JUDGMENT P.G. Agarwal, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.S. Choudhury, learned Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. R. Ali, for the Appellants. Also heard learned Public Prosecutor, Assam. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 3.9.2002, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Adhoc) No. 2, Kamrup, Guwahati, in Sessions Case No. 150(K)/99, whereby the accused Appellants were convicted under Sections 302/ 34 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to R.I. for another three months. 3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 2.8.97, a number of villagers had gathered in the house of PW-14, Rahimuddin Ali, (A1, A2 and A3) to watch a movie on the T.V. which was installed in his courtyard. Deceased, Nazrul Islam, a college going student, was also watching the movie. The accused persons and other witnesses were also present there. The accused, Firoz Ali, Safed Ali and Suleman Ali called Nazrul Islam and went out with said Nazrul Islam. Nazrul Islam did not return back home on the night and on the next day, the family members were searching for the boy. While PW-2, Ainal Haque, PW-3, Bakkar Ali were taking bath in the river they found the floating dead body of Nazrul Islam, whereupon the villagers arrived at the scene and the dead body was taken out. Subsequently, the three accused Appellants were picked up and brought to the village and on being questioned, they confessed their involvement by saying that they had killed the deceased with a knife and thrown the dead body in the river. FIR, Ext.6, was lodged before the police and after inquest, the dead body was sent for postmortem examination. 4. PW-1 is Dr. K.C. Das, who held the autopsy over the dead body and found the following injuries on the person of the deceased. External appearance: Early decomposed male dead body, found wearing one half ganji and one lungi. Eyes closed. Mouth open. Tongue protruded. Scrotum and penis swollen. Anus healthy. Abdomen swollen. Pealing off superficial skin present at places. Rigor mortis partly present on both lower limbs. Wounds: (1) One transverse cut injury present on the front of the neck, just above the thyroid cartilage. Size 15 cm x 4.5 cm x 5 cm deep. The right end of the injury lies 6 cm below the right mastoid. Anus healthy. Abdomen swollen. Pealing off superficial skin present at places. Rigor mortis partly present on both lower limbs. Wounds: (1) One transverse cut injury present on the front of the neck, just above the thyroid cartilage. Size 15 cm x 4.5 cm x 5 cm deep. The right end of the injury lies 6 cm below the right mastoid. Process and 2 cm below the right angle of the mandible. The left end of the injury lies 5.5 cm below the left mastoid process. The skin sub-cutaneous tissues, muscles, vessels, nerves rachis and esophagus are cut transversely. The margins of the wound are clear cut and well defined. Clotted blood are found adherent which are resistant to washing with a jet of water. 5. In the opinion of the doctor, the death was due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from the cut throat injury which was ante-mortem and caused by sharp cutting weapon and homicidal in nature. It is also stated that the injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The death of the deceased Nazrul Islam, as a result of the cut injury on the throat, has not been disputed or challenged, as we find that the medical evidence was never challenged. PW-2 and PW-3 were taking bath in the river and they discovered the dead body which they identified to be that of deceased, Nazrul Islam. Thereafter, the entire village people rushed to the river side and saw the dead body with injury on the neck. Prosecution examined a large number of witnesses. PW-4, PW-5, PW-6 and others who had gone there and have deposed about the recovery of the dead body. They have also deposed that they also saw the cut injury mark on the neck, which is supported by the medical evidence on record. 6. In view of the overwhelming oral and medical evidence, the trial Court rightly held this to be a case of homicide. The next question for determination is, who killed the deceased? In the present case, there are, admittedly, no eye witnesses, i.e. none of the witnesses saw the deceased as being assaulted. The prosecution case centres around the circumstantial evidence and in the present case the trial Court has relied on the following circumstances. (i) Last seen together the deceased was last seen going together with the accused from the house of PW-14. The prosecution case centres around the circumstantial evidence and in the present case the trial Court has relied on the following circumstances. (i) Last seen together the deceased was last seen going together with the accused from the house of PW-14. (ii) Extra judicial confession made by the accused before the villagers. (iii) Recovery of weapon of offence at the instance of the accused. (iv) Motive. 7. As regards the first circumstance of last seen together, there is evidence of Rahimuddin Ali, PW-14. He has deposed that he has got a T.V. set at his place and on the night of occurrence, the neighbouring people, numbering about 30/40, came to his house to watch the T.V., where a movie was telecast. The witness stated that in the said gathering the deceased Nazrul Islam and the accused Appellants were present and he saw the deceased Nazrul Islam going out with the accused Appellants and on the next day, the dead body of Nazrul Islam was found in the river. 