IMPORTANT POINT
Theory of last seen itself will not warrant conviction of accused, unless time gap between point of time, when accused and deceased last seen alive and when deceased found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than accused being author of crime impossible.

Judgment

Arvind Kumar Mishra J. — We have heard learned AGA for the State and have also been taken through the impugned judgment of acquittal.

2. The instant appeal has been directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 4.4.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.12, Agra, in Sessions Trial No.795 of 2007 and Sessions Trial No.796 of 2007 arising out of Case Crime No.290 of 2007 and Case Crime No.299 of 2007 under Sections 302 IPC and 4/25 Arms Act respectively, Police Station Tajganj, District Agra.

3. It is relevant to mention that incident of murder and recovery of knife were connected to one and the same incident, therefore, both the Sessions Trial No.795 of 2007 and Sessions Trial No.796 of 2007 were consolidated and decided by a common judgment.

4. The prosecution case as emanates from perusal of the impugned judgment, reflects that complainant Natthi Lal lodged written report on 19.4.2007 at Police Station Tajganj, District Agra wherein allegations were made to the effect that his son Lakhan went to his roadside shop situated at Tiraha of Dixit Nursing Home on 18.4.2007 at 6.00 a.m. but he did not return home till 9.00 p.m. When the complainant made search for him, one Maya Ram son of Channi Lal who also runs shop at the same place informed that Parvez son of Abdul Sattar along with his two companions around 12.00 noon was seen going along with his son. On 19.4.2007 around 7.00 a.m., the complainant went to the house of Parvez where he was told by Parvez’s mother that Parvez has not come home since yesterday. When the complainant came back home, he was told by two persons that dead body of his son was lying on 100 feet road in front of Basaikhurd. The complainant went to the spot and identified the dead body to be that of his son. Parvez and his companions have killed his son. A case was registered at police station concerned at Case Crime No.290 of 2007 under Section 302 IPC.

5. Thereafter relevant steps were taken by the Investigating Officer for preparing inquest report and other relevant papers for sending the dead body for post mortem examination and Investigating Officer also prepared site plan. Investigating Officer arrested accused Parvez and at the instance of accused, a knife was recovered on 26.4.2007. Therefore, a case at Crime No.299 of 2007 under Section 4/25 Arms Act was also registered against accused Parvez and relevant formalities were completed.

6. The Investigating Officer after completing investigation of both the above cases filed charge sheet Ex.Ka9 in Case Crime No.290 of 2007 under Section 302 IPC and Charge sheet Ex.Ka17 in Case Crime No.299 of 2007 under Section 4/25 Arms Act.

7. Thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial where the accused was heard on the point of framing of charge and prima facie ground was found existing for framing charge under aforesaid sections of Indian Penal Code and Arms Act respectively. Charges were read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and opted for trial.

8. Prosecution in order to prove its case produced in all eleven witnesses namely complainant Natthi Lal PW1, Amar Singh PW2, Satish Kumar PW3, Rajesh Kumar PW 4, Vinod PW5, Ashok Kumar Savita PW6, Pramod Kumar PW7, Constable Collector Singh PW8, Constable Pushpendra Singh PW9, Constable Narendra Kumar PW10 and Dr. R.S. Atendra PW11. Thereafter evidence for the prosecution was closed.

9. The statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein accused submitted his false implication in the case. The accused was afforded opportunity to adduce evidence but he did not lead any evidence, whatsoever.

10. The trial court after hearing both the sides found charges not proved against accused under Sections 302 IPC and 4/25 Arms Act and acquitted the accused. Hence this appeal.

11. The point involved for adjudication in this appeal is whether material on record was sufficient to convict the accused under aforesaid cha