JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 16.12.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Belonia, South Tripura in Sessions Trial Case No. 18(ST/B) of 2003. By the said judgment, while convicting the accused appellant under Section 376(1) and 302, IPC, he has been provided with the punishment of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with a fine of Rs. 2,000, in default of payment of fine, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year and imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 5,000, in default of payment of fine, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 302 IPC. Being aggrieved, the said convict has preferred the instant appeal. 2. We have heard Mr. A.C. Bhowmik, Learned Counsel appearing for the accused-appellant as well as Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State of Tripura. We have also considered the entire materials on record. 3. The Baikhora P.S. Case No. 33/2002 was registered under Section 376/302, IPC, on the basis of the FIR dated 21.8.2002, lodged with the O/C, Baikhora police station by one Shri Kejori Mog (PW1). The FIR was to the effect that on 21.8.2002 at about 4 O'clock in the afternoon, while the informant was returning home after finishing his work in the field, he met the accused-appellant, a co-villager, in front of the rubber plantation of one Fasht Mog and behind him the deceased Chen Mog was also returning home with her cows and she was a little distance away. On being asked, as to whether he would go home or not, the accused-appellant replied in the negative stating that he would go later. Thereafter, when the informant had started for his house, after going a little distance, he heard an alarm in a female voice. According to the FIR, the PW1 had returned to the earlier place again where he had met the accused-appellant, however, he could not see the accused-appellant there nor he could see the deceased whom he had earlier noticed. Thereafter, all of a sudden, he saw the accused-appellant coming out of the jungle, that was there inside the rubber plantation, and on seeing the first informant, i.e., PW1, the accused-appellant ran away. Thereafter, the first informant returned home and came to know that his cousin sister, i.e., the deceased had not returned home. Thereafter, all of a sudden, he saw the accused-appellant coming out of the jungle, that was there inside the rubber plantation, and on seeing the first informant, i.e., PW1, the accused-appellant ran away. Thereafter, the first informant returned home and came to know that his cousin sister, i.e., the deceased had not returned home. According to the FIR, the search was conducted with the help of the people of the locality and in such search, the dead body of the deceased was found behind a bush inside the said rubber plantation. As per the FIR, it was the accused-appellant who had killed the deceased after committing rape on her. 4. On receipt of the FIR, the police started investigation etc.... Inquest was done over the dead body. The doctor also conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body. It appears that the accused-appellant was also examined by the doctor. On the basis of the materials on record, the accused-appellant was charged under Sections 376(1) and 302, IPC. 5. During trial, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses including the first informant, i.e., PW1. The conviction of the accused-appellant is on the basis of circumstantial evidence and on the theory of "last seen together". It appears that the learned trial court has primarily relied upon the evidence of PW1. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to the evidence on record for proper appreciation of the matter so as to find out as to whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is sustainable in law or not. 6. As noted above, PW1 is the first informant. He, in his deposition, while narrating the incident as reflected in the FIR, stated that he had seen the deceased at a distance of about 400/500 cubits away in the particular rubber garden, wherein the accused-appellant on being asked as to whether he would go home or not, he had replied in negative stating that he would go later on. Thereafter, as per his deposition, he had proceeded towards his home and on the way, heard a cry raised by a girl. Hearing such alarm, he turned back and again went to the place where he had met the accused-appellant. He remained there for ten minutes and looked around and found the accused-appellant coming out from the rubber garden and on seeing him, the accused-appellant fled away towards the jungle. Hearing such alarm, he turned back and again went to the place where he had met the accused-appellant. He remained there for ten minutes and looked around and found the accused-appellant coming out from the rubber garden and on seeing him, the accused-appellant fled away towards the jungle. Thereafter, he returned back to his home. As per his statement, he came to know from his maternal uncle Sri Mou Mog that the deceased did not return to her home on that day although all the cattle heads had returned home. 7. The aforesaid witness, in his deposition, further stated as to how the villagers gathered in the evening on the date of occurrence in search of the deceased. According to this witness, during such search he was also present. PW1, in his deposition also stated about lodging of the FIR and the police action thereafter. 