8. Akbar Ali, PW-6, Joynal Ali, PW-9, Hussain Ali, PW-10, another Hussain Ali, PW-11, Joynuddin Ahmed, PW-16 were the other prosecution witnesses, who were present in the house of PW-14 to watch the telecast of the movie. They have deposed about the presence of deceased Nazrul Islam and the three accused Appellants in the house of PW-14 and they have also stated that the three accused Appellants called out Nazrul Islam after the movie was over and took him along with them. The deceased did not return home on the night and on the next day the family members were searching after him and subsequently, in the afternoon, the dead body was recovered from the river. We find that there is no meaningful cross-examination of these witnesses and from the evidence of the witnesses the prosecution has been able to clearly establish that on the night of occurrence the deceased had gone alongwith the 3 (three) accused Appellants. There are some discrepancies in the statement of the witnesses as to who called out the deceased, Nazrul Islam. There are some discrepancies in the statement of the witnesses as to who called out the deceased, Nazrul Islam. Some witnesses have stated that it was Firoz and Safed and the other witnesses have stated that it was Safed only but we find that the above discrepancy is not material, as the evidence clearly established that the deceased had gone out alongwith the 3 (three) accused Appellants and there is cogent and reliable evidence to establish the above circumstances. 9. The circumstances of the last seen together is a very relevant circumstance and in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Suresh : 2000 (1) SCC 471 , the Apex Court considered the following circumstances to be sufficient for maintaining the order of conviction: (1) deceased last seen in the company of the accused; (2) accused making contradictory statements as to the whereabouts of the deceased; (3) recovery of the dead body. 10. In a recent case of Sahadevan Alias Sagadevan v. State : 2003 (1) SCC 534 , the Apex Court held that in a case of last seen together, it is obligatory on the part of the accused to explain as to when and where they parted company. In the instant case, the accused persons have merely denied to have accompanied the deceased and they have not given any explanation whatsoever. 11. In the case of Bodh Raj alias Bodha and Ors. v. State of Jammu and Kashmir : AIR 2002 SC 3164, the Apex Court had this to say: The last seen theory comes into play where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of crime becomes impossible. It would be difficult in some cases to positively establish that the deceased was last seen with the accused when there is a long gap and possibility of other persons coming in between exists. In the absence of any other positive evidence to conclude that accused and deceased were last seen together, it would be hazardous to come to a conclusion of a guilt in those cases. 12. Shri A.S. Choudhury, learned Sr. In the absence of any other positive evidence to conclude that accused and deceased were last seen together, it would be hazardous to come to a conclusion of a guilt in those cases. 12. Shri A.S. Choudhury, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the Appellants have placed reliance on the following decisions of the Apex Court to pin point on the requirement of law for basing conviction in circumstances of last seen together - (1) Mohibur Rahman v. State of Assam 2002 (6) SCC 277and (2) Golkunda Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh : 2003 (9) SCC 277 . In Mohibur Rahman (supra) the Apex Court held: The circumstance of last seen together does not by itself and necessarily lead to the inference that it was the accused who committed the crime. There must be something more establishing connectivity between the accused and the crime. There may be cases where, on account of close proximity of place and time between the event of the accused having been last seen with the deceased and the factum of death, a rational mind may be persuaded to reach an irresistible conclusion that either the accused should explain how and in what circumstances the victim suffered the death or should own the liability for the homicide. 13. In the present case we find that the deceased was last seen together with the accused Appellant around 11/11.30 P.M. of the previous night and thereafter he was not seen alive again. The dead body was found on the next day in the river with a cut injury on the neck. The time gap is very short and as such the circumstances of last seen together is an incriminating circumstance appearing against the accused persons. 14. In this case, we find that out of the 3 (three) accused Appellants before us, accused, Suleman and Firoz Ali, in their statement under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure have denied their presence in the house of PW-14 at the time of watching the T.V., whereas the other accused Appellant, Safed Ali has admitted that he was present and was watching the T.V. at the house of PW-14. The presence of Firoz Ali and Suleman Ali in the house of PW-14 has been deposed to by, as many as, 7/8 witnesses, including the house owner, Rahimuddin, PW-14. Their evidence was never challenged. The presence of Firoz Ali and Suleman Ali in the house of PW-14 has been deposed to by, as many as, 7/8 witnesses, including the house owner, Rahimuddin, PW-14. Their evidence was never challenged. We, thus find that these two accused-Appellants have given false statement as regards their presence and this conduct of the accused can be considered missing link, if any, in a case based on circumstantial evidence, as held by the Apex Court in the case of Mohammad Mahiruddin v. State of Bihar : 1999 (1) SCC 252 . 15. AkbarAli, PW-6, SafedAli, PW-7, Mafid Ali, PW-8, Hussain Ali, PW-10, another Hussain Ali, PW-11, Jaynuddin Ahmed, PW-16, have all deposed that after the recovery of the dead body the three accused Appellants were called by the villagers and all the three accused Appellants confessed before public that they killed the deceased. The above witnesses were not cross examined or their evidence, as regards making of the extra-judicial confession, was not challenged before trial Court by way of cross examination and even no suggestion was given to the witnesses that the accused person did not make any extra-judicial confession before the public. A submission was, however, made that the extra-judicial confession might have been made in presence of police. We find that the police has arrived at the place of occurrence after the FIR, Ext. 6, was lodged. In the FIR, Ext.6, the factum of making the extra-judicial confession by the accused Appellants has been specifically mentioned which clearly establishes that the extra-judicial confession preceded the filing of the FIR and the said confession was not made in presence of the police. The repetition of the confession before the police is however immaterial for our purpose. 