JUDGMENT T. Amarnath Goud, J. -This is an appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence dated 05.07.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Khowai Tripura in connection with Case No. S.T. No. (T. 1)07 of 2018 convicting the accused-appellant under Section 376 of IPC to suffer rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,00/- and with default stipulation and under Section 302 of IPC to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulation. 2. The brief facts are that Shri Taradhan Debbarma (father of the deceased), the informant herein lodged an oral complaint to the O.C. Champahour P.S. stating inter alia that on 14.01.2018, at about 14.30 hours (2.30 pm) his daughter who was suffering from insanity left their house to fed cow and did not return home till evening. Accordingly, they have searched in all possible places but in vain. On the next morning i.e. on 15.01.2018 at about 06.30 hrs (6.30 am) one Kepengrai Debbarma have seen the dead body of the deceased (Malina Debbarma) of Utlabari in the rubber plantation of one Samir Debbarma in half-naked condition. Thus, the informant came to know and seen the dead body of the deceased-daughter. 3. Based on the said FIR/ejahar Champahour P.S. Case No. 2018 CPH 002 dated 15.01.2018 under Section 302 of IPC was registered and S.I. Samaresh Chakma took up the case for investigation. After completion of the investigation, he laid a charge-sheet vide No. 06/2018, dated 12.04.2018 under Section 341/376/302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the accused-appellant, namely, Elash Kumar Debbarma. 4. Upon receipt of the charge-sheet, cognizance of an offense punishable under Section 341/376/302 of IPC was taken against the appellant and thereafter the case was committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Khowai, Tripura as the case was exclusively trial able by the learned Sessions Judge, Khowai Tripura. 5. On receipt of the case record on 08.05.2018, learned Addl. Upon receipt of the charge-sheet, cognizance of an offense punishable under Section 341/376/302 of IPC was taken against the appellant and thereafter the case was committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Khowai, Tripura as the case was exclusively trial able by the learned Sessions Judge, Khowai Tripura. 5. On receipt of the case record on 08.05.2018, learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Khowai framed charges under Section 341/376/302 of IPC against the accused Elash Kumar Debbarma which are as follows:- 'Firstly, That, you on or about 14.01.2018 in the afternoon at anytime after 2.30 P.M. in Village-Utlabari, Police Station-Champahaour, District-khowai Tripura in a Rubber garden of Samir Debbarma wrongfully restrained Malina Debbarma and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 341 of IPC and within my cognizance. Secondly-That, you on the afore mentioned date, time and place in the afternoon at any time after 2.30 P.M. in the village Utlabari, P.S. Champahour, District-khowai Tripura in the Rubber Plantation of Samir Debbarma committed rape on Malina Debbarma and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and within my cognizance. Lastly-That, you on the afore mentioned date, time and place and in village Utlabari, P.S.-Champahour, District-Khowai Tripura in the Rubber Plantation of Samir Debbarma did commit murder by intentionally causing the death of one Malina Debbarma and thereby committed an office punishable under Section 302 of IPC and within my cognizance.' 6. After framing the aforesaid charges, the Trial was commenced. In the course of the Trial, the prosecution has examined as many as 20(twenty) witnesses and also exhibited some documents. All the prosecution witnesses were duly cross-examined by the defense. After the conclusion of the recording of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the accused was examined under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., when he denied all the incriminating materials in prosecution evidence and also expressed unwillingness to adduce evidence in his defense. 7. To decide the fate of this case, learned Court below have taken up the following points for decision:- 'i. Whether on 14.01.2018 in the afternoon any time the present accused wrongfully restrained the victim girl in the rubber garden of Samir Debbarma? ii. Whether on the aforementioned date and place the accused committed rape upon the victim girl? iii. Whether on the aforementioned date, and place the accused intentionally committed murder of the victim girl?' 8. ii. Whether on the aforementioned date and place the accused committed rape upon the victim girl? iii. Whether on the aforementioned date, and place the accused intentionally committed murder of the victim girl?' 8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the learned Sessions Judge held the accused person guilty of committing offenses as stated here-in-above. 9. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the convict-appellant has preferred the instant appeal before this Court and prayed for the following reliefs:- 'i) Admit the appeal. ii) Call for the case records of Case No. S.T. (T. 1) 07 of 2018 from the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Khowai, West Tripura. iii) Notify the Public Prosecutor. AND iv) After hearing both sides Your Lordship would be kind enough to set aside/quash the impugned order dated 05.07.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Khowai, Tripura.' 