8. In cross-examination, PW1 has stated that he alone was working in the paddy field. He could not identify the wearing apparels of the deceased. In cross-examination also he has stated that he had seen the deceased at a distance of about 400/500 cubits. According to him, the accused-appellant was dressed in a full sleeved shirt and a gamcha (napkin). He could also see that a lungi (cloth) was tied on his head. In the cross-examination, as against his statement in chief that he had returned home at about 4 p.m., at was stated by him that he had returned home at about 6.30/7 p.m. In the cross-examination, it was admitted by him that before meeting his maternal uncle, he did not tell anybody that he had seen the deceased in the rubber garden on his return from the paddy field to his house. Mr. Bhowmik, Learned Counsel representing the accused-appellant submits that this revelation in the cross-examination has a vital hearing inasmuch as, if there was anything suspicious, it was the duty of PW1 to inform the same to the villagers. 9. PW2 is a co-villager of the deceased. He, in his deposition, stated that on his way to home on the date of occurrence at about 4.55 p.m., he had met the accused-appellant on the road by the side of the rubber garden and on being asked, the accused-appellant told him that he would return home a little later. Thereafter, he went towards his home. He, in his deposition, stated that on his way to home on the date of occurrence at about 4.55 p.m., he had met the accused-appellant on the road by the side of the rubber garden and on being asked, the accused-appellant told him that he would return home a little later. Thereafter, he went towards his home. On that night at about 11 p.m. some police personnel came to his house and took him to the police station. He, in his deposition, stated about the seizure of one 'lungi' and one 'full sleeved shirt' in his presence and others. Exbt. 3 is the seizure list containing his signature. 10. PW3 is another co-villager of the deceased. He, in his deposition stated that on the date of occurrence, he was returning home at about 5.30 p.m. along with one Laxman Debnath, i.e., PW6. On the way, he met the accused-appellant by the side of the rubber garden. He came to know from the co-villager that the dead body of the deceased was found on that day in the evening inside the rubber garden. 11. PW4, in his deposition, stated that the deceased was his niece (daughter of his sister). Narrating the incident, he, in his deposition stated that on the date of the occurrence, the deceased had gone for grazing cattle heads. In the evening, all the cattle heads returned home but the deceased did hot return along with the cattle heads. According to this witness, on that day, in the evening, when he had asked his nephew Kejori Mog (PW1) regarding the whereabouts of the deceased, he was told by PW1 that at about 4 p.m. he had seen the deceased returning home along with the cattle heads near the rubber garden. According to this witness, PW1 had also told him that on his way he had met the accused-appellant in the rubber garden. Further statement made by this witness is relating to the recovery of the dead body, etc. In the cross-examination, this witness stated that he had a Tea-stall by the side of his house and that the accused-appellant had a Tailoring shop at Kalsi market. In his cross-examination, it was stated by him that the accused-appellant was a tailor by profession. According to him, his cattle heads had returned home, at about 6 p.m.... In the cross-examination, this witness stated that he had a Tea-stall by the side of his house and that the accused-appellant had a Tailoring shop at Kalsi market. In his cross-examination, it was stated by him that the accused-appellant was a tailor by profession. According to him, his cattle heads had returned home, at about 6 p.m.... This witness also stated that PW1 had told him that his niece, i.e., the deceased did not return home on that day. Rest of his statements are relating to recovery of the dead body and arrival of the police, etc. PW5, in his deposition, simply stated that the deceased was his neighbor and that he was not aware about the date and time of the death of the deceased. He also stated that he was also unaware as to how the deceased died. 12. PW6, in his deposition, stated that the accused-appellant is his co-villager and also the deceased. Narrating the incident, he, in his deposition stated that on the date of occurrence, he along with PW3 was coming back home along with the cattle heads. On the following day, he came to know about the death of the deceased and that the accused-appellant had been arrested by the police. In his cross-examination, this witness also stated that he along with PW3 and the accused-appellant had returned home along with the cattle heads. He also stated about the PW1 who was returning home along with his cattle heads in front of all of them. According to this witness, the accused-appellant was wearing a blue coloured 'lungi' and a white shirt at the time of returning home along with them. 13. Upon a reference to the aforesaid piece of evidence of PW6, Mr. A.C. Bhowmik, Learned Counsel representing the accused-appellant submits that the evidence of PW6 clearly suggests that the accused-appellant did not remain in the rubber garden and that he was also returning home along with others. (P Ws. 3 and 6). 