Conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence and the last seen theory requires corroboration, especially when relationships indicate possible alibi or innocence.

JUDGMENT :

Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.

1. Heard Mr. Shekhar Siddharth, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 27.06.1998 (sentence passed on 30.06.1998) passed by Sri Dilkeshwar Pandey, learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Chatra in S.T. No. 55 of 1996 / 15 of 1997, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable u/s 302/34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life.

3. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Sugia Devi recorded on 29.07.1995, in which, it has been stated that the son of the informant namely, Rambriksh Bhuiyan had left his house on Monday by saying that he is going to Sherghati for working as a labour and he assured the informant that he will return on Wednesday. When the son of the informant did not return on Wednesday, the informant, on Thursday went in search of her son and in village Noniapali she had met Lachhu Kurmi who disclosed that the son of the informant was in Ghagri Bazar on Wednesday and he had returned home along with co-villagers Nirmal Bhuiyan, Kargha Bhuiyan and Yamuna Bhuiyan. At this information, informant went to the house of the said persons but they could not be found. The informant came to know that these persons had fled away. It has been alleged that on Friday there was a rumour that a dead body is lying in Bishunpur Jungle and when the informant along with her relatives and some villagers had gone to the said place she had seen the body of her son. There was a black mark on the throat which indicates that the son of the informant was strangulated to death. There was a previous enmity between the informant and the accused persons who always issued threats of committing murder. Based on the aforesaid allegations Hunterganj P.S. Case No. 39 of 1995 was instituted for the offence 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 S.T. No. 55 of 1996. Charge was framed u/s 302/34 of the IPC which was read over and explained to the accused in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution has examined as many as nine witnesses in support of its case.

5. P.W.1 (Sudama Bhuiyan) has stated that the incident is of one year, one and a half months back, in which, his nephew Rambriksh Bhuiyan had died and he was murdered by Jamuna Bhuiyan, Kargha Bhuiyan and Nirmal Bhuiyan, He had not seen anyone committing the murder. Rambriksh was murdered because of land dispute. He has stated that just a few days back before the incident there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased over a gairmazurwa land. The threat given by the accused was in his presence. The quarrel happened on Sunday and on Monday Rambriksh Bhuiyan had gone to Sherghati for work. When on Friday there was a rumour that a dead body is lying in Bishunpur Jungle he had also gone to the Jungle along with the informant, Sudama Bhuiyan, Charitar Bhuiyan, Shivcharan Bhuiyan and others where he had seen the dead body lying besides the winding road in the Jungle. There was a mark of rope on the neck of the dead body. In cross-examination, he has deposed that two days prior to the incident there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased over a piece of land which was forcibly occupied by the deceased. He had also occupied a part of the disp