The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of corroborative evidence in last seen cases, the need for establishing a small time gap between the accused and the deceased, and the importance of motive in cases based on circumstantial evidence.

Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, J.:--

1. By the present leave petition filed under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the state seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 25.04.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in sessions case No. 83/2010, whereby the respondents (accused before the trial court) were acquitted of the charges punishable under section 302/392/120B/411/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The facts of the case, as noticed by the learned trial court, are as under:

“DD No. 16 A was lodged on 22.04.10 at 6:45 PM in PS Vivek Vihar regarding the dead body of aged female drenched in blood lying at house No. D-2, Vivek Vihar. IO Inspector Drall (PW20) on receiving information regarding this DD reached at the spot. From the toilet on the ground floor at D-2 Vivek Vihar dead body of Pushpa Seim was recovered. Articles in the adjoining room were scattered as if the house was ransacked. PW3 Vinay (who was a tenant in the house of deceased) met police at the spot and he gave number of mobile phone of PW1 Darpan Wadhwa, nephew of the deceased. PW1 was called at the spot and the IO recorded his statement. IO PW20 prepared Rukka and after doing endorsement on the statement of PW1, got FIR registered under section 302 IPC. IO PW20 seized various articles at the spot including blood stained knife and another blood stained knife with broken handle. Crime team was called at the spot. The dead body was shifted to Subzi Mandi Mortuary and was got postmortemed.

3. On 23.04.2010 respondent No. 1 Raj Kumar was arrested from his house. During interrogation he made a disclosure statement and got arrested his co accused respondent No. 2 Satish Pal. Further respondent No. 1 Raj Kumar got recovered his blood stained clothes from the almirah of his room, which he was wearing at the time of the murder. He also got recovered a mobile phone make Nokia without SIM Card belonging to the deceased.

4. After investigation a chargesheet was filed against the respondents under Section 302/392/120B/411/34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. To prove its case and to bring home the guilt of the respondents, the prosecution examined 22 witnesses. The material witnesses are PW3 Vinay and PW 17 Mehmooda as they are the witnesses of last seen who had seen both the respondents in the house of the deceased Smt. Pushpa Seim sometime prior to the incident. PW3 Vinay in his testimony deposed that he is residing as a tenant of the deceased for the last two years and on 22.04.2010 at about 5:30 PM, he returned back to his rented room from his job and started waiting for Smt. Pushpa Seim (deceased). After waiting for about 30 minutes, he entered into the portion of the deceased Smt. Pushpa Seim and on entering the bedroom, found all the articles of the room lying scattered and boxes lying open. PW3 further deposed that on coming out of the bedroom, he opened the door of the bathroom and saw blood on the floor and dead body of Smt. Pushpa Seim lying in the bathroom. PW3 next deposed that he informed Sh.Wadhwa, brother of the deceased from his mobile phone and the police recorded his statement on 24.04.2010 wherein he told the police that he had seen both the respondents for the first time on 18.04.2010 at about 8 pm in the house of the deceased.

6. PW17 Mehmooda deposed that she is working as a part time maid and had come to the house of Smt. Pushpa (deceased) on 22.4.2010 at about 11:30 AM and at that time Smt. Pushpa was present with her tailor who was taking measurements for the curtains. PW17 further deposed that on 24.04.2010 she came to know from police officials that someone had murdered Smt. Pushpa, her statement was recorded and she identified respondent No. 1 Raj Kumar as the same person who was taking measurements for the curtains in the house of the deceased when she had last worked in her house.

7. The learned Trial Court while rejecting the testimonies of PW 3 Vinay and PW17 Mehmooda as last seen