JUDGMENT : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. The sole appellant has been charged for murder of Dulal Chandra Saha. In Sessions Case No. 412 of 1990, he has been convicted under section 302 and 379 IPC and sentenced to R.I. for life under section 302 IPC and R.I. for 3 years under section 379 IPC. 2. By an order dated 24.12.1993, the appellant was granted bail by this Court. 3. The case of the prosecution is narrated by Nimai Chandra Saha in his fardbeyan recorded on 17.03.1990, on the basis of which Raneshwar (Tongra) P.S. case under section 302/201/379 IPC was registered. The informant has alleged that on 16.03.1990 Dulal Chandra Saha returned home from Raj Nagar market at about 5 p.m. and till about 8-9 p.m. he was wandering in the village. Thereafter, he went towards the house of Chandan Murmu in Manjhi Tola; Dulal Chandra Saha had illicit relationship with the daughter of Chandan Murmu. The informant has claimed that the co-villagers namely, Madhusudan Mandal and Bhagirath Gorai who had gone for their own work to Manjhi Tola informed him that his brother namely, Dulal Chandra Saha has been seen eating and drinking with Gangadhar Hansda at the door of Chandan Murmu. On 17.03.1990 the informant came to know that dead-body of his brother was lying about 300 yards north-east of the house of Chandan Murmu in the field of Srawani Shankar Das. The informant went there and found the dead-body of his brother with several sharp cut injuries. Near the dead-body one green Hawai Chappal of his deceased brother and yellow coloured another Chappal belonging to the accused-Gangadhar Hansda were found. The golden ring and silver chain of the deceased were missing. He has stated that he found some blood-stains on the cot and some blood-stains on the ground of the house of Chandan Murmu. The blood-stained Lungi of the deceased was found on a Khajur tree about 200 yards west from the dead-body. The informant raised a suspicion that Gangadhar Hansda has killed his brother. The appellant was charged under section 302 IPC and section 379 IPC. 4. The prosecution has examined 8 witnesses in support of the charges framed against the accused-appellant; brother of the deceased namely, Nimai Chandra Saha is P.W. 4 and the co-villagers namely, Madhusudan Mandal and Bhagirath Gorai have been examined as P.W. 3 and P.W. 6 respectively. The appellant was charged under section 302 IPC and section 379 IPC. 4. The prosecution has examined 8 witnesses in support of the charges framed against the accused-appellant; brother of the deceased namely, Nimai Chandra Saha is P.W. 4 and the co-villagers namely, Madhusudan Mandal and Bhagirath Gorai have been examined as P.W. 3 and P.W. 6 respectively. The investigating officer has been examined as P.W. 8. 5. The doctor namely, Bimal Kumar who has conducted the post-mortem examination on 18.03.1990 has found the following injuries on the deceased namely, Dulal Chandra Saha: “(1) Penetrating incised wound 1''X 1/2'' X chest cavity deep, 1''X 1/2'' chest cavity deep, 1''X 1/2'' X chest cavity deep over lateral aspect of Right side of chest below axille. Situated ant. middle and post axillary low. On desection there was lacerated of pleura and lung of Right side by each wound. On left side there was fracture of 2nd and 4th ribs with lacerating pleura and lungs. Blood clots in the chest cavity. (2) Penetrating incised wound 1''X 1/2''X abdomen deep over the epigastric region with protusion of Omentum. On desection there was laceration of peritoneum and liver and blood clots inside the cavity. (3) Incised penetrating wound 1''x1/2''x4'' over Right Upper part of arm. (4) Incised penetrating wound 1''X1/2''X4'' over Right thigh one on front and other on lateral side. (5) Incised wound over back and left scapula region 1''X1/2''X3.” 6. The doctor has found that the injuries found on the dead-body were caused by sharp cutting and pointed weapon such as Chakku and Chhura (knife). He has opined that death has been caused as a result of injury nos. (1) and (2) and both the injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 7. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka has held that the prosecution has established the charges framed against the accused and, accordingly, he has convicted the appellant under section 302 IPC and section 379 IPC. 8. Mr. Jitendra S. Singh the learned counsel for the appellant has inter alia contended that (i) the evidence on the last-seen-together and other circumstances sought to be proved by the prosecution are not proved, and (ii) only on the basis of the last-seen-together evidence, which is not proved, the appellant cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 IPC and section 379 IPC. 9. 9. The law on the circumstantial evidence is by now well-settled. In “Gambhir Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1982) 2 SCC 351 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has explained the law on the circumstantial evidence, thus; “9. ..................When a case rests upon the circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy three tests: (1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else. The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. The circumstantial evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. ….........................................................” 10. By now it is also well-settled that only on the basis of the last-seen-together evidence an accused cannot be convicted for the offence of murder; there may be other aspects which have to be considered. The evidence on last-seen-together may provide additional link in the chain of circumstances, but then other factors have to be kept in mind. There may be a case in which a co-villager friendly with the deceased has been seen lastly in the company of the deceased and the next morning he is found dead. The situation would, however, be different when a husband is seen lastly in the company of his wife and immediately thereafter dead-body of his wife has been found, but no explanation is coming forth from the husband. Time-gap between the last-seen-together and the recovery of the dead-body is also an important fact which if not explained would render the last-seen-together evidence irrelevant. The informant has deposed that Madhusudan Mandal told him that he has seen the deceased near the house of Chandan Murmu whereafter he was not seen alive. P.W. 3 has also made a similar statement in the court. Both these prosecution witnesses have also stated that they have seen blood-stains on the cot and on the earth of the house of Chandan Murmu. Both have seen blood trails to the house of Chandan Murmu. P.W. 3 has also made a similar statement in the court. Both these prosecution witnesses have also stated that they have seen blood-stains on the cot and on the earth of the house of Chandan Murmu. Both have seen blood trails to the house of Chandan Murmu. P.W. 6 has also stated that when he met the informant he had informed him that he has seen his brother in the house of Chandan Murmu. He has deposed that Chandan Murmu had informed him that Gangadhar Hansda has killed Dulal Chandra Saha, however, Chandan Murmu has not been examined during the trial. P.W. 3 has deposed that he cannot say whether Dulal Chandra Saha had gone with Gangadhar Hansda to the house of Chandan Murmu or not. In fact, none of the prosecution witnesses examined during the trial has said that he has seen the deceased lastly in the company of the appellant. 11. In the above state of evidence, we are of the opinion that there is no legally admissible evidence led by the prosecution to establish that the appellant was lastly seen in the company of the deceased. Recoveries of blood-stained articles and yellow coloured Chappal are also not the incriminating circumstances pointing out an accusing finger to the appellant; these are not recovered pursuant to disclosure of the appellant and, moreover, the recoveries have been made from open space. 12. Having examined the records of the case, we are of the opinion that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka has committed a serious error in law in convicting the appellant under section 302 IPC and 379 IPC. We hold that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge under section 302 IPC and 379 IPC against the appellant. 13. In the result, judgement of conviction dated 16.06.1993 and the order of sentence dated 18.06.1993 passed in Sessions Case No. 412 of 1990 are set-aside. The appellant is discharged of the bail-bonds which were furnished by him pursuant to the order dated 24.12.1993. 14. Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 309 of 1993 (P) is allowed. 15. Let a copy of the Judgement be transmitted to the court concerned through FAX. 16. Let the lower-court records be sent to the court concerned, forthwith.