Rumi Kumari Phukan, J.

We have heard Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants and also Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, for the respondent State of Assam.

2. This appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against the judgment dated 18.10.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur in Sessions Case No. 69(NL)/2009 thereby convicting the accused appellants under Section 302/32 I.P.C. and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 (six) months.

3. The prosecution case in a nutshell is that-on 28.12.2004, the informant Md. Fazar Ali lodged an FIR before the Laluk Police Station to the effect that on 27.12.2004 at about 6:00 p.m., his son, Nazir Hussain was taken by Md. Azgar Ali and Md. Khajanur Rahman for attending a feast and on 28.12.2004 at about 7:00 a.m. he came to know that somebody had killed his son Nazir Hussain and had left the dead body in the field near river “Maneha” and the informant suspects the accused appellants to have been involved with the said offence. On the basis of the said FIR, the Officer-in-Charge of Laluk Police Station registered Laluk P.S. Case No. 163/2004 under Section 303/34 I.P.C. On completion of the investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the accused appellants.

4. The learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, North Lakhimpur committed the case to the Court of Sessions at North Lakhimpur since the offence was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. The matter on being committed, the learned Sessions Judge framed charge under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. against the accused persons to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined as many as 14 (fourteen) witnesses and the defence examined 2 (two) witnesses during the course of trial. The plea of defence is of complete denial. The statement of the accused appellants were recorded under Section 3131 Cr.P.C. wherein also they denied all the allegations. On completion of the trial, the accused/appellants were held guilty for the offence under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 (six) months.

5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the accused appellants have preferred the present appeal against the order of conviction as aforesaid assailing that there are serious infirmities in the aforesaid judgment and the learned Trial Court committed error while appreciating the different aspects of evidence that the prosecution side measurably failed to prove the guilt the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. It has been seriously contended that the learned Court had based upon on the last seen theory as well as circumstantial evidence, whereas the chain of circumstances is not complete and only one aspect of last seen cannot be relied on by the prosecution in absence of other missing links in the prosecution story. It has also been contended that there is a long gap between the time when the deceased was seen with the accused and the dead body of deceased recovered. Further, the seizure of article at the instance of accused/appellants is not at all proved and the statement of witnesses suffers from severe infirmities and material contradiction which has been proved by the Investigating Officer, as such no credibility can be attached to such witnesses.

6. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contended that there is no ground to interfere with the order of Judgment and conviction in view of the sufficient evidence against the appellants and other circumstantial evidence available therein.

7. We have heard rival contentions of both the parties as well as gone through the evidence on record. Admittedly, this is a case of no eye witness to the occurren