Page No.# 1/18

GAHC010092132024

2026:GAU-AS:2975-DB

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : Crl.A./145/2024

MD. RAFIK ALI

S/O LATE FAZUR ALI @ FECHA,

VILL.- MADHUPUR, P.S.- BARAMA, DIST.- BAKSA, B.T.A.D. (ASSAM).

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM

REP. BY P.P., ASSAM.

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. T J MAHANTA, MR. A BORUA,MS. P BHATTACHARYA

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

Linked Case : Crl.A./104/2024

MD. JEHARUL ALI

S/O RAFIK ALI

VILL.- MADHAPUR

P.O.- MADHAPUR

P.S.- BARAMA

DIST.- BAKSA

ASSAM

PIN- 781346.

Page No.# 2/18

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM

REP. BY THE P.P.

ASSAM.

------------

Advocate for : MR Z KAMAR

Advocate for : PP

ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM

– B E F O R E –

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI

For the Appellant (s) : Mr. T J Mahanta, Ms. P Bhattacharya, Mr.

A Borua, Mr. T Gogoi, Advocates in Crl.A.

No. 145/2024.

Mr. Z Kamar, Mr. I H Saikia, Mr. T

Chakraborty, Mr. D Choudhury, Mr. J

Das, Mr. B Borah, Mr. K Kalita, Mr. K

Kashyap, Mr. K K Sarma, advocates in

Crl. A. No. 104/2024.

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. R R Kaushik, APP for the State.

Date on which judgment is reserved : 23.02.2026

Date of pronouncement of judgment : 26.02.2026

Page No.# 3/18

Whether the pronouncement is of the

operative part of the judgment ? : N/A

Whether the full judgment has been

Pronounced : Yes.

J UDGMENT & O RDER (CAV)

KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J

Heard Mr. T J Mahanta, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. T Gogoi,

learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 145/2024 and Mr. I H

Saikia, learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 104/2024. Also

heard Mr. R R Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the

State.

2. These two appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction dated

07.03.2024 and sentence dated 13.03.2024 passed by the learned Sessions

Judge, Baksa, Mushalpur in Sessions Case No.82/2022, whereby the accused

appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 145/2024, namely, Md. Rafik Ali and co-

accused/appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 104/2024, namely, Md. Jeharul Ali

were convicted under Sections 302/365/34 of the Indian Penal Code and

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of

Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) each, in default of payment of fine, to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for further six months each under Sections

Page No.# 4/18

302/34 of the IPC and also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3

years each with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and in default, simple imprisonment

for another 3 months under Sections 365/34 of the IPC. Both these appeals are

taken up together for disposal.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that PW-1 lodged an FIR alleging,

inter-alia, that on 28.03.2020 at about 10:00 PM the accused/appellant, Md.

Rafik Ali along with co-accused/appellant, Md. Jeherul Ali called her

husband/deceased out of the house for having some talk and since then, her

husband having not returned back, on the following day morning at about 9:00

AM, she called the accused/appellant, Md. Rafik Ali to enquire about the

whereabouts of her husband. It is further alleged that the accused/appellant,

Md. Rafik Ali replied that the co-accused/appellant, Md. Jeherul Ali knows about

her husband and when she approached the co-accused/appellant, Jeherul Ali,

he replied that it is the accused/appellant, Md. Rafik Ali who knows about her

husband/deceased. Accordingly, she suspected that they had killed her husband

in a pre-planned manner. Upon receipt of the said FIR, the Officer-in-Charge of

the jurisdictional police station registered the FIR as Barama P.S. Case No.

31/2020 under Sections 120B/365/302/34 IPC. Accordingly, the investigating

officer proceeded to investigate the matter by recording the statement of the

informant and upon coming to learn that the body of the husband/deceased

was found to be floating in a nearby pond, visited the place of occurrence,

recorded the statements of the witnesses, recovered the dead body, performed

inquest, prepared the sketch map of the place of occurrence as well as the

residence of the deceased and sent the dead body for postmortem examination,

collected the same and arrested the accused appellants and upon completion of

the investigation, submitted the charge-sheet against the accused appellants

Page No.# 5/18

under Sections 120B/365/302/34 of the IPC.

