establishing connectivity between the accused and the crime. Mere non- explanation on the part of the appellant, in our considered opinion, by itself cannot lead to proof of guilt against the appellant. 15. The theory of last seen - the appellant having gone with the deceased in the manner noticed hereinbefore, is the singular piece of circumstantial evidence available against him. The conviction of the appellant cannot be maintained merely on suspicion, however strong it may be, or on his conduct. These facts assume further importance on account of absence of proof of motive particularly when it is proved that there was cordial relationship between the accused and the deceased for a long time. The fact situation bears great similarity to that in Madho Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2010) 15 SCC 588". 21. Similarly, this Court in Rambraksh @ Jalim vs. State of Chhattisgarh has reiterated above legal position in the following words in paras 12 and 13: "12. It is trite law that a conviction cannot be recorded against the accused merely on the ground that the accused was last seen with the deceased. In other words, a conviction cannot be based on the only circumstance of last seen together. It is trite law that a conviction cannot be recorded against the accused merely on the ground that the accused was last seen with the deceased. In other words, a conviction cannot be based on the only circumstance of last seen together. Normally, last seen theory comes into play where the time gap, between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead, is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the perpetrator of the crime becomes impossible. To record a conviction, the last seen together itself would not be sufficient and the prosecution has to complete the chain of circumstances to bring home the guilt of the accused. 13. In a similar fact situation this Court in Krishnan v. State of T.N. (2014) 12 SCC 279 held as follows: (SCC pp. 284-85, paras 21-24) "21. The conviction cannot be based only on circumstance of last seen together with the deceased. In Arjun Marik v. State of Bihar (1994) Supp (2) SCC 372 this Court held as follows: (SCC p. 385, para 31). “31. Thus the evidence that the appellant had gone to Sitaram in the evening of 19-7-1985 and had stayed in the night at the house of deceased Sitaram is very shaky and inconclusive. Even if it is accepted that they were there it would at best amount to be the evidence of the appellants having been seen last together with the deceased. But it is settled law that the only circumstance of last seen will not complete the chain of circumstances to record the finding that it is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and, therefore, no conviction on that basis alone can be founded.'” 26. In Kanhaiya Lal (supra) , the Hon’ble Apex Court held in para 12 as under :- “12. The circumstance of last seen together does not by itself and necessarily lead to the inference that it was the accused who committed the crime. There must be something more establishing connectivity between the accused and the crime. Mere non-explanation on the part of the Appellant, in our considered opinion, by itself cannot lead to proof of guilt against the Appellant.” 27. There must be something more establishing connectivity between the accused and the crime. Mere non-explanation on the part of the Appellant, in our considered opinion, by itself cannot lead to proof of guilt against the Appellant.” 27. In the light of aforesaid dicta of Hon’ble Apex court, in the present case also, it is aptly clear that except the evidence of last seen together by PW-6, PW-7 and PW-14, whose evidence is itself doubtful, there is no clinching and credible evidence has been produced by the prosecution against the present accused/appellants to complete the chain of circumstantial evidence. It is apparent from the testimonies of PW-6, PW-7 and PW-14 that they only disclosed the factum of last seen theory after three days of the incident i.e. on 16.12.2015 and before that they never disclosed this fact to anybody in the village. Their non disclosure of the fact for 2-3 days creates doubt in the prosecution case. That apart, the investigating Officer (PW-19) has recorded the statement of Pramod (PW-7) twice, first on 13.12.2015 vide Ex.D-3 and second on 16.12.2015 vide Ex.D-4. The investigating Officer (PW-19) has admitted in para 40 of his evidence that Pramod (PW-7) had not stated anything about the incident when he recorded his statement for the first time on 13.12.2015, and when he recorded the supplementary statement of PW-7 on 16.12.2015, then he stated against the present accused/appellants. The aforesaid ambiguity and irregularity in the statements of all three witnesses (PW-6, PW-7 and PW-14) of last seen creates suspicion and their statements are full of doubt. Had the incident been informed immediately by these witnesses to any person of the village, the picture would have been different. The accused/apellants were last seen together with the deceased on 11.12.2015 and the dead body of deceased was recovered from the maize field on 13.12.2015 i.e. after two days of the incident. There is huge time gap between the last seen together and recovery of the dead body that too at the instance of husband (PW-1) of the deceased, who was informed by accused Prem Singh, and thus possibility of third person coming in between cannot be ruled out. Further, in the police investigation, alleged weapon of murder axe was seized on the memorandum statement of co-accused Guman, who has been acquitted by the learned trial Court. Further, in the police investigation, alleged weapon of murder axe was seized on the memorandum statement of co-accused Guman, who has been acquitted by the learned trial Court. There is no connecting complete link between the last seen together and recovery of dead body, which could establish this fact beyond reasonable doubt that the accused/appellants are the real perpetrator of crime. The prosecution has not been able to produce clinching, credible and reliable evidence against the present appellants but the learned trial Court did not appreciate all these facts in its true perspective and recorded perverse finding of conviction against the accused/appellants. Being so, the finding recorded by the learned trial Court is not sustainable and the accused/appellants deserves for acquittal extending them benefit of doubt. 28. In view of the aforesaid circumstances and discussion, it is not possible to sustain the impugned judgment and sentence. The appeal is allowed . The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are set aside and the accused/appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them by giving them benefit of doubt. 29. The accused/appellants are on bail. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. (481 of the B.N.S.S.), the appellants are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in terms of Form No.45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one surety in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellants on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 30. The trial Court records along with copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action.