JUDGMENT : A. V. NIRGUDE, J.:- This appeal is filed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed on 16th July. 2007, by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under sections 302, 363, 377 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment of various terms for the other offences mentioned above. The appellant was also sentenced to pay a certain fine for each of the above mentioned offences. The prosecution case is as follows. 2. The appellant, who hails from State of Rajasthan, came to Jalgaon to work at Ahinsa Tirth Goshala Kusumba. Tq. and District Jalgaon (for short the Goshala). The complainant Raghunath Tejaji Gujar was serving as supervisor at the Goshala, who was residing there with his wife and two sons aged about 8 and 5 years respectively. Saurabh. aged 5 years, was his younger son and is the victim in this case. On 3rd May, 2006, the complainant Raghunath, after finishing his duty at about 8.00 p.m. went to home, when his wife told him his younger son Saurabh had gone out to play, in the evening, but had not returned back. The complainant then went in search of his son. He made inquiry with other resident's of the Goshala. He learnt from various people that Saurabh was last seen in the company of the appellant till 7.00 p.m. At about 11.30 p.m., during that night, ultimately dead body of Saurabh was found in the water of a well, located near the Goshala. The complainant then lodged his report accusing the appellant of kidnapping, ravishing and killing his son. 3. On the basis of the complaint an offence was registered. The police conducted investigation, including arrest of the appellant. At the instance of the appellant, while he was in the custody, the police could locate and seize the clothes and other articles belonging to the victim. In due course the police sent charge-sheet and the appellant was tried before the Sessions Court. 4. The prosecution examined in all 13 witnesses to prove the case, which is based on circumstantial evidence. PW-2-Anil Barela. In due course the police sent charge-sheet and the appellant was tried before the Sessions Court. 4. The prosecution examined in all 13 witnesses to prove the case, which is based on circumstantial evidence. PW-2-Anil Barela. PW-3-Doorsing, PW-4 Ranjanabai and PW -5 Subhash are the witnesses, who deposed that they had seen the appellant with victim Saurabh, during the evening of 3rd May, 2006 at different places and intervals. PW-4 Ranjanbai, amongst these witnesses, is a grocery shop owner. She stated that on 3rd May, 2006, during the evening, one person had come to her shop with a young boy aged about 5 to 6 years, they purchased an ice-candy (aka:pepsi) and two small packets of Hira Supari for the boy. This witness identified the appellant as the person who is referred to above. The deposition of witness P.W.-3 Doorsing is also equally important. This witness knew both, the appellant, as well as the victim. He said, in the evening of that day, while he was giving fodder to the cattle in the Goshala, he saw the victim child in the company of the appellant. He then said that late in the evening he learnt about disappearance of child and then he and other 40 to 50 labours of the Goshala searched the child. The PW-5 is Rickshaw driver, by name Subhash. He too knew the appellant and victim-child, since prior to the incident. He said that he saw the appellant and the victim child near the grocery shop. He even stated that he saw the packet of pepsi and Hira Supari with the child. 5. After the dead body of the victim child was located in the well. it was sent for post-mortem examination. The witnesses P.W.12-Dr. Sangram Patil stated that the victim child died due to asphyxia caused by throttling. He also noticed various injuries on his person specially on his scrotum and anus. He opined that those injuries were caused due to forceful anal sexual intercourse. This witness, thus, proved that victim Saurabh was sexually assaulted first, then he was throttled to death and then his dead body was thrown in the well. 6. PW-8 Bhaulal Patil deposed that he saw the appellant in the custody of the police, and while in the custody, the appellant made statement to the police that, he would recover the wearing clothes of victim-boy. 6. PW-8 Bhaulal Patil deposed that he saw the appellant in the custody of the police, and while in the custody, the appellant made statement to the police that, he would recover the wearing clothes of victim-boy. Thereafter, witness further stated that the appellant led the police and panchas to an agricultural field, he showed the spot, where certain clothes were concealed, they were a half pant. a sleeveless vest, a packet of pepsi candy and Hira Supari. The police seized these articles. The prosecution witness identified those clothes, as that of the victim-child. In view of this clinching evidence against the appellant as stated above, the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon passed the impugned judgment and order. 