\ \sk- \ \ E '\ #. p z/\~ /// HIQH COURT OF JUBICATURE CHHAm5G5§RHI 'BILA3PUa QWGJ @E DEATH REFERENCE NOE OF 2002 stun of Chha’rfisgar-h a ThrcughLS‘rmicn House Officer, Tamnar, ‘ DisTricT: Raigarh (6.6.) Versus Jagciis‘n @ Vidyuf Sarkar Son of Shivna?h 5ar‘kar‘: Aggd abouf 35 year's, Residen? of Bospadha, Police 51’a?ion: Ranagha?i, District: Nadiya (Vi/.8.) 1 and Fawan ® Ratan Mandai Son of Arviod, 7 * Aged abouf 20 years, Residen? of Villaga: Digari, Poi‘ice .Sm’tion r3: District: Nadiya (W.B.) AND CRIMINAL APPEAL g0.1085 OF 2002 Pawn" @ Rafan Manda! Versus 5mm of Chho‘Hisgarh AND CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.201 OF 2003 Jagdish @ Vidyuf Sarkar Versus 5mm of Chha??isgarh 9 JUDEMENT FOR CONSIDERAUON ‘ a sla’II’" " L.C.BHADOO Judge unmzl F THE CHIEF JusTICE sew-MW?“ g g ‘ PosT FOR JUDeMENT ON ' MEL/Sr, 200%” Ar” ’ ’ Sdl- L.C.BHADOO Judge Sdl- Chief Justice ’‘ PUR C.G. CH HOWELE SHRI K.H.N. KURANGA, CJ T’ OZ ff. ade the F‘curfll Aditional Sessions Judd Fast Track Court, Raigarh unasr Section 366 of the Code of Criminai Procedure) . -bv, 1 State of iihhattiSgarh Through: tation House Omcer, Tamnar, p “ Versus ‘ S Bistrict: Raigarh (C.G.§ J%d§sh @ Vidyt Sarkar Eon of Shivnath Sarkar, Age& about 35 years, Resment of Bospadha, Foiice Station: Ranaghati, District: Nadiya (“LBJ and Fatima @ Ratan anda! $031 of Arvind, ‘d: bout 20 yeaJS; esident of Village: Digari, Poiice Statiofl £5 District: Nadiya (“LBJ Present: Mr. Ranbir Sing Govt. Advocate: For the State. h, M1”. Shashaok Shrivastava, Advocate: For accus Jagdish @ dyut Sarkar Mr. G.S.Ahluwa1ia, Advocate: For acused Pawan @ Ratan Mandal g. 9 Pawan Ratan Mandal Sea of Agvind, b . l y Versus Ch'nattisgaxh Through; $-atiog.\__ol._se Officer, Tamnar, Agmi aout 20 years, Resideat of Viilage: Digari, ice statioa & Diskrict: Hadia (“1.3.3 S o" misir ’eté Ralgarh (C.G¢) EIGH €GURT QF J3EECA3URE CHHATTES$ARH: BILAS EWfSION BEN: & HQABLE SHE! Ll}. BHADO DEATH REFERENCE N05 OF 2002 (m b j d ? ‘ ‘ u A M Apo a Ei ed Vi c CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1085 OF 2002 @ Present: Mr. (1 Q Ahhmmha, Advocate: For the appeliant. Mr, Rembir $mgh, Govt, A .vocate: For the State,’ respondent. AND CEMENAL APPEAL NG.291 9F 2003 .Taagfkh f3 Vidyut Ssur'lrav q $011 ol wuvnath $arka1'5 Ag d; about .35 veg-s. Resident of Bospauiha, E’aiiee Sigma “ mudgaau? District. Nadiya (W B ) w .. ..- 9-1. ~ Versus State 03" Chhattisgarh Thmlwh Sfatwy. Eeuse Dfficer, Tamnar, ulstnct. mgarh EC.GJ t Presalt; ‘* ’ ‘Mr. Shashank Shlivastava. Advocate: For the appsllant, Mi . r Ranhn” Smgh (‘rovf AHvnr‘QfP For “19 Statej respondent. JUDGMENT 1D#"irered on/q-l’tvof Aug‘1$-, 2003) 431$ following jndgmcnt of Em: Court was delivared by LC. Bhadco, J: - A Accused/'appeiian‘rs Jagdish e Vidyu‘r Sarkar and Pawan @ Ra‘mn munua. Mn”; I were ‘Med by 1*ha Fcur'rh Addi‘l‘iena! Sessions Judge, Fasf Track Cour‘r, Raigar‘h, in Sessions Triai No.71 of 2001, for The commission of i’hé éffé‘r‘ice punishabie uru‘n'er Secfien 362 of 'H'ie I.P.C. for commi'h‘ing ihe murders of Dru Animesh Eishwas, SmT. Mirani Bai W/o Dr. Animesh Eishwas, Miss Chandrani aiias Sonu D/o Dr. Animesh Bishwas, Miss 9 Pushpa sis‘rer' cf Dr. Animesh B.s..was and ,‘v‘iasfer Vijay Bishwas 5/0 Dr. Animesh Bishwas. The ieamed Addifional Sessions Judge by his judgmeni da'red 27’”! Augusi’, 2G02, caffer hoiding ‘rhe accused persons guilt; of i’he 9f‘ence LMe" qDF‘hon 302 9f fhe I.P.C. sen‘ienced Them To dea‘i‘h. 2f’Criminai Appeai No.1085 of 2002 has been fiied by accused Pawan @ ‘Tan fy‘x‘ndai and Criminai kpeai No‘201 0f 2003 has been filed by nrcused Jagdish @ Vldvn+ 5anar' agains? The said conviction and sen‘i‘ence passed againsi' fhem by ‘i‘he iear'ned Four-1+1 Additional Sessions Judge. On .ne uiher h , ‘rhe .earned Addmona! Sessmns / / 7X Judge hc‘i made 526% Refarence No.5 of 2002 To ‘rhis Cour? for Qnfirma‘rien of The deaih sentence imposed by him on fhe accused. U This judgment shaH dispose of The aforesaid appeals filed by fhe (A) accueed persons and fhe reference made by 1'he learned Addi'l'ional 3( 1T will WT be 0m“ 5f place here fa men‘l'ion Tha‘r accused/appellani' 4:: ‘Tnodidn (a Vidyu? Sarkar is 'l'lqe brofher of deceased Sm'i'. Mirani Bai and accused/'appeilanf Pawan @ Ra‘l’m Mandal was working in The clinic of Dr. Animesh Bishwas since lasf 15-20 days priar fo ‘rhe incidem‘. 5. The prdsecufion dase ih brief is ‘rhaT in beTween 7 p.m. of 9” January, 2001 and fhe morning of 17f“ January, 2001, in Mahanfpara localiTy of Tamnar Town, accused Jagaish & Pawan commi‘H’ed The murders of Dr. Animesh Bishwes, Smut Mirsni Bai & Miss Pushpa by assaulting ’Them wil’h slone and Miss Chandrani alias Sonu & Mas'rer Vijay Bishwas by s‘rrangulaiing 'i‘l‘ie'm in die house-cum—clinic of Dr. Animesh Bishwas. On 17m January, ?001, at about 10:39 a.ml Bhuvan Mandal 5/0 Amardas informed Police 5-iafion: Tamnar Thai“ in f'ne morning when ‘ne was going ‘lo villare pend fc fake bafh, he saw few ladies and gems were standing near 'i'he house of Dr. Animesh Bishwas. The house was locked from oufside and foul smell was emana‘ring from The house of Dr. Animesh Bishwas. In ‘l'he presence of all, he 90'? info The house of Dr. Animesh Eishwas from back side by climbing a ladder and saw Thm‘ 'rhe dead body cf Dr: Animesh Bishwas was lying and one sTone slab was lying near fhe head of Dr. Animesh Bishwas. The bodies of The wife, daugh‘l'er, sis‘rer and son of Dr. Animesh Bishwas were also lying There. He has !Q sfaying in fhe house of Dr. Animesh Bishwas, bu‘r ‘l'hey were missing since fhe nigh? of 9+“ January, 2001, and from Thaf day, ‘rhe house of Dr. Animesh was locked. After seeing fhe dead bodies of The deceased persons if appeared ‘i'hai' Pawan and his associafe firs? caused Them TV ‘ s—J‘"... u i -r I come to know from fhe hedZle Thaf Pawan and his ano'l'her rela‘l'ive were r r Wwmm ' has Ka’) mhaié §cmé ar1é§?he?ic suusi’ance an when fhe decaased persom became semi-unconscious, ihey murdered the elders by ussaul‘l'ing fhem WWh a sfone and chiidr'en by sfranqula‘rion. E 5. Ow The basls of This renor‘r fhe Ponce registered a case under Secfions ‘ ‘ 3G2 uuu LU}. laud wnh .Jzuwn o4 of Th5 I D C The SUpel‘ll’H’el’ldenT Of Rollcg, Emgarh, handgd Qvgr‘ fha mves‘hgatlon To PW-15 3.5. Par'lhar'. \ He reached ‘i'he piace of inciden? and prepared The sife plan EXP-36. V” 17" Tn. n ry, 2001, he prepared The Panchanamas of The dead bodies of Dr. Animesh Bishwas, Miss Chandrani, Smt Mir-am Boi, Miss PUSnpa arm m rr ‘v’ijay Bis‘nwas vide Exs. -184 P-19, P-ZO, P-21 & P-ZZ, resp ‘cJvely nn he beches OF +lne deceased per-sons were sen'f for posf morfem examinafion under- requisifions Exs.P—37, P—38, P-39, P-4O & P— 41. A . 