4.Thereafter, the Chief Jurisdictional Magistrate committed the case to the

jurisdictional Sessions Court and upon receipt of the records, Sessions Case No.

82/2022 was registered. The Trial Court thereafter framed charges under

Sections 365/302/34 of the IPC against the accused appellants and upon

reading over and explaining the same to the accused appellants, they

individually pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During trial, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses, including the

informant, medical officer and the investigating officer. Upon completion of the

prosecution evidence, all the incriminating circumstances were put to the

accused appellants under Section 313 of the CrPC, wherein they generally

denied all the circumstances and declined to adduce defense evidence. The Trial

Court after hearing the parties, was pleased to return the verdict of guilt against

the accused appellants and convicted and sentenced them thereof. Hence, the

present criminal appeals.

6.Mr. Mahanta, learned Senior counsel appearing for the accused/appellant

in Criminal Appeal No. 145/2024, submits that the Trial Court having convicted

the accused/appellant, Md. Rafik Ali solely on the basis of the last seen theory,

committed gross error in law, inasmuch as conviction cannot be made solely on

the basis of last seen theory. The prosecution must prove the guilt of an

accused beyond reasonable doubt and the last seen theory comes into play

when the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the

deceased were last seen alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small

that the possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the

crime becomes impossible. He accordingly, submits that in the instant case, the

Page No.# 6/18

body of the deceased having been recovered after almost two days since the

accused appellants were allegedly seen to have taken away the deceased

husband from his house by PW-1, the last seen, together, therefore by itself

would not be sufficient and the chain of circumstances cannot be said to be

complete to bring home the guilt of the accused appellants. In support of the

aforesaid, he relies upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of

Padman Bibhar -Vs- State of Odisha reported in (2025) LiveLaw SC

613 and Manoj @ Munna -Vs- State of Chhattisgarh in Criminal

Appeal No. 1129/2013. In support of his further contention that mere non-

explanation on the part of the accused appellants by itself also cannot infer the

guilt of the accused appellants, he relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in

the case of Kanhaiya Lal -Vs- State of Rajasthan reported in (2014) 4

SCC 715. He further submits that in a case of circumstantial evidence, motive

is relevant and in the present case, the prosecution having miserably failed to

establish any motive whatsoever, the same weighs in favor of the accused

appellants. In support of the above, he relies upon the decision of the Apex

Court in the case of Nandu Singh -Vs- State of Madhya Pradesh (Now

Chhattisgarh) reported in (2022) 19 SCC 301.

7.Mr. I H Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the co-accused/appellant,

Md. Jeherul Ali in Criminal Appeal No. 104/2024 by adopting the arguments of

Mr. Mahanta, learned Senior counsel, relies upon the following decisions –

i) Ramreddy Rajeshkhanna Reddy & Anr. -Vs- State of Andhra

Pradesh, reported in (2006) AIR SC 1656.

ii) State of Uttar Pradesh -Vs- Satish, reported in (2005) AIR SC

1000.

Page No.# 7/18

iii) Nazim & Ors. -Vs- State of Uttarakhand , reported in (2025)

AIR SC 4801

iv) Hatti Singh -Vs- State of Haryana, reported in (2007) 12 SCC

471.

v) State (Delhi Administration) -Vs- Gulzarilal Tandon, reported

in (1979) AIR SC 1382.

vi) Nagamma Nagarathna & Ors. -Vs- State of Karnataka ,

reported in (2025) AIR SC 4695.

vii) Naresh Kumar -Vs- State of Maharastra , reported in (1980)

AIR SC 1168.

viii) Vinod Kumar -Vs- State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), reported in

(2025) AIR SC 943.

ix) Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan & Ors. -Vs- State of Gujarat ,

reported in (2020) AIR SC 180.

x) Laxman Prasad @ Laxman -Vs- State of Madhya Pradesh ,

reported in (2023) 6 SCC 399.

xi) Arun Sarkar -Vs- State of Madhya Pradesh , reported in

(2024) AIR SC 1920

xii) Vaibhav -Vs- State of Maharastra, reported in (2025) AIR SC

2996.

xiii) State of Chattisgarh Vs- Ashok Bhoi Etc ., reported in (2025)

Legal Eagle SC 260.

xiv) Dasari Siva Prasad Reddy -Vs- Public Prosecutor, High

Court of A.P. reported in (2004) 11 SCC 282.

xv) Rat Chand Bahadur Magar -Vs- State of Assam , in Criminal

Appeal (J) No. 106/2011.

