The application of the 'last-seen theory' in cases based on circumstantial evidence requires the establishment of a minimum time gap between 'last seen together' and the probable time of death.

Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J.

The appellant calls in question the validity and legality of a judgment and order dated 28.02.2006 and 01.03.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Jangipur, Murshidabad in Sessions Trial No.8(4)04. The grievance of the appellant is that the learned Trial Court could not appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective and there are many omissions and contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses, which have been lost sight of by the learned Trial Court. According to him, the impugned judgment is not sustainable in law or on facts. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that the learned Trial Court has considered all these aspects and after appreciating the evidence he has passed the judgment which does not require any interference.

2. The key factual aspects need to be revisited. Shorn of unnecessary details, the prosecution case in a capsulated form is that there was a love affair between the accused and the victim and they established a physical relationship. As a result, the victim conceived. The parents inquired from the victim and came to know that she had been impregnated by the accused. The accused was asked about the veracity of her statement and he admitted that the victim conceived due to such physical relationship. The parents asked the accused to marry the victim and the accused acceded to such proposal. Thereafter, the marriage took place and a Kabilnama was executed through a lawyer at Berhampur Court, but the victim was not accepted by her in-laws. So she had to reside in her parents’ house. From time to time the accused came there and stayed with her. On 14.08.2003 she delivered a female child. The victim was abused by her in-laws and they hatched a criminal conspiracy to kill her. On 06.09.2003 the accused came to the house of the victim and had dinner there. They were seen together till 11 pm. In the night, the mother of the victim woke up hearing the child crying and she went to the room of the victim and could not find her daughter. In the early morning, she found the dead body of the victim near the bamboo bush of one Foroj Mondal and body was lying in a naked condition and there were marks of injuries on her neck and chest. Disclosing this ill-episode, the de facto complainant lodged the F.I.R. and set the law into motion.

3. In course of the investigation, Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the available witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., collected the inquest report, prepared a rough sketch map with index, collected the postmortem report and, after completion of the investigation, submitted a charge-sheet under Sections 302/120B of I.P.C. The learned Trial Court framed the charges under the aforesaid sections and the said charges were read over and explained to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. It appears from the L.C.R. that the learned Trial Court recorded the deposition of the prosecution witnesses, examined the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and, after hearing the arguments of both sides, convicted the accused under Section 302 of I.P.C.

4. At the time of argument, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that the entire fate of the case rests on circumstantial evidence and particularly on the issue of ‘last seen together’. There is no direct witness in this case. Therefore, it is the onerous duty of this Court to scrutinise the evidence very meticulously and to see if the entire chain of circumstances is established.

5. P.W. 1 in his evidence stated that on the relevant day the victim and the accused were seen in the house of the victim up to 11.30 pm. He also found the dead body of the victim, which was lying by the side of a bamboo bush. As a witness to the inquest and as the de facto complainant, he proved his signatures. In his evidence he never stated that the house of the victim was visible from his house. A sketch-map with in