14. PW8 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who in his deposition stated about registering the aforesaid police case under Sections 376/302, IPC. He proved the FIR (Exbt. 1/1). Narrating the incident, this witness has stated that he had gone to the place of occurrence along with the photographer and prepared the inquest report over the dead body. 3 and 6). 14. PW8 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who in his deposition stated about registering the aforesaid police case under Sections 376/302, IPC. He proved the FIR (Exbt. 1/1). Narrating the incident, this witness has stated that he had gone to the place of occurrence along with the photographer and prepared the inquest report over the dead body. During the search, he found a rope of jute by the side of the dead body. He also found a ladies umbrella, identified by the informant to be the umbrella of the deceased. According to this witness, on 22.8.2002, he had examined two witnesses and had also seized the wearing apparels of the accused-appellant at the place of occurrence in presence of the witnesses by preparing the seizure list. According to him, he had seized one full sleeved shirt and one 'lungi' from the wearing the accused. Exbt. 3 is the seizure list. He also stated that on 22.8.2002, upon arrest of the accused-appellant, he was produced before the Medical Officer for his medical examination and, accordingly, he was examined by the Medical Officer of the Jolaibari PHC. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he did not enquire about the distance of the paddy field from the place of occurrence. He also stated that at the time of arrest of the accused-appellant, his wife and son were present in the dwelling hut of the accused-appellant. According to PW8, from the statement of the witness Anutosh @ Gopal Namah, it was revealed that the accused-appellant was dressed in a lungi' of sky colour with white strive and a full shirt of maroon and brown colour. He admitted that he did not send the wearing apparels of the deceased and the accused-appellant for chemical examination. He denied that the investigation was perfunctory. 15. PW 9 is the Doctor, who had examined the accused-appellant. During examination, he found as follows: (i) He was capable for sexual intercourse; (ii) No semen was found on his body; (iii) Both the knees were having torn knee hair which suggested of recent friction before the examination. (iv) Glans penis of him was found by me congenitally open(out of prepuce) as a result it was dry. Exbt. 8 is the medical examination report, which was proved by the PW9. (iv) Glans penis of him was found by me congenitally open(out of prepuce) as a result it was dry. Exbt. 8 is the medical examination report, which was proved by the PW9. As regards the external injuries on the dead body, the following were found: On dissection of the dead body I found as follows: (i) Sub-cutenous tissue in the ligature area of throat was shining and patichial hamoerrhage were found on both sides of ligature marks. (ii) Patichial haemorrhage and fluid in subarachnoid space of brain was found. (iii) Larynx and trachea were having patichial haemorrhage. (iv) Pericardium having patichial heamorrhage. (v) Heart - Left side of the heart was found empty and right side of the heart was found full of blood. (vi) Blood vessels were found having liquid blood. (vii) Mouth, Phranyx and Esophagus were found having patichial haemorrhage. (viii) Stomach was empty and small intestine was having fluid. Organ of generation - In both the labia majora, there were bruises and semen was found inside the vagina having particular smell inside the vagina. I collected that semen from the private parts and preserved for chemical examination. I handed over the container of semen collected by me to the police officer for examination. All other parts/organs were found intact. The dead body was stout, not decomposed and not emaciated." According to this witness, before conducting the post mortem examination, another report was furnished relating to the examination of the deceased, which was as per the requisition given by the police officer of the particular police station. According to this witness, the cause of death of the deceased was as follows: In my opinion, the cause of death of the deceased was due to axphyxia caused by strangulation and it was homicidal in nature. The death was caused after committing rape on the deceased. From the above finding I am also of the opinion that deceased was subjected to forceful intercourse before murder. In the cross-examination, this witness stated the following: No nail marks was found in the body of Milan Debnath during my examination. The deceased was able to resist forceful intercourse as per her age. I examined the wearing apparals of the accused at the time of his examination and no stain of semen was found in his wearing apparals. In the cross-examination, this witness stated the following: No nail marks was found in the body of Milan Debnath during my examination. The deceased was able to resist forceful intercourse as per her age. I examined the wearing apparals of the accused at the time of his examination and no stain of semen was found in his wearing apparals. It is a fact that in case of commission of intercourse on any rough surface by a male person torn