10. Heard Mr. S. Sarkar, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Ms. P. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the convict-appellant as well as Mr. R. Datta, learned P.P. appearing for the State-respondent. 11. Mr. Sarkar, learned Sr. counsel submitted that the conviction and sentence passed the learned Trial Court suffers from illegality, impropriety, and irregularity, and as such the conviction and sentence is required to be set aside and quashed. 12. Mr. Sarkar, learned Sr. counsel further contended that P.W. 1, the father of the deceased and also the informant of the present case deposed categorically before the learned Trial Court that on 14.01.2018 at about 2.00 P.M. his daughter went to find out their cattle. But, subsequently, she did not return home by evening and they guessed that she might have gone to their relatives' house in the same locality. Subsequently, on the next day morning one Khepengrai Debbarma (P.W. 3) informed him that one dead body of a girl was lying in the rubber plantation of Samir Debbarma. Accordingly, he along with other family members went to the place and found that the dead body of his daughter was lying there without any wearing apparel and a pair of slippers was also found lying there. As deposed by the informant (P.W. 1) of the case, on 14.01.2018 deceased went out but did not return home the whole night. Accordingly, he along with other family members went to the place and found that the dead body of his daughter was lying there without any wearing apparel and a pair of slippers was also found lying there. As deposed by the informant (P.W. 1) of the case, on 14.01.2018 deceased went out but did not return home the whole night. But, the informant was reluctant to find out his daughter by himself or bring this matter to the notice of the police which creates serious doubts on the prosecution story because a girl was missing for the whole night and her inmates were very much reluctant to trace her out. No attempts were made on the part of the inmates of the deceased, and they only guessed that she might have gone to any of the houses of their relatives. But, surprisingly, the informant did not even bothered to ask his relative about the deceased and did not even brought the matter to the notice of any of his relatives to find out the deceased but the learned Trial Court did not consider the same. 13. Mr. Sarker, learned Sr. counsel further submits that P.W. 2 deposed before the learned Trial Court that on 15.01.2018 he came to know that the dead body of the daughter of P.W. 1 was found lying in the rubber plantation of Samir Debbarma. Accordingly, he went to the spot and found the dead body of the victim lying there, and her wearing apparel was found lying beside the dead body. He also stated that his statement was recorded by the police. He further deposed that the dog squad came there and the said dog squad identified the convict-appellant going to the house of the appellant from the spot. But such deposition of P.W. 2 totally contradicts the deposition of P.W. 4, P.W.-6 of the dog squad of the CID branch but the learned Trial Court did not appreciated such facts. 14. P.W. 3 deposed that, one morning while he went to the rubber plantation of one Samir Debbarma he found the dead body of deceased lying and informed P.W. 2. In his cross-examination, he deposed that, he never made any such statement to the police which makes the whole deposition of P.W. 3 a first-time statement and improved version, which was not tenable in the eye of law. In his cross-examination, he deposed that, he never made any such statement to the police which makes the whole deposition of P.W. 3 a first-time statement and improved version, which was not tenable in the eye of law. But the learned Trial Court did not consider the same. 15. While passing the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the learned Trial Court hypothetically relied upon the evidence of P.W. 8, who deposed before the learned Trial Court that, a few months back one day when she was returning home, it was too late and she found the appellant and the deceased on the village road. Such deposition of P.W. 8 does not throw any light of evidence upon the guilt of the appellant. But the learned Trial Court did not considered the same. 16. The learned Trial Court below while passing the judgment and order of conviction and sentence did not appreciate and considered to cross-examination of P.W. 10. 17. From the evidence of P.W. 16, it is revealed that no seminal stain/spermatozoa of human origin were detected by the learned Trial Court, and without considering the aspects, the learned Trial Court convicted the present appellant. 18. For the above-mentioned facts, the golden rule of circumstantial evidence was not followed by the learned Court below. 19. The owner of the rubber plantation is whose rubber plantation, the dead body of the deceased was found was not examined by the learned Trial Court. 20. There are many vital omissions and contradictions in the deposition of P.W. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 & 10 but the learned Trial Court below did not consider the same. 21. Mr. R. Datta, learned P.P. defending the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence relied on the 'last seen together' theory and quoted the deposition of P.W. 10 which is reproduced hereunder:- 'On the day of Makar Sankranti I was going to my parents house in the evening, I found Malina Debbarma and Elesh Debbarma over the road approached towards the rubber plantation of Samir Debbarma and it was already 6 p.m............' 22. Mr. Datta learned P.P., thus argued that the statement of P.W. 10, clearly proves the 'last seen together' theory. 