JUDGMENT : Aniruddha Bose, J. The appellants, Bikash Murmu (in CRA No. 373 of 2013) and Bangeswar Murmu (CRA No. 271 of 2014) have been convicted of offences under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 on charge of murder of one Srikanta Hansda of the village Makopali under Bandwan Police Station in the district of Purulia on 12th/13th July, 2010. In a judgment delivered on 21st March, 2013 in Sessions Trial No. 15 of 2012 in connection with Sessions Case No. 301 of 2012, the Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Purulia found the appellants guilty and has sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life. This judgment and order is assailed by the appellants before us in the two appeals, which have been argued in a composite manner before us. We shall decide both the appeals in this judgment. The appellant Bangeswar Murmu is undergoing detention at present, while in connection with this case, Bikash has been enlarged on bail. 2. The prosecution case, which was accepted by the Trial Court is that on 12th July, 2010, in the evening there was a meeting of a political party in the house of one Balaram Mandy in Makopali village. The deceased victim was present in that meeting. The meeting ended at about 10 P.M. Thereafter about six or seven miscreants "carried" Srikanta Hansda towards Bhutka Dungri forest, implying the deceased victim was dragged in that direction. Sounds of gunshots were heard thereafter, but out of fear, none ventured in that direction in that night itself. On the next morning, that is 13th July 2010, the dead body of the victim was found on a field belonging to one Lakshman Mandy. There were multiple injuries on the body which have been described in the written complaint made by the father of the deceased as cut injuries caused by weapons and multiple bullet injuries. On receiving the information, the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station started the case, registered as Bandwan P.S. Case No. 21/10 and took-up the investigation himself and visited the spot, and made inquest. The body was sent was sent for postmortem. The postmortem report, which has been marked Exhibit 5' records several injuries under two heads, being "incised wounds" and "bullet injuries". The body was sent was sent for postmortem. The postmortem report, which has been marked Exhibit 5' records several injuries under two heads, being "incised wounds" and "bullet injuries". In the column meant for recording the opinion of the Medical Officer in the "Model Post Mortem Report Form", as regards cause and manner of death, it has been recorded "due to shock and hemorrhage due to injuries already mentioned, antemortem and homicidal in nature." In the report, injuries on several parts of the body has been reported. In the column carrying the heading "Manner of causation of injuries", in the said Form, it has been specified "Injury No 1 to 5 caused by Heavy Sharp cutting substance and others caused by Fire Arm." 3. The case by the police was started on the basis of a written complaint of Ramchand Hansda, father of the deceased, who also deposed on behalf of the prosecution as P.W. 2. This case was started in relation to offences under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, as it is revealed from the FIR. On 13th July 2010, at about 8.15 hours, the written complaint was lodged. On the basis of such complaint, formal FIR was registered, as FIR No. 21/2010. The written complaint has been made Exhibit 2' before the Trial Court whereas the formal FIR has been made Exhibit 7'. The translated version of the written compliant reads:- "Sir, It is my humble prayer that I, Ramchand Hansda, son of late Bilam Hansda, am the resident of village Mokopali under P.S. Bandwan, District Purulia. Yesterday on 12/7/2010, in the evening a meeting of Sangsad was going on in our village. At about 10 p.m. while all were returning home after completion of the meeting at the time 6/7 miscreants being armed with weapons dragged my son Srikanta Hansda (25 years) from Kuli Rasta towards Bhutka Dungri jungle. After sometime the sound of firing was heard. Being afraid of we did not go towards that place. Today on 13/07/2010 in the morning found the blood-stained dead-body of my son lying in the field of Lakshman Mandy which is situated from a little distance from our locality. There were cut injury caused by weapons and multiple bullet injuries on the person of the deceased. I cannot say as to who killed my son in this manner. Today on 13/07/2010 in the morning found the blood-stained dead-body of my son lying in the field of Lakshman Mandy which is situated from a little distance from our locality. There were cut injury caused by weapons and multiple bullet injuries on the person of the deceased. I cannot say as to who killed my son in this manner. I will inform if I get the news. Bangeswar Murmu of our village Makoplai has stated to our village people that he identified some of the