knee hair may be found. I did not collect any semen from the accused Milan Debnath. It is not mentioned in my report regarding rigormortis and I can not say whether rigormortis were disappear. The frock, jungia (panty) and "Pachra" which were found in the dead body were undressed during P.M. Examination. As per vaginal swab examination report (Exbt. 11) vaginal swab of the deceased was collected on 22.8.2002 at 1:20 p.m. I have not mentioned in my P.M. examination regarding cooling of body. 16. PW10 is the photographer, who in his deposition stated as to how he was requisitioned for taking photograph of the deceased etc. PW11 is another police officer, posted at Baikhora police station on the date of the occurrence. He took up the investigation of the case from the earlier, I.O. He generally stated about the investigation carried out by him and as to how the same was completed and the accused-appellant was charge sheeted. 17. It is on the basis of the aforesaid evidence, the learned trial court has held the accused-appellant guilty of the offence. According to the learned trial court, the guilt of the accused-appellant is established by circumstantial evidence under the principle of "last seen together". The accused-appellant, who was examined under Section 313 Cr.PC, pointing out the circumstances appearing against him, denied the commission of the offence. 18. While Mr. Bhowmik, Learned Counsel representing the accused-appellant submits that it is not a case of establishing the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond all reasonable doubt, Mr. Debnath, learned Special Public Prosecutor submits that the testimony of PW1 is sufficient to bring home the charge of committing the offences under Sections 376 and 302, IPC. Mr. Bhowmik, Learned Counsel for the accused-appellant, has placed reliance on certain decisions, which are as follows: (1) The judgment and order dated 7.5.1997 passed by the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal(s) No. 720-722/95 Gopal Dev and Ors. Mr. Bhowmik, Learned Counsel for the accused-appellant, has placed reliance on certain decisions, which are as follows: (1) The judgment and order dated 7.5.1997 passed by the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal(s) No. 720-722/95 Gopal Dev and Ors. v. State of Tripura. (2) Chandu alias Chandrahas v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1992 SC 2302 . (3) Jaswant Gir v. State of Punjab (2005) 12 SCC 438 . (4) Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy and Anr. v. State of A.P. (2006) 10 SCC 172 . (5) Mayur Panabhai Shah v. State of Gujarat (1982) 2 SCC 396 . (6) Kailash Potlia v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1996 SC 66 . 19. We may briefly refer to the principles laid down in the aforesaid cases. In Gopal Dev (supra), an unreported judgment, the Apex Court, having referred to the evidence rendered by a particular witness who was the sole eye witness, and having found the said witness did not tell any of the persons who had assembled in the particular place about the incident, held that he was not trustworthy. Accordingly, the benefit of reasonable doubt was extended to the accused-appellant. In Chandu alias Chandrahas (supra), the Apex Court, dealing with the circumstantial evidence of "last seen together" and the required proof thereof, held that the evidence adduced by the prosecution was not sufficient to hold that the accused and the deceased was last seen together. In that case, the prosecution witnesses had stated that they had seen the deceased who was about to cross the canal and the accused who at the relevant time was grazing cattails near the canal. It was held that the same by itself should not be sufficient to establish the case against the accused-appellant on the basis of circumstantial evidence of last seen together. 20. In Jaswant Gir (supra), the Apex Court again, dealing with the circumstantial evidence of "last seen together", held that the same by itself is not sufficient to fasten the guilt. It was held that such circumstances by itself cannot lead to the irresistible conclusion that the accused had killed the deceased. It as also observed that there being a considerable time-gap and in absence of any other link in the chain of circumstantial evidence, the appellant could not have been convicted solely on the basis of "last seen together" evidence. 21. It as also observed that there being a considerable time-gap and in absence of any other link in the chain of circumstantial evidence, the appellant could not have been convicted solely on the basis of "last seen together" evidence. 21. In Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy (supra), also the Apex Court, in absence of any cogent materials, disbelieved the prosecution case of establishing the offences against the accused-appellant on the basis of circumstantial evidence. It was observed that conviction on circumstantial evidence must be on the basis of all the pieces of incriminating circumstances, which must be reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form such a chain of events as would permit no conclusion other than one of guilt of the accused. In Mayur Panabhai Shah (supra), the Apex Court observed that there is no irrebuttable presumption that a Doctor is always truthful witness. In Kailash Potlia (supra), the Apex Court observed that uncorroborated sole testimony of recovery witness is not believable in absence of any other circumstances linking the chain of events. 