Page No.# 8/18

xvi) Padman Bibhar -Vs- State of Odisha , reported in (2025)

LiveLaw SC 613 and

xvii) Kamru Bhumij -Vs- State of Assam , in Criminal Appeal No.

6/2021.

8.Per contra, Mr. R R Kaushik, learned APP for the State, submits that it is

evident from the post-mortem report and the testimony of the medical officer

who conducted the post-mortem examination that the deceased died almost

30–40 hours since 30.03.2020, i.e., the date of his post-mortem examination.

Hence, the time gap between the accused appellants having last seen by the

PW-1 taking her husband out of their house and his death thereafter being in

short proximity, the last seen theory assumes significance in the context of the

present case. He further submits that the same is an additional link to the other

corroborating incriminating circumstances. He further submits that all the

incriminating circumstances brought in through the depositions and testimonies

of the prosecution witnesses together complete the chain and the same having

been fully established, the guilt of the accused appellants is proved beyond

reasonable doubt.

9.We have given our prudent considerations to the arguments advanced by

the learned counsels appearing for the parties and have perused the material

available on record. We have also duly considered the case laws cited at the bar.

10.The evidence of PW-1, the informant and wife of the deceased, is to the

effect that on 28.03.2020, the accused/appellant, Md. Rafik Ali came to their

house at about 9:00 PM and had dinner with them. Thereafter, at about 10:00

PM, he again came to their house along with the co-accused/appellant, Md.

Jeherul Ali and, by calling her husband to discuss something, took him away

Page No.# 9/18

with them, whereafter she went to sleep. She further deposed that when her

husband did not return home during the night, she, upon waking up the

following morning, at about 8:30–9:00 AM, telephoned the accused/appellant,

Md. Rafik Ali to enquire about her husband. However, he informed her that it

was the co-accused/appellant, Md. Jeherul Ali who knew about him. She further

stated that although she thereafter went to the house of the accused/appellant,

Md. Rafik Ali, he reiterated that it was the co-accused/appellant, Md. Jeherul Ali

who knew about her husband. She then proceeded to the house of the co-

accused/appellant, Jeherul Ali, who, on being asked, replied to the contrary that

it was the accused/appellant, Md. Rafik Ali who knew about her husband. Upon

both the accused appellants blaming each other, she became suspicious and

approached the Gaon Burah (PW-11), who advised her to inform the police.

Accordingly, she lodged the FIR on 29.03.2020. On 30.03.2020, the dead body

of her husband was recovered from a pond at Murmela, and after conducting

the post-mortem examination, the body was handed over to the family for

performing the last rites. She further deposed that upon seeing the body of her

husband, she noticed injuries on his head, face and hands. During cross-

examination, she clarified that she suspected the accused appellants to have

killed her husband, as they had taken him away on the night of the incident,

after which he went missing and was subsequently found dead in the pond. The

testimony of PW-1 remains wholly unshaken.

11.The evidence of PW-2, who is the brother of the deceased, is to the

effect that on 29.03.2020, PW-1 informed him that on the previous night at

about 9:00 PM, the accused/appellant, Md. Rafik Ali came to their house and

had dinner with them. Thereafter, he, along with the co-accused/appellant,

Jeherul Ali, again came to their house and took away the deceased husband on

Page No.# 10/18

the pretext that they had to discuss something. PW-2 further deposed that

when they asked the accused/appellant, Md. Rafik Ali, he told them that it was

the co-accused/appellant, Md. Jeherul Ali who knew about the deceased, and

when they went to the house of the co-accused/appellant, Jeherul Ali, he, on

the contrary, stated that it was the accused/appellant, Md. Rafik Ali who knew

about the whereabouts of the deceased. Consequently, they approached PW-11,

who advised them to lodge the FIR, whereupon PW-1 lodged the same. He

further deposed that on 30.03.2020, after the body of the deceased was

recovered, he noticed injuries on the backside of the head, face, hands, etc.

During cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he had not

stated before the Investigating Officer that the accused/appellant, Md. Rafik Ali

was called to their house for enquiring about the deceased.

12.The evidence of PW-3 (brother-in-law), PW-4 (brother), PW-5 (uncle),

PW-6 (father), and PW-12 (cousin) corroborates the prosecution version to the

effect that PW-1 informed them that initially the accused/appellant, Md. Rafik Ali

had come to their house and had dinner with them and thereafter came back

along with co-accused/appellant, Md. Jeherul Ali and took away the deceased

husband. However, the deceased did not return home that night and upon the

accused/appellants being questioned on the following morning regarding the

whereabouts of the deceased husband, they blamed each other. Nothing has

been elicited in the cross-examination of the aforesaid witnesses to discredit

their evidence, which thus stands unshaken.

13.The evidence of PW-8, a co-villager, is to the effect that he had seen the

dead body floating in a pond and, upon informing the same to PW-11, the police

arrived. PW-9, the brother of PW-8, corroborated his testimony with regard to

the discovery of the dead body of the deceased husband. During cross-

Page No.# 11/18

examination, PW-8 clarified that the dead body was not decomposed. However,

cross-examination was declined in respect of PW-9. PW-11, the village

headman of the deceased, further corroborated the testimony of PW-8.

14.The evidence of PW-10, who is the sister-in-law of the deceased husband

and resides with her husband in another house in the same compound, is to the

effect that on the date of the incident, at about 8:00–9:00 PM, the

accused/appellant, Md. Rafik Ali came to their house and had a conversation

with the deceased husband and thereafter had dinner together in the house of

the deceased, during which time she was also present. She further deposed that

on the following morning PW-1 informed her that on the previous night the

accused/appellant, Md. Rafik Ali had once again come back and taken her

husband from the house and thereafter he did not return home. She also

corroborated the prosecution version to the effect that when the

accused/appellants were questioned regarding the whereabouts of the

deceased, they passed the responsibility onto each other. During cross-

examination, she clarified that there was no quarrel or prior enmity between the

deceased and the accused/appellants. The surrounding circumstances spoken to

by PW-10 fully corroborate the testimony of PW-1, and the said evidence having

remained unshaken, the testimony of PW-1 becomes wholly believable.

15.The evidence of PW-7, the Medical Officer who conducted the post-

mortem examination on the deceased, is to the effect that upon examination he

found injuries on the face, back, and head and opined that the deceased had

been assaulted from behind on the face, and that death was caused due to both

homicidal injury and drowning. He further opined that death had occurred

approximately 30–40 hours prior to the post-mortem examination. The post-

mortem report, Exhibit-P2, substantiate the said findings. Relevant findings

Page No.# 12/18

recorded therein reads as under—

“I. External appearance: Partly decomposed Wounds

Injury mark over face back of head back side of body

right upper extremity (including cut mark)

Bruise- No bruise Mark of ligature No mark of ligature

II. Cranium and Spinal Canal:

Scalp, skull and vertebrae A cut mark (5 mm) over back

of head. Membrane-Healthy Brain and Spinal cord

Healthy

III. Thorax Wall ribs and cartilages Injury mark (cut

mark) over back of thorax. Pleurae Healthy Larynx and

trachea Water present. Right lung Water present, Left

Lung. Water present. Pericardium healthy Heart

healthy, Vessels healthy.

IV. Abdomen Walls Injury mark (cut mark) over back,

Peritonium healthy Mouth, pharynx and oesophagus

water present in oesophagus, Stomach and its contents.

Water present, Small intestine and its contents Water

present Large intestine and its contents, Liver: healthy,

Spleen: healthy, Kidneys Healthy. Bladder healthy.

Organs of generation, external and interi all are healthy.

V. Muscles, bones and joints Injury-Injury mark

(including cut mark) present over face and back.