miscreants. Therefore, it is my prayer to take action so that the murderers of my son get appropriate punishment." (emphasis added) 4. Question has been raised on behalf of the appellants as to whether the last sentence of the first paragraph of the written complaint, which has been emphasised by us in the preceding paragraph was actually written by the scribe Parimal Besra (P.W. 4) or whether there was interpolation made in the written complaint. We have seen the Exhibit 2' and find the writing of this sentence in bengali is in an ink different from the one in which rest of the complaint was written, and also in a different handwriting style. We shall revert to that aspect of the controversy later in this judgment. Debasis Pahari, a sub-inspector of police who was the Officer-in-charge of the police station has deposed in the trial as P.W. 13. From the place of occurrence, he claims to have made seizure of empty cartridges, live ammunition's along with blood stained and control earth. These materials are reflected in the seizure list, made Exhibit 3' in course of trial. 5. We find from deposition of the P.W. 13 that after conducting inquest the dead body was sent to Purulia Sadar Hospital through one Doyamoy Singh, a police constable. He has been examined as Prosecution Witness (P.W.) 9. The carbon copy of the report of inquest, has been made Exhibit 9'. In the inquest report, it has been recorded by the Investigating Officer (i.e. P.W. 13) that he could ascertain from the villagers that on 12th July 2010 at about 10 P.M. certain miscreants had dragged the deceased the deceased from the house and killed him by chopping with sharp weapons and gunshots. P.W. 2 (Ramchand Hansda) P.W. 3 (Parimal Besra), Mohan Mandi (P.W. 5) and P.W. 7 (Rupchand Hansda) were the witnesses to the inquest. P.W. 2 (Ramchand Hansda) P.W. 3 (Parimal Besra), Mohan Mandi (P.W. 5) and P.W. 7 (Rupchand Hansda) were the witnesses to the inquest. In the translated copy of the Paper Book, the name of the third witness has been recorded as "Goha Mandy", but we found from the Exhibit 9' that the name was wrongly spelt and it was Mohan Mandy. In the report of inquest, no name of the offenders had been recorded. 6. As regards the postmortem report, Mrs. Goswami, learned advocate for the appellants has brought to our notice certain discrepancies in relation to description of the wearing apparels of the deceased. In the inquest report, the translated version of which forms part of the Paper Book, it has been recorded that the deceased wore deep green coloured full-shirt and striped old lungi. In the inquest report, which is Exhibit 9', what has been written is a deep green coloured "jangia" (underwear). In page 2 of the postmortem report, however, it has been recorded:- "Schedule of Observations (A) General (1) (2) (3) (4) (.) (.) (.) (5) Description of clothes worn - important features. (1) White Dhuti (2) White full Shirt. (3) Ash colour Jangia" The postmortem report has been made Exhibit 5' and has been proved by Dr. Amal Nath, the autopsy surgeon (P.W. 10). 7. It appears that while investigation was continuing, Debasis Pahari the Officer-in-charge of Bandwan Police Station, was transferred and in his place one Dipankar Sarkar, also a sub-inspector of police was posted on 30th August 2011. Said Dipankar Sarkar had taken up further investigation and deposed as P.W. 14 in course of trial. He arrested Bangeswar on 2nd September 2012. Earlier, Bikash was arrested on 31st May, 2012 in connection with another case and subsequently shown arrested in the instant case, being Bandwan P.S. Case no. 21/2010. 8. It is also the case of prosecution that while in custody, Bangeswar had made a confessional statement which led to recovery of one improvised country made single shooter firearm, and one live ammunition from his hideout. The statement of Bangeswar made in this regard has been made Exhibit 10' by the Trial Court. Substantial part of the statement, however, is self incriminatory, and we are not taking into consideration that part of his statement. The statement of Bangeswar made in this regard has been made Exhibit 10' by the Trial Court. Substantial part of the statement, however, is self incriminatory, and we are not taking into consideration that part of his statement. So far as recovery of firearm is concerned, P.W. 14, Dipankar Sarkar has stated that the same was brought by Bangeswar from his home when he was taken. The P.W. 4, Pran Krishna Besra along with two police officers, Indrajit Samanta (P.W. 11) and Suvendu Sekhar Bera (P.W 12) have deposed as witnesses to the seizure of the firearm. The seizure list reveals the date of seizure to be 3rd September 2012. The P.W. 11, P.W. 12 and P.W. 4 have all stated that the said firearm, described as improvised gun by the P.W. 11 and P.W. 12 were lying under a "khatia" (wooden bed) in the house of Bangeswar. The seizure list in relation to the firearm and bullet have been made Exhibits 11' and 11(1). In course of trial, however, the said firearm was not produced for identification. 