A conviction for murder based solely on circumstantial 'last seen' evidence is insufficient without further corroborative proof. The prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of circumstances; suspicion cannot substitute for legal proof, and a conviction is unsustainable if the chain of events leaves scope for reasonable doubt.

Ms. Maria Nazir is assisting this Court as Amicus Curiae. In the present appeal, on 20.09.2025, before another coordinate bench, no one appeared for the appellant, as such, the bench appointed Mr. Rudrank Shivam Singh as Amicus Curiae. However, today on call, he has chosen to absent himself and in that circumstances, Ms. Nazir has been requested to assist the Court in the present appeal.

2. The report of the S.P., Begusarai has been received, according to which, the present appellant is alive.

(A). PRAYER:

3. The present memo of appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of sentence dated 07.02.2002 and 08.02.2002 respectively passed in the Sessions Trial no. 06/2001/25 of 2001 by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai by which the Court found the appellant to be guilty for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

(B) FACTS:

4. The matter relates to Begusarai Sadar Mufassil Case no. 142 of 2000 lodged on 30.05.2000 under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. The informant, Chhattu Sah is the father of the Hazari Sah (deceased). According to the prosecution story, on 29.05.2000, the informant along with his son (deceased) and other family members had gone to attend the feast at Sukhdeo Sah’s house. They went to the place at 6:00 p.m. in the evening and returned an hour later.

6. On the way, Mantun Sahni (appellant) and Sulendra Sahni were standing whereafter, his son asked the informant to go home stating that he shall be accompanying them. When his son failed to return in the night, he went out in search at his orchard/Dharamshala as also ‘Dera’ but could not find him whereafter he slept at the ‘Dera’.

7. On 30.05.2000, at 5 o’clock, the people raised alarm about the presence of a dead body in the mango orchard of Chandradeo Sao. He reached there and found his son, Hazari Sah dead with multiple injuries on the body.

8. The allegation is that five days ago, Mantun Sahni and Sulendar Sahni had altercation with the deceased’s son and further, as on the alarm raised by the villagers about killing of his son, others came but these two accuseds failed to present themselves, as such he has strong suspicion that they are the main culprits. This led to the FIR aforesaid.

9. The Police investigated the matter and having found the case true against the appellant submitted charge sheet against Mantun Sahni under section 302/34 of the I.P.C. So far as the accused Sulendra Sahni is concerned, as he was a juvenile, his case was separated from this appellant. Later, the cognizance was taken against the appellant under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code which led to the initiation of the trial against him vide Sessions Trial No. 06 of 2001/25 of 2001.

10. The case was taken up by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai. The charges were framed against the appellant and he d