Disease or deformity. Fracture and dislocation Not

present.

Opinion: The person was assaulted on the face and

from the back and put in a pond Death was due to both

homicidal injury and drowning It occurred 30-40 hours

before post mortem.”

Page No.# 13/18

The testimony of the Medical Officer has remained wholly unshaken and

uncontroverted.

16.The evidence of PW-13, the Investigating Officer, is to the effect that

upon registration of the FIR, he investigated the case, recovered the dead body

of the deceased, recorded the statements of witnesses, prepared the sketch

map, and conducted the inquest over the body. Upon his transfer, he handed

over the case diary to the then Officer-in-Charge, whereafter his successor

completed the investigation and submitted the charge-sheet against the

accused/appellants. He further proved and exhibited the sketch maps of the

residence of the deceased as well as the place from which the body of the

deceased was recovered, the inquest report, the post-mortem report, and other

connected documents.

17.What emerges from the evidence on record is that the accused/appellant,

Md. Rafik Ali had dinner at the house of the deceased in the presence of PW-1

and PW-10. After leaving, he returned once again along with co-

accused/appellant, Md. Jeherul Ali and took the deceased away on the pretext

of discussing certain matters. The deceased did not return home thereafter. On

enquiry made the following morning, both the accused/appellants attempted to

shift responsibility onto each other. The version of PW-1 stands corroborated by

the testimonies of PWs-2 and 10, as also by PWs-3, 4, 5, 6 and 12, who support

the surrounding circumstances.

18.From the sketch map, it is evident that PW-1 and PW-10 reside within the

same compound, though in separate households. The contention of the

appellants that PW-10 did not depose about having seen the accused/appellant,

Md. Rafik Ali returning with co-accused/appellant, Md. Jeherul Ali after dinner,

does not render the testimony of PW-1 unreliable. The evidence clearly

Page No.# 14/18

establishes that PW-10 was present in the house of the deceased only at the

time of dinner. In these circumstances, the absence of her testimony regarding

the subsequent movement of the accused/appellants does not detract from the

credibility of PW-1, whose evidence remains consistent and cogent.

19.The medical evidence lends strong corroboration to the ocular and

circumstantial evidence. The post-mortem report reveals injuries on the face,

hand and head of the deceased. The doctor has opined that the injuries were

ante-mortem and that the deceased was assaulted prior to drowning. The death

was homicidal in nature. The opinion regarding the time since death establishes

close proximity between the time when the deceased was last seen in the

company of the accused/appellants and the time of death.

20.The prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence. The legal position

governing such cases is well settled. Conviction can be sustained only when the

circumstances proved form a complete and unbroken chain, leading to no

conclusion other than the guilt of the accused. It is equally settled that the

circumstance of “last seen together” by itself is insufficient to sustain a

conviction. However, when established and corroborated by other incriminating

circumstances, it constitutes a vital link in the chain.

21.In Padman Bibhar (Supra), the Apex Court reiterated that suspicion,

however strong, cannot substitute proof and that the “last seen together”

circumstance, without corroboration, is a weak form of evidence. In

Rambraksh @ Jalim v. State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2016) 12

SCC 251 and Krishnan @ Ramasamy & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu ,

reported in (2014) 12 SCC 279 it was held that the doctrine applies only

when the time gap between the accused and the deceased being last seen

Page No.# 15/18

together and the discovery of death is so proximate that the possibility of third-

party intervention stands excluded. Even in such cases, the prosecution must

establish a complete chain of circumstances.

22.In Manoj @ Munna (Supra), the Apex Court clarified that circumstantial

evidence can form the basis of conviction only when it is wholly inconsistent

with the innocence of the accused and consistent only with his guilt. The Apex

Court further explained that once proximity between the “last seen together”

circumstance and the death is established, Section 106 of the Indian Evidence

Act becomes relevant.

23.The scope of Section 106 of the Evidence Act has been explained in

Sabitri Samantaray v. State of Odisha , reported in (2023) 11 SCC

813 and Anees v. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2024) 15 SCC 48

wherein it was held that the provision does not dilute the primary burden of the

prosecution but casts an obligation on the accused to explain facts especially

within his knowledge, once the prosecution establishes a prima facie chain of

circumstances. Failure to offer a plausible explanation furnishes an additional

incriminating link. In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra,

reported in (2006) 10 SCC 681 it was further held that false or evasive

answers to incriminating circumstances may themselves form such additional

links.