16. In the case of Baldeo Roy v. State of Haryana 1994 SCC 524 , the Apex Court held that extra-judicial confession can be relied upon for conviction. In catena of decisions it has been held that value of such evidence depends upon the veracity of witness and, as stated above, the veracity of the witness in the present case have not been challenged and the confession was made to persons unconnected with police. Moreover, when the confession was made before a large public gathering, possibility of concocting/fabricating a false confession is safely ruled out. Moreover, when the confession was made before a large public gathering, possibility of concocting/fabricating a false confession is safely ruled out. In the case of State of Punjab v. Gurdeep Singh, Judgment Today 1999 (6) SC 514, the Apex Court cautioned, 'it is not open to any Court to start with the presumption that extra-judicial confession is a weak type of evidence.' 17. Shri A.S. Choudhury, learned Sr. Advocate has submitted that the three accused Appellants had arrived at the river side on hearing about the recovery of the dead body and they were suspected by the villagers whereupon out of fear they made the extra-judicial confession. We find absolutely no material on record in support of the above submission. Accused persons have also not stated that they made extra judicial confession out of fear. Shri Choudhury has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kalpana Mazumdar v. State of Orissa : 2002 (6) SCC 536 . In the above decision we find that the Apex Court held that the conviction can be based on the strength of extra-judicial confession if the same is supported by strong circumstances and it was further held that strong circumstantial evidence can get strength from extra-judicial confession. None of the witnesses who have deposed about the making of the extra-judicial confession by the accused Appellants were cross examined and there was no suggestion even to these witnesses that the accused persons were assaulted or they were caused to make extra-judicial confession. 18. In the present case, the prosecution has relied upon the extra-judicial confession as one of the circumstances only and we find that there is sufficient reliable evidence in support of the evidence on that count. 19. The Investigating Police Officer has deposed that at the time of arrest of the accused Safed Ali, he made a statement that after killing the deceased the weapon of assault, i.e. sword, was thrown to the river. Police searched for the weapon of assault but could not recover the same. However, on the next day, while the villagers were fishing in the river, the said sword, was caught in their net and it was handed over to Gaonburah, Bilas Kalita, PW-13, and police seized the same from him vide Ext.7, Seizure list. Police searched for the weapon of assault but could not recover the same. However, on the next day, while the villagers were fishing in the river, the said sword, was caught in their net and it was handed over to Gaonburah, Bilas Kalita, PW-13, and police seized the same from him vide Ext.7, Seizure list. Thus, we find that the accused Safed Ali had the knowledge that the weapon of assault was thrown to the river and subsequent seizure of the same supports/corroborates the above recovery. In this case, although the weapon of assault was not seized on the basis of the recovery statement made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the recovery is relevant and material to provide a link in the chain of the circumstantial evidence. 20. As regards the motive for killing, it has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal : 1994 (2) SCC 220 : In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the existence of motive assumes significance though the absence of motive does not necessarily discredit the prosecution case, if the case stands otherwise established by other conclusive circumstances and the chain of circumstantial evidence is complete and is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with the hypothesis of his innocence. 21. On perusal of the impugned judgment we find that the trial Court had relied on the statement of the accused persons to show that there was a strained relationship between the accused persons and the deceased, as the accused persons suspected that the family members of the deceased had killed the cousin and uncle of the complainant. In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Laxman Jairam1962 Cri LJ 284 it was held by the Apex Court that the answer given by the accused may be taken into consideration in enquiry or trial. Thus, we find that the missing link of motive has been provided by the accused persons in their statement under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure 22. Thus, we find that the missing link of motive has been provided by the accused persons in their statement under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure 22. In the light of the evidence and materials on record, we find that the circumstantial evidence brought out by the prosecution forms a complete chain and leads to only one conclusion that the three accused Appellants before us, acting in furtherance of their common intention, did cause the death of the young boy, Nazrul Islam and, thereafter, disposed of the dead body in the river to screen themselves from the likely punishments. The innocence of the accused persons is safely ruled out. We, therefore, find no merit in this appeal and the appeal stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed