JUDGMENT & ORDER : N. Chaudhury, J. The judgment and order dated 12.10.2015 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj in Sessions Case No. 33/2015 convicting the present appellant under section 302 of the IPC and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month more has been called in question in the present appeal. 2. The prosecution story is that one Maya Dutta Choudhury lodged an ejahar with Officer In-charge of Longai Police Outpost under Karimganj Police Station on 08.01.2015 informing that her son Indranil Dutta Choudhury alias Om aged about 13 years and a student of Class VIII in Babyland School, Karimganj, had lost his bicycle on 27.12.2014. The cycle was parked in front of the house of accused Biswajit Kapali alias Kutan. An ejahar was filed with Longai Police Outpost on 01.01.2015 in connection with missing of the cycle. She further disclosed in this ejahar dated 08.01.2015 that on 04.01.2015 at about 4.50 P.M., when she was engaged in evening prayer, her son Indranil Dutta Choudhury alias Om suddenly came to her and informed that Shitu had told him that his lost bicycle was spotted somewhere and instructed him to go immediately if he wanted to get his bicycle back. Before the informant could say anything to her son, he ran away in search of his lost bicycle. She later on became anxious and told the matter to other family members. One Babul Sil alias Binoy was present in their house at that time who was called for infusing saline to her sick father. He dialled telephone of Shitu but did not get any response. The informant thereafter dialled Shitu’s telephone but nobody received the call. Then she went to Shitu’s home with Babul and came to know from his brother Liton that Shitu was not at home. She requested Babul to go quickly to ISKCON temple by his cycle and search for Shitu to know the whereabouts of Om. She came back home and along with one Madhab Das started towards ISKCON temple on foot. On reaching the temple, she found Shitu and Babul coming out of the house of the accused and proceeding towards Katakhal bridge. She called them and enquired if Om was found or not. Shitu denied. She came back home and along with one Madhab Das started towards ISKCON temple on foot. On reaching the temple, she found Shitu and Babul coming out of the house of the accused and proceeding towards Katakhal bridge. She called them and enquired if Om was found or not. Shitu denied. However, Shitu told that he saw Om being taken by accused towards Katakhal bridge on bicycle. Shitu enquired to accused as to where he was taking Om. Then he said that he was going towards Katakhal bridge. When she did not get any clue, she came back home, took a photograph of Om for handing over to police but at that time her neighbour Tulsi Dutta informed that even earlier accused was enquiring and collecting information about Om. At that time, she heard a hue and cry and somebody told that Om was found in the paddy field behind F.M. Radio Station. Her son was throttled to death. She fell unconscious going there. Karimganj Police Station Case No. 24/2015 under Section 365, 511, 302 of the IPC was registered thereby and investigation started. 3. The Investigating Officer arranged for inquest as well as post mortem of the dead body and recorded statements of the witnesses under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The statements of 3 witnesses were recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well and having found a prima facie case under section 302 of the IPC the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet against the sole accused person on 31.03.2015 in G.R. Case No. 60/2015. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karimganj before whom the charge sheet was filed, committed the case to Sessions by his order dated 06.04.2015 and thereupon Sessions Case No. 33/2015 of the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj was registered. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge on 05.05.2015 against the accused person under section 302 of the IPC. The accused person pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. In course of trial, prosecution examined 12 witnesses and adduced 12 documents including charge sheet and sketch map. Having examined the accused person under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the evidence led by the prosecution, the learned Sessions Judge heard both sides and thereafter passed the impugned judgment and order dated 12.10.2015 convicting the accused under section 302 of the IPC. 5. Having examined the accused person under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the evidence led by the prosecution, the learned Sessions Judge heard both sides and thereafter passed the impugned judgment and order dated 12.10.2015 convicting the accused under section 302 of the IPC. 5. We have heard Mr. RM Choudhury, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mr. KA Mazumdar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. We have also perused the lower court records including the evidence on record. 6. Conviction of the accused person is based on circumstantial evidence and also on the theory of last seen together. PW 1 is the informant. She narrated the same story disclosed in the FIR filed by her. According to her, there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased in regard to missing of a bicycle belonging to the deceased. On the fateful day in the evening, the deceased was playing badminton with his friend in front of his house when the PW 1 was busy in evening prayer. The deceased came and told her that as per the information of Shitu if he wanted to get his lost bicycle he should immediately go. Without waiting for the reply from his mother, the deceased went out and ran away. 7. PW 2 deposed on oath that he was playing badminton with the deceased Om in front of the house of the deceased in the afternoon. At that time, accused came and discussed something with the deceased when the latter became pensive. He went to the house, changed his dress and both of them went out. PW 2 volunteered to accompany them but the deceased said that it was not necessary. Accused was waiting on the road and both of them went away. It was evening. At around 9.30 P.M., he came to know that dead body of Om was recovered from paddy field behind the radio station under construction. Thus, PW 2 is very much specific that in the afternoon of the fateful day, it is the accused person who came and took away the deceased. 8. PW 3, Anirudra Shil alias Shitu also deposed that he went to attend a meeting in ISKCON Mandir. But since the meeting was delayed he was strolling about in the area. He spotted accused with the deceased. 8. PW 3, Anirudra Shil alias Shitu also deposed that he went to attend a meeting in ISKCON Mandir. But since the meeting was delayed he was strolling about in the area. He spotted accused with the deceased. The victim was seated in the back side of the cycle of the accused and both of them were proceeded towards Katakhal bridge. He asked the accused where were they going. Accused said that he was going to recharge his mobile. Then PW 3 wanted to accompany them as he was also in necessity of recharging his mobile. The accused did not allow him to accompany. PW 3 asked the accused where from had he collected Om, the victim. Accused replied that he got him on the road. After PW 3 had come out of the meeting, he received a phone call from Babul and thereupon he came to know that Om was missing and then they went to the house of the accused and proceeded towards Katakhal to meet Om’s mother. At about 9.30/10 P.M., he came to know that dead body of Om was recovered from the paddy field behind F.M. Radio Station. This deposition of PW 3 has not been rebutted in course of cross examination. The unrebutted evidence is that both the accused and the victim were seen on bicycle near Katakhal bridge and it is the accused who was riding the bicycle. It is also to be noticed that like PW 2, this PW 3 was volunteered to accompany the accused but in the same way accused did not permit PW 3 to accompany them. 9. PW 4, Dr. Fazlul Karim, deposed that rigor mortis was present in the dead body, face was swollen and it was bluish. There were froths in nostrils, blood stained froth was there in the mouth and tongue was protruded which became bluish. The eyes of the deceased were closed and there was bluish discolouration of lips. He also noted bruise on both sides of thyroid cartilage with tiny abrasion above thyroid cartilage four in number. There was fracture of hyoid bone with fracture of cricoid. Larynx was congested. There was an internal tear of the carotid artery. On the basis of the aforesaid injuries, he was of the opinion that death occurred due to asphyxia resulting from throttling. 10. There was fracture of hyoid bone with fracture of cricoid. Larynx was congested. There was an internal tear of the carotid artery. On the basis of the aforesaid injuries, he was of the opinion that death occurred due to asphyxia resulting from throttling. 10. PW 5, Rupak Rabidas who stated on oath that about 15 days prior to the date of occurrence, accused had asked him on several times as to when the victim comes to the house of his neighbour Tulsi Dutta to fetch milk for his house. PW 5 asked the accused as to why the query was being made. Then the accused did not reply and requested him to collect information from Tulsi Dutta about the victim. There is no effective cross examination of PW 5 on this point except few suggestions. All these materials only go to show that at least 15 days prior to the date of occurrence, the accused must have made out a plan in regard to the victim and that is why he was collecting information about the victim. 11. PW 6, Ruma Choudhury, is a resident of the locality from where dead body of the victim was recovered. She stated that on the date of occurrence in the evening at about 5.30 P.M. when she went to shut the window of her house, she saw accused holding the victim and taking him down the main road towards paddy field near F.M. Radio Station. At night at around 9.30/10.00 P.M., she came to know that dead body of the victim was found from that place where she had seen accused and the victim together. In course of her cross examination, she stated that she had disclosed this to her five family members in the evening itself that both these persons were seen together near the F.M. Radio Station. 12. The deceased was merely 13 years old. He was a student of Class VIII whereas the accused was about 19 years at that time. It was not difficult for him to throttle the teen aged victim. 13. From the depositions of PW 2, PW 3 and PW 6 it is clear that the accused was last seen together with the deceased in the evening and without there being much gap of time, the dead body of the victim was recovered from the same place. It was not difficult for him to throttle the teen aged victim. 13. From the depositions of PW 2, PW 3 and PW 6 it is clear that the accused was last seen together with the deceased in the evening and without there being much gap of time, the dead body of the victim was recovered from the same place. There is no chance of any third person coming in between. The learned Sessions Judge having considered such conspectus of circumstances, was of the view that the accused was guilty of committing murder of the deceased. The law on the theory of last seen together has been discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a number of cases. 14. In the case of State of U.P. Vs. Satish reported in (2005) 3 SCC 114 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the last seen theory in paragraph 22 which is quoted below:- “22. The last seen theory comes into play where the time-gap between the point of time when the accused and the 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. It would be difficult in some cases to positively establish that the deceased was last seen with the accused when there is a long gap and possibility of other persons coming in between exists. In the absence of any other positive evidence to conclude that the accused and the deceased were last seen together, it would be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in those cases. In this case there is positive evidence that the deceased and the accused were seen together by witnesses PWs. 3 and 5, in addition to the evidence of PW 2.” 15. The same view was expressed in the case of Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy and another Vs. State of A.P. reported in (2006) 10 SCC 172 . 16. We are now required to see as to whether on the basis of the evidence discussed herein above a chain of circumstances has become complete irresistibly leading to the inference that the accused committed murder of the victim. State of A.P. reported in (2006) 10 SCC 172 . 16. We are now required to see as to whether on the basis of the evidence discussed herein above a chain of circumstances has become complete irresistibly leading to the inference that the accused committed murder of the victim. The circumstances are as follows:- First, according to PW 5, the accused was watching movement of the deceased as to when he used to go for collecting milk from the house of Tulsi Dutta. Even on being asked by PW 4, the accused did not divulge as to why he was collecting information about movement of Om. He requested the PW 4 to collect information on his behalf. Secondly, the PW 1 stated that on the date of occurrence in the evening when his son was playing in front of the house with his friend, he came and informed her that as per the information of Shitu if he wanted to get back his lost cycle he should immediately go and accordingly he ran out without waiting for the reply of the PW 1. Thirdly, PW 2 stated that on the date of occurrence when he was playing badminton with the deceased in front of the house of the deceased, the accused came and told something in the year of the deceased whereupon the latter became pensive and he went inside the house, changed dress and then came out to accompany the accused. The accused and the deceased went away together. Fourthly, PW 3 Anirudra Shil alias Shitu deposed that he did not give any information to the deceased about cycle. However, after he had come to know that Om was missing he went out searching and recollected that he had seen Om sitting in the back side of the bicycle of the accused. They were going towards Katakhal bridge. Fifthly, PW 6, Ruma Choudhury, saw the deceased and the accused walking towards the paddy field behind F.M. Radio Station near Katakhal bridge. She saw accused was holding hand of the deceased and leading to the place where subsequently dead body of the deceased was found. This she saw at around 5.30 P.M. when she had gone to shut her southern window. 17. According to PW 2 and PW 3, they wanted to accompany the accused person and the victim but the accused did not permit. This she saw at around 5.30 P.M. when she had gone to shut her southern window. 17. According to PW 2 and PW 3, they wanted to accompany the accused person and the victim but the accused did not permit. This only goes to show that accused had something in the mind at that time which would have been foiled if there was a third person nearby. He wanted to be sure to get the victim alone and this is how he took the victim to the place of occurrence in the paddy field under the cover of darkness. On the day of occurrence, accused succeeded to get the victim alone and took him to the place of occurrence by his cycle and thus, no room for doubt is left to hold that the accused intended to kill the victim and this he did at the place of occurrence under the cover of night and taking opportunity of loneliness of paddy field. 18. Thus if the depositions of all these witnesses are taken together, it would complete a chain of circumstances showing that it is the accused who collected the victim from his house in the afternoon, took him by his own bicycle, rode towards Katakhal bridge and then on foot walked down to the paddy field from the main road holding the victim. Both of them were seen together in the evening when it was getting dark and at around 9 O’clock at night the dead body of the victim was recovered from this place. 19. Having noticed such evidence on record, we are of the view that learned Sessions Judge has not committed any error in holding the accused guilty under Section 302 of the IPC and thereby sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month more. The appeal is devoid of any merit. It is accordingly dismissed. The impugned conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Sessions Judge are hereby upheld. 20. Send down the lower court records.