JUDGMENT : MIR ALFAZ ALI, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rangia, in Sessions Case No.364/2014. By the said judgment, learned Addl. Sessions Judge convicted the appellant u/s 302/201 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 100/- with default stipulation u/s 302 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation u/s 201 IPC. 2. As per prosecution case, on 12-02-2014, the victim Vikash Kalita left the house for going to Guwahati and thereafter, he went missing. On the next day, i.e., 13-02-2014 his body was found on the railway track, whereupon, a GD entry was made with the GRPS, being GD entry No. 202 dated 13-02-2014. On the basis of such GD entry, police registered a U.D. Case and post mortem examination of the body was conducted by Dr. Arunav Barau. 3. Dr. Arunav Borah (PW 25), who conducted the post mortem examination on the body of the victim, found the following injuries: "Injuries 1. Crush injury present over the neck at the end of thyroid cartilage interiorly and cervical vertebrae C4 C5 C6 posterior with same part of skin, soft tissue and bone missing partially. All the layers of skin, muscles, nerves, blood vessels, bone, trachea, soft tissue, cartilage and spinal cord existed. Ante mortem blood clots are adherent over the wound margins which resist washing with running water along with grease mark. From the anatomical alignment, complexion, distribution of body hair and degree of decomposition both the parts are found to be of one and same individual. 2. Crush injury present over left shoulder with same part of skin, soft tissue and bone partially missing. All the layers of skin, soft tissue, muscle. Blood vessels, nerves and bone were crushed. Ante mortem blood cloths are adherent over the wound margins which resist washing with running water. 3. Laceration sizes 8 cm 3.05 cm oral cavity deep present over right cheek extending from right angle of mouth. 4.5 cm in front of right tragus and 1.5 above right angle of mandible." 4. In the opinion of the doctor, death was instantaneous, as a result of crush injuries sustained over the neck and all the injuries were ante mortem caused by blunt force impact and consistent with railway run over incident. 4.5 cm in front of right tragus and 1.5 above right angle of mandible." 4. In the opinion of the doctor, death was instantaneous, as a result of crush injuries sustained over the neck and all the injuries were ante mortem caused by blunt force impact and consistent with railway run over incident. Approximate time of death was within 6 to 12 hours before the post mortem examination. 5. On 16-02-2014, the father of the victim received an SMS from a mobile phone, which was subsequently detected to be of the father of the appellant. In the said SMS, the sender demanded Rs. 50,000/- to disclose the assailant of the victim. Upon receiving such message, PW 1, the father of the victim, lodged the FIR (Ext. 1) with the GPRS, Rangia, which was registered as GRPS Case No. 8/2014 u/s 302 IPC. The FIR was subsequently sent to Kamalpur Police Station, as the place of occurrence fell under the said police station, whereupon, Kamalpur P.S. Case No. 85/2014 was registered and investigation commenced. During investigation, police examined several witnesses and arrested the present appellant and the co-accused Nirmal Das. On conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was laid against the present appellant and one Nirmal Das (acquitted) under Sections 302/201 read with Section 34 IPC and eventually both of them stood trial. 6. In course of trial, prosecution examined 25 witnesses to establish the charge. On appreciation of evidence, learned trial court convicted the present appellant under Sections 302/201 IPC and awarded sentence as indicated above. The co-accused Nirmal Das was acquitted by the learned trial court. 7. We have heard learned Amicus Curiae, Mr. D. Barua and learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ms. S.Jahan and learned counsel, Mr. R. Sharma for the respondent No.2. We have also meticulously gone through the record of the trial court. 8. The impugned judgment and the record revealed that there was no eye witness of the occurrence and the learned trial court essentially relying on the circumstantial evidence, recorded conviction of the present appellant and imposed sentence as indicated above. The learned trial court basically relied on the following four circumstances for recording conviction of the appellant. (i) the victim was last seen together with the appellant. (ii) wearing apparels of the appellants were recovered on being led by the appellant u/s 27 of the Evidence Act. The learned trial court basically relied on the following four circumstances for recording conviction of the appellant. (i) the victim was last seen together with the appellant. (ii) wearing apparels of the appellants were recovered on being led by the appellant u/s 27 of the Evidence Act. (iii) a mobile phone allegedly belonged to the accused was also recovered from a pond on being led by the co-accused Nirmal Das. (iv) The SMS allegedly sent by the appellant Kishore Deka from the mobile phone of his father to the effect that he could disclose the assailant on payment of Rs. 50,000/-. 9. The prosecution adduced evidence through PW 1, PW 2, PW 3 and other witnesses to show, that the accused/appellant confessed before police that he killed the victim by strangulation and by hitting him on the neck, kept the body concealed in a bush, and later on, it was put on the railway track in order to conceal the offence. However, such evidence with regard to alleged confession was discarded by the learned trial court, and rightly so, as because, such confession allegedly made before police and recorded by an Executive Magistrate in the police station was inadmissible in evidence, for being hit by Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant was essentially based on the circumstances as indicated above. 10. The law as regards standard of proof required to establish a criminal charge by circumstantial evidence is well settled by a long line of decision. The Apex Court, in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 1984 AIR(SC) 1622, dealing with the standard of proof required for establishing a criminal charge observed as under :- "152. A close analysis of the above authority would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be or should be proved' as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be or should be proved' as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. vs. State of Maharastra the following observations were made: "Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions." (2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 153. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence." 11. What is apparent from the above ratio is that to prove a charge by circumstantial evidence, prosecution must prove the circumstances conclusively and solidly beyond reasonable doubt and the circumstances relied on by the court must form a chain, unerringly leading to the irresistible conclusion, which is consistent only and only with the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence. In order to prove the first circumstance, i.e., the victim having been seen in company of the accused, prosecution relied on the oral testimony of PW 6, PW 14, PW 15 and PW 16, besides, the oral testimony of PW 1, the father of the victim. 12. Pw 6, who happens to be the cousin brother of the victim, deposed that on 12-02-2014, he met the victim and the appellant Kishore Deka at Baihata Chowk and on being asked by him (PW 6), they told that they were going to Guwahati. 12. Pw 6, who happens to be the cousin brother of the victim, deposed that on 12-02-2014, he met the victim and the appellant Kishore Deka at Baihata Chowk and on being asked by him (PW 6), they told that they were going to Guwahati. According to PW 6, he met the appellant and the victim at Baihata Chowk at about 9 to 9.30 AM on 12-02-2014. 13. Pw 14, Suren Saikia deposed, that he had seen the appellant Kishore Deka and the victim Vikash Kalita going on bicycle at about 9 to 9.30 AM on 12-02-2014. According to him, they were going towards National Highway Chowk from their house. 14. According to PW 15, he went to give Tiffin to his father at about 9.30 AM and before reaching Baihata Chowk he noticed the appellant Kishore and victim Vikash going ahead of him by riding bicycle. On being asked by him (PW 15), Vikash told that they would go to Guwahati. 15. Pw 16 stated, that on 12-02-2014 at about 9 AM, while he came out of his house in the morning, he noticed Kishore Deka and Bikash going by riding their respective bicycle towards Baihata side. 16. According to PW 1, father of the victim, upon request of the appellant, the victim went out with the appellant on 12-02-2014. The PW 1 further deposed, that when the victim did not return till 7 P.M. on 12-02-2014, he went to the residence of the appellant to inquire about his son at around 10 PM and found the appellant present in his house and on inquiry, the appellant told, that Vikash did not go to Guwahati with him. PW 18 also stated, that when Vikash did not return till night, PW 1, father of the victim, went to the house of the appellant and found him present in the house. The evidence of PW 1 and PW 18 demonstrated that the appellant was present in his house at 10 O'clock. Evidently the body of the victim was found on the railway track in the morning on 13-02-2014. As per the doctor, who conducted the post mortem examination, death of the victim occurred within 6 to 12 hours before the post mortem examination. Evidently the body of the victim was found on the railway track in the morning on 13-02-2014. As per the doctor, who conducted the post mortem examination, death of the victim occurred within 6 to 12 hours before the post mortem examination. Evidently autopsy was done at about 11 AM on 13-02-2014, meaning thereby, death of the deceased occurred in between 11 PM of 12-02-2014 to 5 AM of 13-02- 2014. Therefore, even if the evidence of PW 6, PW 14, PW 15 & PW 16 is accepted, that they saw the appellant in company of the victim at about 9 to 9.30 AM in the morning on 12-02- 2014, the evidence of PW 1 & PW 18 that the appellant was present in his house at about 10 O'clock, snapped the theory of "last seen together" in view of the time of death revealed from the medical evidence. Thus, having regard to the clear evidence of PW 1 & PW 18 and the probable time of death as revealed from the medical evidence or the time, when the victim was found dead, the theory of "last seen together" could not be pressed into service on the basis of evidence of PW 6, PW 14, PW 15 & PW 16. 17. It is to be borne in mind that, the gap between the point of time, when the accused and deceased were last seen alive and when the victim was found dead, is most crucial. If the time gap between the point of time, when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and when the victim was found dead is very small and other evidence, including the medical evidence fixing the time of death, corroborates the last seen theory, it certainly becomes a strong incriminating circumstance, which, unless the accused explains properly, obviously raises the finger of accusation towards the accused/appellant. On the other hand, when the time gap is very wide and because of such time gap, if it becomes difficult to rule out the probability of any third person coming in, or dislodging the "last seen theory", it would obviously be unsafe to rely on such circumstance to base conviction. On the other hand, when the time gap is very wide and because of such time gap, if it becomes difficult to rule out the probability of any third person coming in, or dislodging the "last seen theory", it would obviously be unsafe to rely on such circumstance to base conviction. The Apex Court in State of U.P. vs. Satish reported in 2005 AIR(SC) 1000 observed that "last seen theory comes into play where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small, that possibility of any person, other than, being the author of 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 person existed. 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 the conclusion of guilt in those cases." In the instant case, the medical evidence adduced by PW 25, Post mortem report Ext. 14, as well as the evidence of the PW 1, father of the victim and PW 18, rendered the "last seen theory" or the circumstance of the accused and the victim having been last seen together, on the basis of the evidence of PW 6, PW 14, PW 15 & PW 16, totally inapplicable. Therefore, in our considered view, the first circumstance relied by the learned trial court that the appellant and the victim were last seen together immediately before the death of the victim was not proved in the instant case and in fact, there was no evidence of last seen together. 18. So far the second circumstance, i.e., recovery of wearing apparels of the victim with blood stain, on being led by the appellant is concerned, as per evidence of PW 4, PW 11, PW 12 & PW 13, one pant, one inner, one shirt and four numbers of bricks marked as Mat. Exts. 3, 4, 5 & 6 were recovered from a ditch on being led by the appellant. Admittedly those articles were not sent for chemical examination. Exts. 3, 4, 5 & 6 were recovered from a ditch on being led by the appellant. Admittedly those articles were not sent for chemical examination. We are not oblivious of the fact, that failure of the investigating officer to send the seized articles or the weapon of offence containing blood stain, for forensic examination, always may not be fatal for the prosecution. But when the prosecution case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence and recovery of articles being blood stain clothes of the accused is taken as a vital incriminating circumstance, it is obligatory on the part of the prosecution to establish the link of those seized articles with the commission of offence. It is only the chemical examination of the seized clothes allegedly having blood stain could establish the link between the accused/appellant and the commission of offence. In absence of such chemical examination, mere recovery of some clothes at the instance of the accused/appellant is of no use in a murder case, like the present one, which is sought to be proved by circumstantial evidence. 19. The Apex Court in S.K. Yusuf vs. State of West Bengal reported in 2011 AIR(SC) 2283 observed that in case of circumstantial evidence, not sending the weapon used in crime for chemical analysis is fatal for the reason, that circumstantial evidence may not lead to the only irresistible conclusion that the appellant was the perpetrator of the crime and none else, and that in absence of any report of Serologist as to the presence of human blood on weapon used, conviction of the accused could not sustain. Even if it is accepted, that some clothes of the victim were recovered, in absence of any report of Serologist as to the presence of human blood on the clothes recovered, leads the prosecution to nowhere, not to speak of establishing of any incriminating circumstance for leading to any conclusion of guilt against the appellant. 20. The 3rd circumstance relied by the learned trial court was the recovery of a mobile phone, which according to the prosecution, belonged to the victim, on being led by the coaccused Nirmal Das. PW 4, PW 9 PW 13 & PW 20 deposed, that on being led by the coaccused Nirmal Das, a micromax mobile phone was recovered, from under the water of a pond. PW 4, PW 9 PW 13 & PW 20 deposed, that on being led by the coaccused Nirmal Das, a micromax mobile phone was recovered, from under the water of a pond. Surprisingly, no convincing evidence was adduced by the prosecution to establish beyond reasonable doubt, that the said mobile phone actually belonged to the victim. When the alleged mobile phone was recovered from under the water of a pond on being led by coaccused Nirmal Das (since acquitted) and no legal evidence was brought on record to establish that the mobile phone was recovered at the instance of the co-accused or it belonged to the victim, it cannot create any link with the commission of the offence, nor can it lead to an irresistible conclusion that none, but the appellant committed the offence. 21. What is therefore, apparent from the evidence of the prosecution is that the three circumstances relied by the trial court for recording conviction of the appellant, in our considered view, were not even proved, not to speak of the chain of circumstances, to enable the court to come to a conclusion that it was none, but the accused/appellant, who was the perpetrator of the offence. As already indicated above, the uncontroverted medical evidence clearly suggested that death was caused by crush injury consistent with railway run over incident and the injuries were ante mortem. Therefore, medical evidence also ruled out the homicidal death of the victim. 22. Therefore, the only circumstance remained is the SMS alleged to have been sent by the appellant. In view of the evidence, as discussed hereinabove, including the uncontroverted medical evidence, the SMS allegedly sent by the accused/appellant, as relied by the learned trial court, above, in our considered view, can by no stretch of imagination, lead to irresistible conclusion, that it was none, but the accused, who committed the murder of the victim. 23. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion, that prosecution has failed to establish the charges against the appellant u/s 302 or 201 IPC, and as such, conviction and sentence of the accused/appellant cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant. We also direct that the appellant be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. 24. The appeal stands allowed. 25. Appreciating the assistance rendered by Mr. Accordingly, we set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant. We also direct that the appellant be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. 24. The appeal stands allowed. 25. Appreciating the assistance rendered by Mr. D. Barua, learned Amicus Curiae, we hereby provide that he will be entitled to fees as Legal Aid Counsel, as per the norms fixed by the Legal Services Authority Regulation. Upon production of a copy of this judgment, Guwahati High Court Legal Services Committee shall pay the fee to Mr. D. Barua. 26. Send down the LCR along with a copy of this judgment.