The court emphasized the importance of properly framing questions under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to ensure that the accused understands the implications of the evidence against him and is given a fair opportunity to explain or rebut such evidence.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is at the instance of two convicts in respect of charges under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and is directed against the findings of guilt dated 10th August, 1999 and the consequent sentence dated 11th August, 1999 by which they were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each. In default of payment of such fine, they were directed to undergo a further imprisonment for a period of one month.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to filing of this appeal may be summarised thus: (A) At the instance of the Commandant, 140 Battalion of Border Security force, a written complaint was lodged before the police that on July 31,1995 at about 19:30 hrs. , one B. S. F. Constable named Basant Singh of his Unit was murdered at Bhutkirhat at a distance of about 150 yards from the State High Way No. 12a by some unknown miscreants of Bhutkirhat on that day. (B) On the basis of such complaint, Rajganj P. S. Case No. 61 of 1995 dated july 31, 1995 under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code was initiated. (C) After completion of investigations, ultimately, chargesheet under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code was given against both the appellants herein. Both of them pleaded "not guilty" and claimed to be tried. (D) The prosecution produced as many as eighteen witnesses altogether including the Investigating Officer. Documents marked as Exbts. 1 to 8 were relied upon by the prosecution in support of its case. The accused decided not to lead any evidence in support of their respective defences. (E) The learned Sessions Judge on the basis of materials on record arrived at the findings that although there was no eye-witness to the incident of the murder, yet, as the appellants were "last seen together with the deceased" immediately before his death, the prosecution had been able to prove by circumstantial evidence that the appellants committed the murder. Thus, on the basis of the alleged circumstantial evidence, both the appellants were found to be guilty and as indicated earlier, were sentenced to suffer life imprisonment in addition to fine of rs. 1000/ -.

( 3 ) BEING dissatisfied, the appellants have come up with the present appeal.

( 4 ) MR. Dutt, the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants has made threefold submission in support of this appeal.

( 5 ) ACCORDING to Mr. Dutt, even if, we accept all the prosecution evidence to be true, there is no material to indict appellant No. 1 namely, Mongat Ram singh (hereinafter referred to as Mongat ).

( 6 ) AS regards the other appellant, namely, Baxis Singh (hereinafter referred to as Baxis), according to Mr. Dutt, the prosecution had failed to prove any motive behind such murder and as such it will be unsafe to convict even Baxis on the basis of evidence adduced by the prosecution by applying "the last seen together" theory.

( 7 ) ACCORDING to Mr. Dutt, in order to convict a person on the basis of circumstantial evidence, motive behind the murder must be well-established. Mr. Dutt contends that in this case, the only allegation against Baxis about the motive of murder is that he had illicit relation with the daughter-in-law of the landlord of the premises where the appellants and the victim were staying as tenants, for which the victim after hearing about the aforesaid illegal relationship from. Mongat cautioned Baxis and for the above reason, Baxis was annoyed with victim.

( 8 ) ACCORDING to Mr. Dutt, if on the basis of complaint by Mongat to the deceased, the latter admonished the appellant No. 2, in such a case, there was no justification of inferring motive of murder of the deceased alone but Baxis should also be angry with Mongat, the other accused who allegedly informed the victim about such relationship. But in this case, Mr. Dutt continues, the prosecution has charged both Mongat and Baxis as the culprit which is a preposterous theory.

( 9 ) MR. Dutt lastly contends that in the case