A conviction under IPC requires reliable evidence; mere last seen theory without corroboration cannot sustain a guilty verdict.

JUDGMENT :

Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.

Heard Mr. Vishnupad Singh, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants and Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned Spl. P.P. for the State.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 09.05.1997 (sentence passed on 12.05.1997) passed by Shri Swaroop Lal, learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Godda in Sessions Trial No. 39 of 1995/07 of 1996, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable u/s 302/120B of the IPC and have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

3. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Pawani Devi recorded on 30.091995, in which, it has been stated that on 29.09.1995, the informant along with her husband Lalit Mahto had gone to the market in Gandhigram to purchase some essential articles. They were met by Budhu Mahto and Sristidhar Mahto in the market and at their insistence the informant was sent home by her husband with the purchased articles with an assurance by her husband that he would have his meals once he returns. The informant went home and when her husband did not return even in the next morning, she asked Budhu Mahto about the whereabouts of her husband. Budhu Mahto told the informant that her husband is at Gandhigram. On the same day at noon, the informant came to know that the dead body of her husband is lying in a canal. At this, the informant and her family members went to the said spot and found her husband lying dead with marks of violence in his body. It has been alleged that Bisheshwar Yadav had confided in her that in the previous evening at 7:30 P.M. her husband was seen in Gandhigram market with Budhu Mahto and Sristidhar Mahto and Bisheshwar Yadav had told him to go home to which both the accused had assured that they will ensure that the husband of the informant reaches his place of duty. The informant has also stated that Bisheshwar Yadav told her that her husband Budhu Mahto and Sristidhar Mahto went away informing that they were proceeding to Sundernadi More. The informant had suspected that Budhu Mahto and Sristidhar Mahto were involved in the murder of her husband.

Based on the aforesaid allegations Pathargama P.S. Case No. 116 of 1995 was instituted for the offence punishable u/s 302/34 of the IPC. On completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as Sessions Trial No. 39 of 1995/07 of 1996. Charge was framed against the accused u/s 302/120B of the IPC which was read over and explained to them in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. This appeal has abated so far as the appellant nos. 1, 2 and 5 are concerned and survives only with respect to the appellant nos. 3 and 4 (Suresh Mahto and Gobra Mahto @ Gobardhan Mahto respectively).

5. The prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses in support of its case.

6. P.W.1 (Shivcharan Marandi) has stated that at around 7:30-8:00 P.M. he was going to defecate and following him was his nephew Baijnath Murmu. Baijnath had met Gobardhan Mahto and they starting conversing and Baijnath came to him and disclosed that Gobardhan Mahto had told him that he is coming from the Bahiyar. He thereafter sat to defecate and he saw two persons going on the road one of whom was identified as Gobra @ Gobardhan Mahto. On the next day at 10:00 A.M. h