JUDGMENT Rakesh Saksena, J. 1. Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 2.5.1994 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad, in Sessions Trial No. 192/91, convicting him under Sections 302, 364 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to imprisonment for life, Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs. 1000/- and Rigorous Imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. 1000/. on each count respectively. Sentences directed to run concurrently. 2. In short, the prosecution case is that on 24.8.1991, N.K. Vyas, lodged report with the police that his son Prateek @ Bittu, aged about 10 years, who had gone out at about 5 o'clock in the evening for playing, did not come back home. A missing report was recorded in Rojnamcha No. 1955. On enquiry, it was revealed that the Appellant was seen carrying Prateek (a) Bittu on a scooter at 'Jind Baba Place' and 'Bus Stand', Hoshangabad. Since a letter was also received by N.K. Vyas in the past, in which name of Appellant was mentioned, it was suspected that he might have kidnapped Prateek. After enquiry, a case under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against him and the First Information Report (Exh. P-33) was recorded. On 25.8.1991, at about 19.45 hours Appellant was arrested and on his information (Exh. P-4), vide recovery memo (Exh. P-5), dead body of Prateek was recovered from the forest of Budhni on the same day at about 23 hours. Merg intimation (Exh. P-34) was recorded. Spot map (Exh. P-6) and inquest memorandum (Exh. P-7) was drawn. Dead body of Prateek was sent for post-mortem examination. Dr. S.N. Katariya (P.W. 8), Assistant Surgeon of District Jail, Hoshangabad conducted the post-mortem examination of the body and found that the cause of death of Prateek was asphyxia due to throttling. Death was homicidal in nature. Postmortem report is Exh. P-16. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the Appellant under Sections 364, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. During trial, Appellant abjured his guilt. According to him he was falsely implicated. In the night of 24.8.1991, two Constables had come to his house and enquired about the missing child. On his expressing ignorance they left him, but on the next day, i.e., on 25.8.1991, they took him to police station and booked in the case. 3. During trial, Appellant abjured his guilt. According to him he was falsely implicated. In the night of 24.8.1991, two Constables had come to his house and enquired about the missing child. On his expressing ignorance they left him, but on the next day, i.e., on 25.8.1991, they took him to police station and booked in the case. In his defence, he examined Inspector Sunder Singh (D.W. 1), Clerk of S.P. Office, M.L. Batham (D.W. 2), Reader of S.D.M., Ganesh Prasad Rathore (D.W. 3) and Constable Santosh Kumar Sharma (D.W. 4). 4. In support of its case, prosecution examined 16 witnesses. There was no direct evidence in the case, it rested on the circumstantial evidence. Learned Trial Judge relying mainly on the evidence of N.K. Vyas (P.W. 1), Pradeep Verma (P.W. 2), Amar Singh Rajput (P.W. 3), who had seen the deceased in the company of accused, Brajesh Kashyap (P.W. 4), Investigating Officers S.K. Pathak (P.W. 14) and K.M. Vyas (P.W. 15) held the Appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him as mentioned above. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction, Appellant has filed this appeal. 5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the evidence of prosecution witnesses having last seen the deceased together with the Appellant was not sufficient to hold the Appellant guilty of kidnapping and committing murder of deceased. The evidence of Pradeep Verma (P.W. 2) and Amar Singh (P.W. 3) was not reliable. Amar Singh (P.W. 3) had not stated that he had seen the deceased child in the company of Appellant, therefore, it could not be held that the deceased was seen with the Appellant. He submitted that the circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution was not trustworthy. The evidence of alleged recovery of the dead body at the instance of Appellant was not reliable because Appellant did not say that he threw or concealed the dead body of child at the place where from it was recovered. He placed reliance on the decisions rendered by the Apex Court in Subhash Chand v. State of Rajasthan, (2002) 1 SCC 702 ,;Bodhraj @ Bodha and Ors. v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, (2002) 8 SCC 45 ,Jaswant Gir v. Slate of Punjab, (2005) 12 SCC 438 , Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy and Anr. He placed reliance on the decisions rendered by the Apex Court in Subhash Chand v. State of Rajasthan, (2002) 1 SCC 702 ,;Bodhraj @ Bodha and Ors. v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, (2002) 8 SCC 45 ,Jaswant Gir v. Slate of Punjab, (2005) 12 SCC 438 , Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy and Anr. v. State of A.P., (2006) 10 SCC 172 , Ashish Batham v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2002 SC 3206 : 2003(1) M.P.H.T. 1 (SC) andBakshish Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1971 SC 2016 . On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State, justified and supported the judgment of conviction. 