9. Two other police witnesses have deposed for the prosecution. Govinda Lohar (P.W. 8), an assistant sub-inspector of police, in his deposition has stated that he had accompanied Debasis Pahari at the time of inquest and had signed on the seizure list. P.W. 9, Dayamoy Singh has deposed as a formal witness, having taken the dead body to the Purulia Sadar Hospital and carried the seized articles being green coloured underwear, a lungi and blood sample to the police which was handed over to him by the Medical Officer after postmortem examination. There is no report from any forensic expert forming part of records, though the P.W. 14 in his deposition has stated that he had sent the firearm recovered in pursuance of the confessional statement of Bangeswar to the FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory) for examination and comparison. The police case was started under Sections 302/34 of the IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, but charge was framed under the provisions of Sections 302/34 of the IPC. 10. The prosecution case is primarily founded on the principle of "last seen together". The police case was started under Sections 302/34 of the IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, but charge was framed under the provisions of Sections 302/34 of the IPC. 10. The prosecution case is primarily founded on the principle of "last seen together". Before the Trial Court, it was argued on behalf of the prosecution and which has been argued before us as well that both the appellants were seen by several witnesses to have dragged the deceased towards the Bhutka Dungri forest from the residence of Balaram Mandy. Thereafter, sounds of gunshots were heard, and on the next morning the dead body of the victim was found. In the interim period, the deceased was not seen or traced. The appellants, in their response to their examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, have altogether denied their involvement the incident, and have not offered explanation in any form as regards subsequent movement of the victim. We shall now examine the eye-witness account of the incident, which relates to presence of the deceased in the meeting, and he being dragged away by the appellants. No specific motive has been attributed for commission of the offence, but there was a strong hint that the deceased and other nonofficial witnesses had some connection with a political party, which has been referred to as "Jharkhand party", "Jharkhand Political Party" by different witnesses. 11. The P.W. 4 in his deposition has stated that he was present in the meeting in the house of Balaram Mandy, on 27th day in the month of 'Ashar', which was a Monday. He has also testified that Srikanta Hansda, the deceased was present in that meeting. He has further stated that Bangeswar and Bikash carried Srikanta from the house of Balaram after end of the meeting, and thereafter he had heard the sound of gunshots. He claims to have stated the said fact to the police on Tuesday. He has identified both the appellants. Suggestion was given to him during cross-examination that no such incident had taken place, but he did not give any contrary response. The P.W. 6, Sarnalata Besra, wife of the P.W. 4 in her examination-in-chief stated that on that night, she had seen Bangeswar and Bikash carrying Srikanta from the place of meeting. He has identified both the appellants. Suggestion was given to him during cross-examination that no such incident had taken place, but he did not give any contrary response. The P.W. 6, Sarnalata Besra, wife of the P.W. 4 in her examination-in-chief stated that on that night, she had seen Bangeswar and Bikash carrying Srikanta from the place of meeting. She further deposed that her own son, Debasis Besra was also a witness in that case and he was murdered by Bangeswar and Bikash. She also identified both Bangeswar and Bikash in course of her deposition. P.W. 7, Rupchand Hansda, is a relation of the deceased, and referred to the latter as his nephew. He has also stated that he was present in the meeting, and that Bangeswar and Bikash was carrying his nephew from the meeting place. P.W. 4, P.W. 6 and P.W. 7 identified both the appellants at the time of recordal of their depositions. P.W. 5, Mohan Mandi in his deposition also stated that he was present in the meeting. He has confirmed presence of Srikanta Hansda. He is also a relative of the deceased, and described him as his "bhagna" - nephew. He has, however, deposed that Srikanta was carried by Bangeswar and others, and has not specifically named Bikash. It transpires from the depositions of the P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 that Bangeswar is the resident of the same village, Makopali. So far as Bikash is concerned, P.W. 4 and P.W. 6 have stated that Bikash was also residing in that village Makopali for some time. 12. While sustaining the prosecution case, the Trial Court found that no suggestion was given to any of these witnesses that Bangeswar and Bikash did not carry or drag Srikanta Hansda after the meeting. The appellants did not examine anyone as defence witness. 13. The First Court found the evidence of the P.W. 2, P.W. 4, P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 to be trustworthy and the evidence of Srikanta Hansda being dragged matched with the recovery of the dead body as in the interim period the deceased Srikanta Hansda remained un-traced. Dealing with the evidence of P.W. 4 and P.W. 5, the Trial Court found no suggestion was given to them that they did not attend the meeting. Dealing with the evidence of P.W. 4 and P.W. 5, the Trial Court found no suggestion was given to them that they did not attend the meeting. As regards the deceased Srikanta Hansda being dragged, the Trial Court found no suggestion was given to P.W. 5 or P.W. 6 that Bangeswar and others did not drag Srikanta Hansda from the meeting place. The First Court also found that seizure of the weapon to have been proved by the prosecution through the evidence of the P.W. 14. Relying on the evidence of P.W.2, P.W. 4, P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 the First Court came to the finding that the genesis of the crime implicating the accused persons had been established beyond all doubt and on that basis held the appellants guilty of the offence under Section 302/34 and passed the order of punishment. 14. Mrs. Goswami has sought to point out certain discrepancies in the prosecution case. She brought to our notice that part of the written complaint made by the P.W. 2 in which the names of Bangeswar had been referred to, and he has stated in the written complaint that Bangeswar Murmu had informed the villagers that he could identify some of the miscreants. The formal FIR does not name any person as accused. The Investigation report under Section 174, in which P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 5 and P.W. 7, have been cited as witnesses also did not disclose names of any person as accused. In the evidence of P.W. 5, he has stated the meeting ended at 9 P.M. whereas P.W. 2 and P.W. 4 stated that the meeting had ended at 10 P.M. P.W. 6 also did not identify the accused-appellants to the second I.O., P.W. 4 at the time of investigation. But in his deposition P.W. 2 referred to Bangeswar and Bikash as the offenders, attributing his knowledge of the said fact to information obtained from Pran Krishna Besra (P.W. 4). The P.W. 7, in his deposition has stated that he had attended the meeting and Bangeswar and Bikash "carried" his nephew from the meeting place. P.W. 5 has also given similar deposition, but named Bangeswar only. The P.W. 7, in his deposition has stated that he had attended the meeting and Bangeswar and Bikash "carried" his nephew from the meeting place. P.W. 5 has also given similar deposition, but named Bangeswar only. The appellants' case is that since these witnesses have deposed that Bangeswar and Bikash had carried or dragged the deceased Srikanta Hansda, in the FIR made the following day, that is 13th July, 2010 as also in course of inquest, it would have been normal for these witnesses to name the accused persons. The accused persons, being the appellants are seeking to make out a case that their implication was an afterthought, and they were not connected in any manner with the commission of the alleged offences. It was also pointed out on behalf of the appellants that there was discrepancy in the description of the wearing apparels at the time the deceased was taken to the sadar Hospital, with printed lungi and a deep green underwear but in the postmortem report his wearing apparels have been described as white dhuti, white full shirt and ash coloured underwear. The other flaw in the prosecution case, it was argued by Mrs. Goswami, the Balaram Mandy, in whose house or residence the meeting was supposed to have had taken place, was never examined by the prosecution. She has also argued that recovery of firearm, being the improvised gun was concocted story. On the aspect of registering the FIR, our attention was drawn to a particular sentence in the written complaint rendered in a different ink and different handwriting style. We have referred to that sentence in earlier part of this judgment. Parimal Besra (P.W. 3), who was the scribe, however, has in his deposition stated in cross-examination that he had himself written that sentence. In any event, that part of the complaint does not carry significance of that degree that its late introduction in the written complaint would strengthen the prosecution case. On the other hand, that sentence introduces an element of inconsistency in the prosecution case. 15. So far as description of wearing apparels is concerned, in our opinion, this is a minor discrepancy as the factum of the body of the deceased having been carried to the sadar hospital and the postmortem report relating to him has not been seriously disputed. 15. So far as description of wearing apparels is concerned, in our opinion, this is a minor discrepancy as the factum of the body of the deceased having been carried to the sadar hospital and the postmortem report relating to him has not been seriously disputed. No case to that effect was made out before the Trial Court or before us. On the question of recovery of the firearm we find that though initially cognisance of offence was taken under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, Report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was made under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. In the charge-sheet there is indication that a supplementary charge-sheet would be submitted under the provisions of Arms Act but no such supplementary charge-sheet appears to have been filed. Charge was framed against both the appellants under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. So far as the recovery of the single shooter improvised gun is concerned, this item cannot be connected with the offences alleged against the appellants as there is no expert opinion that the bullet injuries could have resulted from the recovered weapon. The weapon itself was not produced before any of the witnesses for the purpose of identification. It was also urged before us that the witnesses, mainly on the basis of whose depositions the First Court came to its finding are relatives of the deceased and not impartial witnesses. 16. In this appeal, we shall primarily have to test as to whether the witnesses who, in their depositions have stated to have seen the appellants dragging away Srikanta Hansda, are reliable or not. Omission in naming the appellants before the officer making the inquest by the witnesses who later on named them in our opinion is also not fatal. We do not find any explanation was elicited from them on this point during cross-examination of these witnesses. As regards the case of the appellants that prosecution was withholding the evidence of Balaram Mandy, we are of the view that this factor by itself cannot demolish the prosecution case because several other witnesses deposed that they were present in the meeting, and in their cross-examination, no suggestion to the contrary was given to them. Holding of the meeting has been proved by participants in the said meeting. Holding of the meeting has been proved by participants in the said meeting. Failure to produce the owner of the house in which the meeting was held as a witness would not impair the prosecution case. 17. So far as P.W. 2 is concerned, he has not deposed as a witness having seen his son being dragged away by the appellants. P.W. 4 has deposed as an eye-witness to such dragging away and also claim to have heard the gunshots. He claims to have reported the incident to the police, Ramchand Hansda and others on Tuesday, which would be 13th July 2010, the day on which the body was recovered, inquest was made and FIR was lodged. He has stated that he met with the police in Makopali at about 7 or 8 A.M. and also seen the dead body in the field of Lakshman Mandy. The complaint was filed at 08.15 hours after the dead body was found. But his statement implicating Bangeswar and Bikash are not reflected in the written complaint or the FIR. In cross-examination he stated that he was interrogated by the police but he could not remember the exact date on which he was examined. The P.W. 13, the first Investigating Officer stated in his cross-examination, inter alia, stated:- " I examined Ramchand Hansda (P.W.-2). He stated to me that he was submitting written complaint. P.W.-2 did not tell me that he came to learn from Prankrishna that from the meeting place his son was carried by Bongeswar and Bikash. (Voluntaries P.W.-2 stated to me that from the place of meeting his son was carried by Bongeswar and Bikash). I examined Prankrishna Besra (P.W.-4). He did not state to me that Bongeswar Murmu and Bikash Murmu carried Srikanta Hansda from the hosue of Balaram Mandy after ending of the meet (Voluntaries :- He told me that Bongeswar Murmu and Bikash Murmu carried Srikanta Hansda from in front of the house of Balaram Mandy). On the date of incident at night nobody informed me about the incident over telephone. From the written complaint I came to learn that dead body of Srikanta Hansda was lying in the field of Lakhan Mandy. Written complaint was given to me at 8.15 hours. I examined P.W.-5 Mohan Mandy. He did not tell me that on the date of incident he went to his sister's house. From the written complaint I came to learn that dead body of Srikanta Hansda was lying in the field of Lakhan Mandy. Written complaint was given to me at 8.15 hours. I examined P.W.-5 Mohan Mandy. He did not tell me that on the date of incident he went to his sister's house. I examined Rupchand Hansda (P.W.-7). He did not tell me that he attended in the meeting. At first I reached at the P.O. at 8.45 hours on 13/07/10. I wrote the name of Bikash Murmu in on setting. The name of Bikash Murmu was stated to me later on by Rupchand Hansda after going through the contents of the statement to me. At the time of recording statement Ramchand Hansda did not state the name of Bikash. But while statement of Ramchand was read over to him then and there he stated the name of Bikash. As such, the name of Bikash was written. It is a fact that while the statement of Mohan Mandy was read over to me at the time of recording he stated the name of Bikash and as such the name of Bikash was written later on. The name of Bikash in the statement of Parimal Besra was written like this way." 18. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the name of Bikash was interpolated or introduced later in the statements of the P.W. 2 and P.W. 7, for falsely implicating them in the crime. For the limited purpose of ascertaining correctness of this allegation made on behalf of the appellants, relying on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramaiah v. State of Karnataka, [ (2014)9 SCC 365 ] we chose to look at the statements of P.W. 2 and P.W. 7 recorded under Section 161 of the 1973 Act, though these statements were not made exhibits, on account of such submission on the part of the appellants who wanted to refer to such statements in the manner recorded. We undertook this extra-ordinary exercise, as what was argued by the appellants, if established, might have had the impact of falsifying the prosecution version so far as allegations against Bikash is concerned. We undertook this extra-ordinary exercise, as what was argued by the appellants, if established, might have had the impact of falsifying the prosecution version so far as allegations against Bikash is concerned. In the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramaiah (supra), it has been held:- "Relying upon this evidence, the trial court has disbelieved the story of the Prosecution that Laxmi was cremated even before these persons had reached the village of the appellant. Strangely, the High Court has discarded the mahazar drawn by PW 8 by giving a specious reason viz. it was not an exhibited document before the court, little realising that this was the document produced by the prosecution itself and even without formal proof thereto by the prosecution, it was always open for the defence to seek reliance on such an evidence to falsify the prosecution version" 19. The statement of P.W. 7 as recorded, reveals that the name of Bikash Murmu was inserted in the statement, after initial recording. Similarly in the statement of Ramchand Hansda (P.W. 2) the name of Bikash Murmu was inserted in the same manner. The P.W. 13, in his cross-examination has explained such insertion in the case of P.W. 7 as also P.W. 2. He has stated in his cross-examination that the name of Bikash Murmu was stated to him later by Rupchand Hansda (P.W. 7) after going through the context of the statement. Similarly, in case of Ramchand Hansda (P.W. 2), the P.W. 13 deposed that at the time of recording of statement, the P.W. 2 did not name Bikash, but when the statement was read over to him, that name was given. Thus we did not find any major contradiction in the stand of the P.W. 13, in relation to investigation and subsequent depositions of the witnesses in course of trial. 20. On behalf of the appellants, the judgment of Daulat Ram v. State of Haryana reported in [2015(2) CRLR (SC 342)] was relied upon to contend that there was no motive or enmity, and in a case where conviction is sought for on the basis of circumstantial evidence lack of motive cannot be altogether ignored. Factually, the said decision can be distinguished. In that case, the other accused persons with similar role had been acquitted, which is not the case so far as the present appellants are concerned. Factually, the said decision can be distinguished. In that case, the other accused persons with similar role had been acquitted, which is not the case so far as the present appellants are concerned. The ratio of that decision is binding on us. But on the basis of that authority, it cannot be argued that absence of motive would altogether negate a prosecution case anchored on circumstantial evidence. So far as giving suggestion to the prosecution witnesses that they did not see the appellants after the meeting, it was contended on behalf of the appellants that lack of such suggestion would not denude the power or jurisdiction of the Court to verify certain components of the prosecution case. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Nagraj v. State Represented by Inspector of Police, Salem town [(2015)2 CrLR (SC) 348] was relied upon on this point. In this judgment it has been observed and held:- "12. No identification parade has been conducted. This aspect has no doubt been discussed in the impugned judgment; but it was held that there was no suspicion as to the complicity of the Accused, who was allegedly seen by several witnesses without any suggestion to them during the course of the cross examination that the Accused was not present at all. At least in the trial of capital offences, we think that a duty is cast on the Court to ensure that the Accused has adequate legal assistance. It is evident that in this case this is strikingly absent. Keeping in perspective that the identification was a year and a half after the witness allegedly last saw the Accused, an identification parade should have been properly conducted. Moreover, identification by the Manager was not possible, as he had died before the Trial commenced. The identification by PW3 and PW4 took place two and a half years after the incident, again without an identification parade, and eventually in the course of Court proceedings. Further, PW3 has admitted that he only met the Accused once, which was on 24.7.2000. There is clearly a very severe lapse on the part of the prosecution with no plausible and acceptable explanation forthcoming." (emphasis given by us) 21. Three other decisions Mrs. Further, PW3 has admitted that he only met the Accused once, which was on 24.7.2000. There is clearly a very severe lapse on the part of the prosecution with no plausible and acceptable explanation forthcoming." (emphasis given by us) 21. Three other decisions Mrs. Goswami referred to, being two judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Jaswant Gir v. State of Punjab [2006(1) SCC (Cri) 579] and Anil Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar [2004 SCC (Cri) 1167] as also a Bench decision of this Court in the case of Monaj Kumar Srivastava v. State of West Bengal [2014 (3) CRLR (Cal) 90]. These decisions have been cited in support of the proposition of law that in case of conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence the chain of circumstances must clearly be established. We are applying this principle in these two appeals as well. 22. So far as these two appeals are concerned, the lacuna in the prosecution case pointed out by the appellants is failure to name the accused person in the written complaint or at the time of making inquest, unreliability of the evidence relating to recovery to the weapon of assault, along with other discrepancies which we have already discussed. But P.W. 4, 5, 6 and 7 have all stated in their evidence that the appellants dragged away the deceased, though P.W. 5 has only named Bangeswar. The P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 have also spoken of hearing of sounds of gunshots thereafter. In the interim period, between the time when deceased was being dragged away followed by the sounds of gunshots, and eventual detection of the dead body of the deceased, the deceased remained untraceable. There is no contradiction in the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses in identifying the appellants-accused persons and their role in dragging away the accused. Subsequent recovery of the deceased from injuries inflicted by sharp weapons and bullet wounds complete the chain, and lack of evidence on any intervening circumstances de-linking the appellants from the chain of events prove beyond reasonable doubt involvement of the appellants in the offence alleged against them. The principle of last seen theory or principle is squarely applicable in this case, on the basis of which the conviction of the appellants can be sustained. The principle of last seen theory or principle is squarely applicable in this case, on the basis of which the conviction of the appellants can be sustained. We do not think the First Court had erred in law or fact in delivering the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Mere fact that the above-referred witnesses are relatives of the deceased cannot by itself render them untrustworthy. In the event there were major discrepancies in their depositions, then this factor would have required deep consideration. But that is not the case so far as these witnesses are concerned. So far as other discrepancies in the prosecution case are concerned, we do not find them to be of such dimension which would make us altogether disbelieve the version of these witnesses. 23. Both the appeals are accordingly dismissed and the judgment and order under appeal are sustained. The appellant Bikash Murmu in CRA No. 373 of 2013 is directed to surrender before the Trial Court forthwith. Thereupon he shall be taken into custody and sent to the correctional home to suffer the sentence. His bail shall stand cancelled. 24. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order be given to the parties expeditiously, if applied for. The lower Court Records along with a copy of this judgment be sent to the Trial Court. The copy of the case diary, which was produced before us for the limited purpose as we have already discussed shall be returned to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Sankar Acharyya, J. - I agree.