Pritinker Diwaker, J.

1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.10.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Surajpur, in Sessions Trial No. 43/2006 convicting the accused/appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 1,00/-, plus default stipulation.

2. Name of the deceased in the present case is Lakhiya alias Sukhmen Bai with whom the accused/appellant is said to have a dispute previously. As per the case of prosecution, grand-son of the deceased was assaulted by the accused/appellant for which the report was lodged against him by the deceased. Further case of the prosecution is that on 7.12.2005 at 10 AM the accused/appellant went to the house of the deceased, took her somewhere along, committed her murder by throttling and threw her body behind the house of Jhagru Yadav (PW-6) i.e. 37 feet away from her house. On 8.12.2005 body of the deceased was seen by Jhagru Yadav and at his instance merg Ex. P-10 was recorded followed by registration of FIR Ex. P-11 against the accused/appellant. In the FIR it is alleged that earlier also the accused/appellant had threatened the deceased of being killed on account of the report lodged by her against him and that on the fateful day he took her along on the pretext of compromise having been arrived at between Matku and himself. FIR further states that when the deceased did not return till evening, search for her was made and the body was found on the next day. Inquest Ex. P-7 was made on 8.12.2005 and dead-body was sent for postmortem examination which was conducted by Dr. Maheshwar Singh (PW-11) who gave his report Ex. P-7. On that day itself the memorandum of the accused/appellant Ex. P-8 was recorded where he has stated that about one and a half month prior to the date of incident, he beat Matku for which report was lodged against him by the deceased and since then he was determined to do away with her. Memorandum further discloses that on the date of incident he took the deceased with him, offered liquor to her and then killed her by pressing her neck and threw her body near his house. However, no recovery has been made on the basis of his memorandum statement. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed by the police under Section 302 IPC followed by framing of charge by the Court below accordingly.

3. In order to prove the complicity of the accused/appellant in the crime in question, the prosecution has examined 12 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was also recorded in which he denied his guilt and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case.

4. After hearing the parties, the Court below has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned above.

5. Counsel for the accused/appellant submits as under:

(i) That conviction of the accused/appellant is based on the evidence of last seen but since such evidence is not conclusive in nature, he deserves acquittal.

(ii) That the evidence of last seen is a weak type of evidence and unless and until it receives corroboration from the other sources as to the involvement of the accused/appellant in the crime alleged, he cannot be held guilty based thereon.

(iii) That as the deceased was last seen in the company of accused/appellant on 7.12.2005 at 10 A.M. whereas the dead-body was found on the second day, considering this long time gap in between it cannot be said that it is he who has committed her murder.

(iv) That as the house of the accused/appellant was locked and he was also not found therein, possibility of some third person committing her murder cannot be ruled out.

(v) Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in the matters of Bodh Raj alias Bodha and others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir 2002 Cr.L.J 4664; Rambraksh @ Jalim v. State of Chhattisgarh (2016 Cr.L.R SC 503 & Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajsthan {2014 (suppl.) Cr.L.R. SC 744}

6. State counsel how