Circumstantial evidence requires corroborative proof for credibility; absence of direct witnesses or robust corroboratory links in the last seen theory undermines the prosecution's case beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

RAJASEKHAR MANTHA, J.

1. The appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated January 27,2012 and the order of sentence dated Jan 30, 2012, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II Howrah in the Sessions Trial No.465/2008, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sec.302 of the IPC and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life, and a fine of Rs. 10,000 has imposed on her. In default thereof, she is to further undergo a rigorous imprisonment of one year.

THE PROSECUTION CASE

2. On August 12, 2008, the victim, 2 year old Gobindo, was as usual, left in the custody of his grandmother being Tapobala Naskar (PW 15) by his parents being Madhusudan Naskar (PW 4) and Sabita Naskar (PW 5) before they left for work. PW4 worked as a rickshaw van puller and PW-5 as a house maid. On that date, Gobindo was aged about 1-2 years. The house of the appellant and her brother-in-law were next to each other. Tapobala used to stay with her two sons alternatively.

3. On that fateful day, appellant, Mana Naskar, the aunt of Gobindo, is stated to have persuaded the grandmother to take the victim with her, on the pretext that the victim would play with her daughter Arati (PW 2). She is then stated to have thrown him in the pond, adjoining the house of the accused. Nobody saw the incident.

4. It was by word of mouth that villagers and prosecution witnesses came to learn that the accused killed the victim. The grandmother stated that the accused took the victim from her custody. Arati elder daughter of the appellant is stated to have informed most of the prosecution witnesses that her mother, the accused, has killed the victim.

5. One Sangita (not examined), a neighbor, is stated to have arrived in the house of Uma Naskar (PW 1) where Arati was present. Sangita is stated to have told Arati that her mother Mana Naskar was being beaten by locals that she has thrown the victim into the said pond. Arati, at that time aged about 15, rushed to the said pond. Uma reached the pond later.

6. Uma, upon her arrival, is stated to have seen one Tumpa, a lady from the same village, and Ramesh Naskar (PW 11) searching for the victim in and around the pond. One Joydeb Naskar (PW16) is stated to have arrived and dived in the said pond, and it was he, who discovered the victim therein after his legs touched the body of the victim.

7. Uma lodged a written complaint dated August 12, 2008 with the jurisdictional police station being Manickpore, Sankrail, South Howrah. In the complaint, it was stated that she believes that it is Mana Naskar, who has drowned the body of the victim in the said pond, as a result of which, the victim died. Sanjit Naskar (PW 23) scribed the complaint. Uma however stated in her cross-examination that she was not aware of the contents of her complaint to the police.

8. The inquest officer came to learn from the villagers that Mana Naskar drowned the victim in the said pond. The inquest report further records the cause of death being death by drowning. No injury marks were found on the body of the victim. The body of the victim was covered with a bed sheet. The body of the victim, as found by the inquest officer, was lying at the verandah of his grandmother, Tapobala.

9. Post mortem was thereafter conducted by Dr Harashit Sarkar (PW 20) and it was revealed that the victim had been strangulated to death. The cause of th