The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere circumstantial evidence, such as last seen theory, is insufficient for conviction without corroborative proof.

JUDGMENT :

Ananda Sen, J.

This criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction dated 05.09.2002 and order of sentence dated 06.09.2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sahibganj, Camp at Rajmahal in Sessions Case No. 324 of 1986/100 of 1993, whereby and whereunder, the appellant having been found guilty of charge under Sections 364 and 302/34 of Indian Penal Code and has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC and R.I. for ten years under Section 364 IPC and fine of Rs.1,000/-.

2. The learned amicus submitted that beyond the weight of the evidence, the Trial Court has convicted the appellant. He further submitted that there is no direct evidence against the appellant, thus the involvement of the appellant is easily doubted. He also submitted that even after recovery of the dead body on 19.10.1984, the police was not informed about disappearance of the deceased and recovery of the body. The informant if at all knew that the deceased left with the appellant, then why he did not lodge the missing report, creates a doubt about the prosecution case. He also submitted that there is no evidence on record to show that the deceased had been seen in the company of the appellant at the time of occurrence, therefore no inference of guilt of the appellant can be drawn on the basis of this circumstance. As per the appellant, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of this appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. The defence had further taken a plea that there was delay in lodging the FIR, which is unexplained and is also fatal for the prosecution. He lastly submitted that on the basis of the aforesaid grounds, the appellant cannot be convicted.

3. Counsel for the State submitted that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. She submitted that the deceased on the fateful night was called by this appellant and one Sahadat Seikh and this fact was established from the evidence of Sairabano and Jakir Hussain. She argued that appellant was having illicit relation with the deceased due to which, the deceased became pregnant, and he refused to marry the deceased rather wanted to get rid of her, which also stand proved from the evidence of Mamina Khatoon. She submitted that there is strong motive and circumstances against this appellant as well as one Sahadat Seikh. She lastly submitted that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt thus, this appellant has been correctly convicted.

4. The prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan of Md. Suleman, the cousin of the deceased. He stated that on last Tuesday 16.10.1984, the deceased had gone to see the fair but she did not return home. It was informed by Sairabano that Hussain Ali had called the deceased from the house and took her to the fair. It is also disclosed that parents of the deceased were not alive as such, she had been living in the house of the informant. On Friday, the dead body of Noorbano was recovered from a drain. It is also alleged in the written report that when the informant wanted to give information to the police, the accused persons asked him not to lodge case because the deceased died due to epilepsy. Thereafter the accused persons took the dead body and buried the same in the field of Pirali Seikh. The matter was reported to the police later on 23.10.1984, thereafter, Rajmahal P.S. Case No. 207 of 1984 under Sections 364/302/201/34 IPC was registered against this appellant as well as other persons.

5 After investigation, the police submitted chargesheet against this appellant along with other thirteen persons and accordingly, cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. As the appellant pleaded not guilty, charges were framed against him for the aforesaid sections.

6. In order to prove the charges against this appellant, the prosecution had examined altogether t