22. The aforesaid decisions have been referred to by Mr. Bhowmik, Learned Counsel representing the accused-appellant to bring home his argument that the conviction of the accused-appellant on the basis of the purported circumstantial evidence establishing the same is not sustainable in law. On the other hand, Mr. Debnath, learned Special P.P., Tripura, submits that the ratio of the decisions will have to be understood in the background of facts situation of each case and cannot be applied universally, irrespective of the facts involved in this case. 23. The learned trial court has convicted the accused-appellant primarily on the basis of the testimony of PW1 who was the first informant. It is true that the said witness, on his way to home had met the accused-appellant. According to him, he had also seen the deceased at a distance of about 400/500 cubits away. Merely because the accused-appellant was found on the road and the PW1 had also seen the deceased at such a distance, that by itself, cannot establish "last seen together" principle in the circumstantial evidence. According to this witness, he had heard the cry of a girl and on returning back to the said place where he had earlier met the accused-appellant and the deceased, could not find them. According to this witness, he had heard the cry of a girl and on returning back to the said place where he had earlier met the accused-appellant and the deceased, could not find them. It was after about ten minutes he had allegedly noticed the accused-appellant coming out from the jungle and fleeing from the place of occurrence after seeing him. This particular testimony of PW1 is not corroborated by any other evidence. On the other hand, PW6, in his deposition is categorical that the accused-appellant had returned home along with him and PW3. PW1 in his examination in chief stated the timing of meeting the accused-appellant as 4 p.m. but, in his cross-examination, he stated the said time as 6.30/7 p.m. PW3 also in his deposition stated that on the date of occurrence, he was returning home at about 5.30 p.m. along with PW6. He also stated that they had met the accused-appellant on the village road by the side of the rubber garden. Such statement on the part of PW3 cannot lead to the irresistible conclusion that it was the accused-appellant who had committed the offence. It will be very pertinent to mention here that neither the PW3 nor the PW6, in their deposition stated about meeting the victim girl. 24. Much reliance has been placed on the evidence of the Doctor, who upon examination of the accused-appellant, had opined that both the knees of the accused-appellant were having torn knee hair. This finding by itself cannot lead to the finding that it was the accused-appellant who had committed the rape on the victim girl. PW9 also in his report opined that the accused-appellant was capable of sexual intercourse. It will have to be borne in mind that the accused-appellant is a married person with a son. 25. The post mortem examination report suggests that there was injury mark on the body of the victim girl, however, that by itself cannot attribute the guilt to the accused-appellant. The prosecution has placed much reliance on the deposition of PW9 relating to commission of forceful intercourse upon the deceased. The learned trial court has also held that the same was not denied from the side of the accused-appellant during cross-examination. The prosecution has placed much reliance on the deposition of PW9 relating to commission of forceful intercourse upon the deceased. The learned trial court has also held that the same was not denied from the side of the accused-appellant during cross-examination. It is another thing to say that the injury marks on the body of the deceased suggested commission of the offence under Section376, IPC but it is another thing to say that it was the accused-appellant who had committed the said offence. There is nothing in the evidence of the prosecution to establish that the accused-appellant had committed the offence under Sections 376 and 302, IPC. 26. As has been held by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decisions, the circumstantial evidence relating to "last seen together" must be of such nature that the entire chain of events is established and there is no room for any amount of suspicion. Needless to say that suspicion howsoever may be grave cannot lead to conviction of the accused-appellant unless the offence alleged against him is found to be established beyond all reasonable doubt. 27. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, we are of the considered view that it is not a case of establishing guilt of the accused-appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. We are of the considered opinion that the accused-appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt. 28. For all the aforesaid reasons, we allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 16.12.2003 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Belonia, South Tripura in Session Trial Case No. 18(ST/B) of 2003. Consequently, the accused-appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not wanted in connection with any other offence. Let the L.C. Records be send down to the Court below along with a copy of this judgment. Appeal allowed