24.Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, the

prosecution has proved that the accused/appellant was last seen with the

deceased in close proximity to the time of death. PW-1’s testimony in this regard

is natural and trustworthy and finds corroboration from PW-10 and other

prosecution witnesses.

Page No.# 16/18

That apart, the conduct of the accused/appellants also assumes relevance

under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, which renders the conduct of a

party, both previous and subsequent to the occurrence, admissible insofar as it

influences or is influenced by the facts in issue. The Apex Court has consistently

held that the behaviour of an accused, when examined in conjunction with other

proved circumstances, can furnish a relevant incriminating link. In the present

case, the conduct of the accused/appellants in taking the deceased away late at

night, their evasive and inconsistent responses when questioned the following

morning, and their failure to offer any plausible explanation as to how they

parted company with the deceased, are not neutral acts. When read alongside

the proximity of the “last seen together” circumstance, the medical evidence

establishing homicidal death, and the recovery of the body shortly thereafter,

such conduct acquires probative value and reinforces the chain of circumstantial

evidence. While conduct alone cannot found a conviction, under Section 8 it

becomes a relevant circumstance which, in the present case, lends assurance to

the prosecution version.

25.Further, the recovery of the body from the pond stands proved through

the evidence of PWs-11 and 12. The medical evidence conclusively establishes

that the deceased was assaulted prior to drowning and that the death occurred

within a short span of time after the deceased was taken away by the

accused/appellants. In such circumstances also, the failure of the

accused/appellants to offer any plausible explanation as to how and when they

parted company with the deceased assumes decisive significance and furnishes

an additional link in the chain of circumstances.

26.Though motive assumes importance in cases based on circumstantial

evidence, its absence is not fatal where the chain of circumstances is otherwise

Page No.# 17/18

complete. The principles governing circumstantial evidence, namely, (i) that

chain of evidence is complete; (ii) circumstances relied upon by prosecution

should be conclusive in nature; (iii) fact established should be consistent only

with the hypothesis of the guilt of accused; (iv) circumstances relied upon

should only be consistent with the guilt of the accused; and (v) circumstances

relied upon should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be

proved, as reiterated in Gamparai Hrudayaraju v. State of A.P., reported

in (2009) 13 SCC 740 and Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of

M.P., reported in (1952) 2 SCC 71 and Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v.

State of Maharashtra, reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116, stand fully satisfied

in the present case. The circumstances proved are conclusive in nature, form a

complete chain and exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

27.It is worthwhile to mention that the decisions relied upon by the

accused/appellants do not advance their cases and are clearly distinguishable on

facts. In the cases cited, the prosecution had rested almost entirely on the

solitary circumstance of “last seen together”, either without establishing

proximity of time between the last seen circumstance and the death, or without

any corroborative medical, conduct-based or surrounding circumstances

completing the chain of evidence. In several of those cases, the Apex Court

found gaps in the prosecution story, unexplained delays, absence of credible

corroboration, or failure to exclude the possibility of third-party intervention. In

contradistinction, in the present case, the circumstance of “last seen together” is

not an isolated factor but is firmly supported by consistent ocular evidence,

proximate medical opinion establishing homicidal death, recovery of the body

soon thereafter, and the conduct of the accused/appellants in failing to offer any

plausible explanation for facts especially within their knowledge. The ratio of the

Page No.# 18/18

decisions relied upon by the accused/appellants, therefore, being context-

specific, does not dilute the prosecution case herein, where the chain of

circumstances stands complete and unbroken.

28.We, therefore, find no infirmity in the impugned judgment and order

passed by the learned Trial Court. The convictions of the accused/appellants are

founded on a legally sustainable appreciation of evidence and warrant no

interference. These appeals, being devoid of merit, are accordingly dismissed.

29.Send back the TCR.

JUDGE JUDGE

Comparing Assistant