23. Mr. Datta learned P.P., thus argued that the statement of P.W. 10, clearly proves the 'last seen together' theory. 23. Learned P.P. further submits before this Court that though the case is based on circumstantial evidence, but, the prosecution has been able to establish all the circumstances in a chain, and especially the DNA report is very much conclusive. 24. In regard to the DNA evidence, learned P.P. has quoted the evidence of Dr. Subhankar Nath, P.W. 18 who is the Deputy Director of DNA division and he deposed that the exhibits marked as 6, 7, 10(A), 10(B), 10(C), B, E, 9 receipt from Rupali Majumder who is the chemical examiner of their laboratory. Said exhibits were containing light mud like stain said to be the anal swab of the deceased, a small cotton piece with very like mud stain said to be the vaginal swab of the deceased, 3(three) number of cloth pieces with light brown stain small area to be the wearing apparels of the deceased, two numbers of pink colored small pieces of cloth with black stain in small area to be the wearing apparels of the deceased, 4(four) numbers green colored small pieces of cloth with light black stain in small area to be the wearing apparels of the deceased, saliva of accused Elesh Kumar collected by Medical Officer, Khowai in a gauge cloth on 16.01.2018, blood sample of accused Elesh Kumar and blood sample of deceased victim collected by Medical Officer, Khowai during post-mortem examination. All the aforesaid articles were subjected to DNA extraction by organic extraction method. DNA recovered from the above exhibits were subjected to multiplex DNA recovered from the above exhibits were subjected to multiplex PCR reaction for co-amplification of the 15 STR loci & Amelogenin using AmpF9STR identifier Plus PCR amplification kit. The amplified products along with controls were run on the Automated DNA Sequencer. The sizing of the fragments was carried out using Gene Mapper ID software V 3.2. with respect with Gene Scan 500 LIZ size standard. The resultant allelic distribution for the studied loci in the different exhibits shown in his table of Annexure-A. After examination, he find that male genetic profile were generated form Exhibits C and F and in mixed genetic profile were generated from Exhibits 6 and 7. Female genetic profile was generated from Exhibits 10(A). Partial genetic profile was generated form Exhibit 10(B). Female genetic profile was generated from Exhibits 10(A). Partial genetic profile was generated form Exhibit 10(B). Female genetic profile was generated form Exhibit 10(C). Male genetic profile was generated from Exhibit-9. The alleles of the amplified loci of male DNA profile generated from Exhibits C, F and B matches with Exhibit E. The alleles of the amplified loci of female DNA profile generated form Exhibit 10(A) matches with Exhibit 10(C) and also matches with Exhibit 9. The alleles of amplified loci of DNA profile generated form Exhibit 9 are present in the alleles of the amplified loci of mixed DNA profile of Exhibits 6 & 7. The alleles of the amplified loci of mixed DNA profile generated from Exhibit E and present in the alleles of the amplified loci of DNA profile of Exhibit 6 and 7. The alleles of the amplified loci of DNA profile generated from Exhibit E are present in the alleles of the amplified loci of DNA profile of Exhibit 6. The alleles of the amplified loci of DNA profile generated form Exhibit E do not matches with the alleles of the amplified loci of DNA profile of Exhibit-7. 25. Learned P.P. further deposed that evidence of P.W. 13 and P.W. 14 also clearly point towards the guilt of the convict-appellant. 26. After considering the arguments of learned counsel as well as after perusing the evidence on record, we are of the considered view that. As per the DNA samples and forensic evidence with regard to the charge under Section 302 of IPC for murder is concerned, they do not match with the samples of the accused, and with this, it gives a doubt that there is some other person which the prosecution has failed to prove. In view of the same, the charge under Section 302 of IPC as passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Khowai Tripura in connection with the Case No. S.T. (T-1)07 of 2018 against the accused is set aside. 27. With regard to conviction under Section 376 of IPC, as per the DNA sample and the forensic evidence, the specimens of the accused and the deceased are proved. Hence, it is a case of Rape. Accordingly, the conviction of the convict-appellant under Section 376 of IPC to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10(ten) years and to pay a fine of Rs. With regard to conviction under Section 376 of IPC, as per the DNA sample and the forensic evidence, the specimens of the accused and the deceased are proved. Hence, it is a case of Rape. Accordingly, the conviction of the convict-appellant under Section 376 of IPC to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10(ten) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- as passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Khowai Tripura in Case No. S.T. (T-1)07 of 2018 is confirmed. 28. Accordingly, this instant appeal stands disposed of in the terms of the above-mentioned directions and observation. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.