JUDGMENT : Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Present appeal is preferred with 65 days’ delay. We have perused the accompanying affidavit to the application seeking condonation of delay. We are satisfied that delay has been property explained. Therefore, 65 days delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 2. Application seeking condonation of delay (CRMA No. 1720 of 2015) is allowed. 3. Present appeal is preferred assailing the judgment and order dated 30.04.2015, passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar, in Session Trial No. 117 of 2006, whereby accused / respondents were acquitted from the charges punishable under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 I.P.C. 4. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that PW2 Mubarik Ahmed has reported the matter to Police Station Shyampur, District Haridwar stating therein that earlier his younger brother Kayum @ Bhura was having illicit relation with Hasruba, however, thereafter, he got married with Hasruba and brought her as second wife and started living in another village; uncle of Hasruba, namely, Shokeen/accused was not happy with the relation between Kayum @ Bhura and Hasruba on 03.07.2005; when Kayum @ Bhura was present at Shanti Dairy, one man came to the Santi Dairy and informed Kayum @ Bhura that Shokeen has called him; he left with him; he was last seen in the company of both the accused on the motor cycle by Rais and Yunus and his dead body was recovered from the jungle of Shyampur on 04.07.2005; he has every suspicion that his younger brother was killed by both the accused. 5. PW2 Mubarik Ahmed has not seen either of the accused carrying Kayum @ Bhura deceased in their company. There is no direct evidence against the accused. Entire case is roaming around the sole testimony of last seen evidence, i.e. PW5 Yunus. PW5 Yunus has stated that he has seen the deceased at about 12:30 noon on 3rd July, 2005 with both the accused on motor cycle going towards Chandi Ghat. 6. It is important to mention herein that dead body of deceased was recovered on 4th July, 2015 and post mortem was conducted on the dead body of the deceased by PW6 Dr. Pradeep Kumar on 05.07.2005. As per the post mortem report and statement of PW6 Dr. Pradeep Kumar, death could be possible one day before the post mortem. 6. It is important to mention herein that dead body of deceased was recovered on 4th July, 2015 and post mortem was conducted on the dead body of the deceased by PW6 Dr. Pradeep Kumar on 05.07.2005. As per the post mortem report and statement of PW6 Dr. Pradeep Kumar, death could be possible one day before the post mortem. As per the post mortem report, death could occur on 4th July, 2015. None has seen the deceased in the company of accused on 04.07.2005. There is no evidence to the effect that accused were seen in the company of deceased from 03.07.2007 till 04.07.2007. Therefore, last seen evidence in the present case has got no importance at all. 7. In view of the discussion made hereinbefore, judgment passed by the learned Trial Court does not require any interference or re-consideration. Hence, no useful purpose would be served in granting leave to appeal. 8. Consequently, leave to appeal is declined. In the result Government Appeal is also dismissed.