7. It was not disputed that deceased Prateek @ Bittu was the son of N.K. Vyas and had died of homicidal injuries. His dead body was found in the forest of Budhni on 25.8.1991. The body was identified by Jagdish Prasad (P.W. 5), Uncle of deceased. After inquest, body was sent for post-mortem examination. Dr. S.N. Katariya (P.W. 8) conducted the post-mortem examination and vide his report (Exh. P-16) found following injuries on the body of deceased :- (i) Contusion on the left cheek and left eye, (ii) Contusion on the right cheek and right eye, (iii) Abrasion on the anterior side of neck, 2" broad & 3" long, horizontally present over the glottis region on anterior side of neck, (iv) Abrasion three in number 1/4" x 1/10" in size, present on right side of neck region and two abrasions on the left side of neck, (v) Contusion on the anterior side of neck region 3" below the glottis present, size 4" x 3", (vi) Contusion on anterior side of chest region 5" x 3" in size, and (vii) mouth was open, tongue bitten between the teeth and rigor mortis present on lower extremities. In the opinion of doctor, cause of death of deceased was asphyxia due to throttling and injury to vital organ and lungs. The time of death was between 24 hours to 36 hours within duration from the post-mortem examination. Thus, it was clearly established that the death of deceased was homicidal in nature. 8. The principal question now before us is whether Prateek @ Bittu was kidnapped and murdered by the Appellant. Complainant N.K. Vyas (P.W. 1) deposed that in the evening of 24th August, 1991, when he came back from his Office, he did not find Prateek. Thus, it was clearly established that the death of deceased was homicidal in nature. 8. The principal question now before us is whether Prateek @ Bittu was kidnapped and murdered by the Appellant. Complainant N.K. Vyas (P.W. 1) deposed that in the evening of 24th August, 1991, when he came back from his Office, he did not find Prateek. Despite vigorous search, his whereabouts could not be located, therefore, at about 8.00 p.m., he lodged missing report with the police. On next day, i.e., 25th August, 1991, Pradeep Verma came to his house and informed that he had seen Prateek going on a scooter with Sanjay Deewan. Since petrol of the scooter of Sanjay Deewan had run out, he had helped him by towing his scooter to Fozdar Petrol Pump. N.K. Vyas further deposed that on 6th August, 1991, he had also received a letter intimidating him. All these facts were disclosed by this witness to Police Officers and the aforesaid letter was also handed over to police. 9. Pradeep Verma (P.W. 2) stated that when he was present at his farm house, situated at Babai Road, near Jind Baba, he saw Appellant with Prateek. Appellant told him that his petrol had run out, then he took a rope from Ramnath (P.W. 9) and with it towed his scooter to Fozdar Petrol Pump. According to him, at about 9 o'clock in the night, he came to know that child Prateek was missing, therefore, he went to inform Mr. Vyas, but he did not find anybody at the house. In the next morning, at about 9.30 a.m., he again went to the house of Mr. Vyas and informed him what he had seen. Police seized the rope and the scooter from his possession with the help of which he had pulled the scooter of Appellant. The evidence of Pradeep Verma (P.W. 2) find support from the evidence of N.K. Vyas (P.W. 1) and also Ramnath (P.W. 9) from whom he had obtained rope for towing the scooter of Appellant. Ramnath (P.W. 9) stated that at about 5.30 p.m., when he was at his shop situated near Jind Baba, Pipariya Road, Pradeep Verma (P.W. 2) came to him and asked for a rope for towing a scooter. The scooter was of a boy with whom a young boy was also present. Ramnath (P.W. 9) stated that at about 5.30 p.m., when he was at his shop situated near Jind Baba, Pipariya Road, Pradeep Verma (P.W. 2) came to him and asked for a rope for towing a scooter. The scooter was of a boy with whom a young boy was also present. Pradeep Verma (P.W. 2) was subjected to a lengthy cross-examination, but nothing emerged to render his evidence unreliable. Apart from it, Amar Singh (P.W. 3) also disclosed that at about 6.30 p.m. on 24.8.1991 when he was at Budhni Triangle, at the Hotel of his brother, he saw Appellant going on a scooter with a child of about 8 years. After some time, when he went at the road and was waiting for a bus to Hoshangabad, he again saw Appellant coming back. At this time no body was with him. Though, some discrepancies and omissions were detected in his evidence, but they were not material or of substantive nature. It is also true that a criminal case about liquor and one for theft of wood was registered by police and Forest Officers against him, but merely on that count his evidence cannot be discarded which otherwise appears natural and consistent. It is true that Ramnath (P.W. 9) and Amar Singh (P.W. 3) did not know deceased, but still their evidence furnished corroboration to the testimony of Pradeep (P.W. 2) that he saw