7. Smt. S. S. Jadhav, learned advocate appearing for the appellant brought to our notice the contents of the arrest panchanama of the appellants. She pointed out that before the appellant was arrested the police had already registered the offence under section 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and the Police had already suspected the appellant having committed the said offence. She further pointed out that the contents of the panchanama show that before the appellant could be arrested in this case, he was beaten up by unknown residents of the village and due to such beating the appellant had sustained certain injuries on his person. On the other hand, she said, when the complainant at about 8.00 p.m. realized that his son victim child had not came home, he started search and during the search he learnt from various witnesses that the appellant was seen last with the victim child. He, even said that he took the appellant and others to PW-4 Ranjanabai, the grocery shop owner for identification of the appellant, as to whether the appellant was seen earlier by her with the victim child and he said Ranjana identified the appellant. as the person who had come with the victim child to her shop earlier. She thereby suggested that the there was strong possibility that the appellant left the child after they visited grocery shop and that the appellant subsequently was arrested on suspicion only. 8. The second submission of Mrs. Jadhav was absence of prosecution evidence about the appellant not being seen with necked child in his lap near well. She thereby suggested that the there was strong possibility that the appellant left the child after they visited grocery shop and that the appellant subsequently was arrested on suspicion only. 8. The second submission of Mrs. Jadhav was absence of prosecution evidence about the appellant not being seen with necked child in his lap near well. Both these objections, according to in our view are not sufficient to reject the prosecution case. As said above, there is clinching evidence to prove that the appellant was seen with child during that evening till 7.00 p.m. Thereafter, no doubt the appellant was not seen carrying the victim child towards the well, but the other clinching circumstance against the appellant is the discovery of the clothes of the victim child including the goodies that he had purchased for the child. The appellant alone knew the place where these things were concealed. 9. Mrs. Jadhav for the appellant, further asserted that had the complainant strongly suspected that it was the appellant who had caused disappearance of his son before the victim's dead body was found how come the appellant did not show the well where the victim's dead body was ultimately found? She asserted that, in absence of this circumstance, there was possibility that the appellant had left the child alone after he purchased pepsi etc. for him and thereafter some unknown person had committed the offence and then disposed of the dead body in the well. This submission is rather far fetched. As per the deposition of prosecution witness PW-1 Raghunath, the father of the victim child, before he could report the matter to the police and before arrival of the police, he made search of his child and almost found that it was the appellant who was seen last with the victim child. He, even admitted that the police aid was taken at that point of time. In this background, only because the complainant and then the police did not force the appellant to point out the place where the victim could be found, will not reduce the probity of the prosecution case. As indicated above, 40 to 50 people went in search of the child during that evening and at about 11.00 p.m. they located the dead body in the well, which was situated very close to the Goshala. As indicated above, 40 to 50 people went in search of the child during that evening and at about 11.00 p.m. they located the dead body in the well, which was situated very close to the Goshala. It is, thus, clear that not only the dead body was found quite quickly, but it was also found in nearby location. Because of the case with which the dead body was found, there was possibility that the complainant and Police did not pressurize the appellant for search of the victim child. 10. The learned Judge of the trial Court in paragraph No.35 of the judgment placed the reliance on the judgment in the case of Ramreddy Rajeshkhanna Reddy and another Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [2006(1) B.Cr.C 720 (SC)]: [2006 ALL MR (Cri) 1533 (S.C.)]. wherein it is observed that - "The last seen theory comes into play where time gap between point of time when accused and the deceased last seen alive and deceased found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being author of crime becomes impossible." In this case also the time gap between the incident and the prosecution witnesses narrating that they had seen the victim child with appellant and actual discovery of the dead body, was so small that there was no possibility of any other person having committed the said offence. These circumstances formed the chain of circumstantial evidence which gave rise to the hypothesis of the guilt of the appellant and excluded every possibility of other person having committed the offence. 11. We have carefully gone through the judgment of the Lower court and find that it contains cogent reasons and we are not therefore inclined to disturb the findings and the order of the learned Judge of the Lower Court. The appeal should therefore fail. The criminal appeal stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.