Appellant with deceased child at the relevant point of time. We are not impressed by the argument advanced by learned Counsel for the Appellant that since Pradeep Verma (P.W. 2) and Amar Singh (P.W. 3) had not seen the deceased at or near about the place where the dead body of deceased was found their evidence was not incriminating against the Appellant. It is to be noted that Pradeep Verma (P.W. 2) had seen the Appellant going with the child at Hoshangabad Babai Road and Amar Singh (P.W. 3) had seen them at Hoshangabad-Budhni Road which in fact are different points of the same road. 10. In case of Subhash Chand (supra), the Apex Court observed that "to constitute the evidence of last seen together, the evidence must definitely permit an inference being drawn that the victim and the accused were seen together at a point of time in close proximity with the time and date of commission of crime". 10. In case of Subhash Chand (supra), the Apex Court observed that "to constitute the evidence of last seen together, the evidence must definitely permit an inference being drawn that the victim and the accused were seen together at a point of time in close proximity with the time and date of commission of crime". In the case in hand, according to N.K. Vyas (P.W. 1) deceased was missing from the house since about 5 o'clock in the evening. Pradeep Verma (P.W. 2) saw the deceased in the company of Appellant at about 5.30 p.m. and Amar Singh (P.W. 3) saw them together at about 6 p.m. going on the scooter towards Budhni. 11. In Bodhraj @ Bodha (supra), the Supreme Court held that "the theory of last seen together 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 the crime becomes impossible and that it would be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in cases where there is no other positive evidence to conclude that the accused and the deceased were last seen together". According to prosecution witnesses, they saw the deceased Prateek in the company of Appellant at about 5.30-6.00 p.m. on 24.8.1991 and his dead body was recovered on 25.8.1991 at about 23 hours. According to Dr. S.N. Katariya (P.W. 8) death of deceased had occurred within duration of 24-36 hours from the time of post-mortem examination. Post-mortem was done at about 9.30 a.m. on 26th August, 1991. Thus, there appears no inconsistency between the evidence of last seen together and the death of deceased. Apart from it, deceased was merely a child of about 8-10 years, who was kidnapped, therefore, it was not possible for him to have parted the company of Appellant for going to any other destination. The facts of the case of Jaswant Gir (supra), are different. The evidence of last seen together was found doubtful because the Appellant was going in a direction different from the destination of deceased and there was no apparent reason why deceased should have chosen to go in the vehicle which was proceeding in some other direction. The facts of the case of Jaswant Gir (supra), are different. The evidence of last seen together was found doubtful because the Appellant was going in a direction different from the destination of deceased and there was no apparent reason why deceased should have chosen to go in the vehicle which was proceeding in some other direction. In the case in hand, the deceased child was the pillion rider of the scooter driven by the accused. 12. After appreciating the evidence of Pradeep Verma (P.W. 2) and Amar Singh (P.W. 3) in the light of aforesaid enunciation of law, we find no iota of doubt that the Appellant was last seen with the deceased, and that there was no such time-gap between the time of death of deceased and the time when the deceased was seen with the Appellant to give rise to any other inference in favour of Appellant. 13. Another piece of evidence relied on by the prosecution is about the recovery of the dead body of deceased on the information furnished by the Appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Appellant was arrested on 25.8.1991 at about 7.45 p.m. Brajesh (P.W. 4) deposed that after arrest, the Appellant disclosed to police that the dead body of Prateek was lying in the forest of Budhni. This information was recorded by the police in memorandum (Exh. P-4). Though, according to him, it was also mentioned by the Appellant that he had killed the deceased by throttling, but the admissible portion of the information is only that the dead body was lying in the forest and he had thrown the clothes and slippers of deceased in the river. After recording the above information, he and Appellant along with Police Inspector went to the place where the dead body was lying. By vehicle they went for about 11/2 kms. on the road then Appellant led them to the place where the dead body was lying. The recovery of the dead body was recorded in memorandum (Exh. P-5). The evidence of Brajesh Kashyap (P.W. 4) finds support from the evidence of Jagdish (P.W. 5), Sandesh Kumar (P.W. 6), Photographer Manoj Malviya (P.W. 7) and Investigating Officer S.K. Pathak (P.W. 14). S.K. Pathak (P.W. 14) categorically stated that Appellant proceeded ahead and got the dead body recovered from the forest. P-5). The evidence of Brajesh Kashyap (P.W. 4) finds support from the evidence of Jagdish (P.W. 5), Sandesh Kumar (P.W. 6), Photographer Manoj Malviya (P.W. 7) and Investigating Officer S.K. Pathak (P.W. 14). S.K. Pathak (P.W. 14) categorically stated that Appellant proceeded ahead and got the dead body recovered from the forest. He denied that he had seen the dead body lying in the forest before hand. 14. Learned Counsel for the Appellant argued that in the information memorandum (Exh. P-4), merely it was mentioned that the dead body was lying there, therefore, it cannot be assumed that it was thrown or concealed by the Appellant as the body was lying at an open place. He placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Bakshish Singh (supra). In our opinion, the facts of Bakshish Singh's case (supra), were different. Where only incriminating evidence against the Appellant was of his pointing the place where the dead body of deceased had been thrown. The Apex Court held that it was not a conclusive circumstance though it raised a strong suspicion against the Appellant. Even if he was not a party to the murder, he could have come to know the place where the dead body of deceased has been thrown. But in the present case, the Appellant led to Investigating Officer and to witnesses in the forest of Budhni and pointed out the place where the dead body was lying. It is apparent from map of the place (Exh. P-6), from where the body was recovered, that the place was about 82 paces away from the Salkanpur-Budhni Road, inside the forest and was not visible from the road. After closely examining the evidence of aforesaid witnesses, we are of the view that it has been clearly established that the dead body of deceased child Prateek was recovered on the information given by the Appellant, and that there was nothing on record to indicate that the fact of the dead body lying in the forest was known to any body else. Apart from it, there appeared absolutely no reason for the Appellant to have the knowledge about the dead body lying in the forest. Even if the dead body was not concealed, the exclusive knowledge about its presence in the forest could be readily attributed to Appellant. 15. Apart from it, there appeared absolutely no reason for the Appellant to have the knowledge about the dead body lying in the forest. Even if the dead body was not concealed, the exclusive knowledge about its presence in the forest could be readily attributed to Appellant. 15. As far as the evidence adduced by the Appellant that the Jeep in which the police had gone to recover the dead body, had gone to Salkanpur twice, it has been admitted by Santosh Kumar Driver (D.W. 4) that second time he had carried the photographer to the spot from where the body was recovered. In this regard, Investigating Officer S.K. Pathak (P.W. 4) categorically denied that he saw the dead body before it was recovered on the information furnished by the Appellant. In our opinion, Trial Court rightly disbelieved the evidence adduced by the Appellant in his defence. 16. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the prosecution utterly failed to prove that the Appellant had any motive to abduct the child Prateek and to commit his murder, therefore, it could not be held that the Appellant was the perpetrator of the offence. The evidence adduced by the prosecution though may give rise to strong suspicion, but that cannot form basis of conviction of the Appellant. According to him in the case of Ashish Batham (supra), the Supreme Court held that "mere suspicion, howsoever, strong or probable it may be, is no effective substitute for the legal proof required to substantiate the charge of commission of a crime and grave the charge is, greater should be the standard of proof required. There is a long mental distance between 'may be true' and 'must be true'." 17. It is true that prosecution could not adduce any evidence about the motive on the part of the Appellant for committing the offence, but in our opinion, where the evidence even though circumstantial, is of conclusive nature and indicates only the guilt of accused and rules out any other probability pointing the innocence of the accused, shall not restrain the Court from drawing the inference of the guilt of the accused. In this case, it has been satisfactorily proved by the prosecution evidence that the deceased child was last seen alive in the company of Appellant and thereafter, his dead body was discovered from the forest on the information furnished by the Appellant, therefore, in our opinion the inevitable conclusion is that it was Appellant only, who had kidnapped the child Prateek from the guardianship of his parents and committed his murder by throttling him, though the motive for commission of the crime remained shrouded in mystery. 18. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we are of the definite view that the Trial Court committed no error in holding the Appellant guilty and in convicting him for the offences under Sections 364, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of the Appellant by the Court below are affirmed. Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.