5*are mean? fer grmuxng fhe spaces smmed wlfh blood was seized Lmder EXP—24 and one lock Eambo Power Mark was seized under a ‘ EXP-2:5. On 10 January, 1 from fne piace of occurrence a surr case and a box on+mmng currency notes, papers and sllver & golden .ornamen'rs were seized under ExP43 and EXP-44. On The same day to. ”om +|me page i o. .5 occu ence, a blanket emp‘ry jufe bag, napkins sl'ained wi'l'h blood, shirl’s of the children slained wifh blood, a piece oi:- sari sfaineo‘ wifh blood, plain soil, blood sl’ained soil and one sfone pestle mean? ‘nr grmdmg he spices were seized under EXP-45. On The some day, in lhe presence of fhe wilnessesffrom The place of inciden’? one piece o.£ piasiic I .1. Luag stained wi‘rh blood was seized affer +mg the same in a jar and cer‘rain food ilems which were lying on fhe place of occurrence, a ‘i‘orn plasfic bag and lwo sleel bowls wilh food were also s r 4 'nder Ex Pv46 Visce as were also seized in a Jar '3 under EXP-47. On 19l1'7'FJanuary, 2001, currency nol’es, changes of Rs‘292/5, one fable clock, one ciflien wal’ch, one old chain, one box, one Indies rmn one he." mh "m4 one silver bangle of children were also seized under EXP—48. On 23rd January, 2001, during inferroga‘lion, accused Jagdish gave memor ”mum .ega. umg ‘rhe key of 1’he lock Exf/ ”w“-.. . j, rv . /@ £3, (ma? iri pLiF$uan¢e of fhd‘i’ rne'r'namndum fhe key was recovered and seized under Ex.P—9. Accused Jcgdish was arr-es‘red under EXP—42. ‘One‘ biue fuii sieeve shir‘r and one high neck co'H'on Baniyan wefe seized under EXP—8. $am“le P bf mik; 6f accused Ja9dish affer' 9effin9 Them cuf jwerie 1 also seized under Ex.P-10. Affer recording The evidence of fhe $wifnesses, ‘rhe Panchanama of The piace where fhe dead bodies were iying was prepared under E, .P-49. Ul F3 Af‘rer comple’rion cf “the 'nvesfi§afion, charge sheet was filed ugainsf The oacfised/uppeiian‘i's in The Cour'i' of Judicial Magisfrcxi'e, FirsT Class, G'narg'nodo, DisTTi Raigar-h, who commiTTed The case To The CourT of Sessions‘ Jddge, Raigarh. TherenfTer, on Transfer The case was received in The Cour? of The FourTh AddiTioml Sessions Judge, Fas‘i' .ep0 The ieorned Four-Th AddiTionei Sessions Judge ofTer hearing The orgumenTs of Sri TRI Patel, Addit.o.al Public ProsecuTor' and Sri Rajeev Kaiiya, counsei for The accused persons, framed The charges againsT The accused/appeiianfs for .he commission of The offence punishable under- SecTion 302 of The i.P.C. The accused persons denied The charges and eiaiméu - i .I ‘i'u‘ be- a: The 'prosecuTion in order To prove The offence againsT The accused persons examined in aii fifTeen wiTnesses aT The Trial. The sTaTemenTs of The accused persons were recorded under SecTion 313 of The Cr‘P.C. in which The accused persons simply denied The prosecuTion evidence and sTaTed ThaT They do noT know anyThing, They are innocenT and They have been faiseiy impiicaTed in The crime. Q 1U. The iearned Addi‘i’ionai Sessions Judge afTer hearing The argumenTs of L: The , ddiTicnai Pubiic Prosecu or an The defence counsel and afTer believing and placing reliance on The evidence adduced by The prosecu on, convicTed and s‘nTenced The accused persons for The commission of The offence under SecTion 302 of The I’P.C. as aforesaid/ \ G: ax g / 1i. Wé hava héara‘ I'v‘xr. 6.5. "hiuwaiia, coun§ei for accused/nppeilan‘r Fawan f3 Pawn Mandak Mr. Shashank Shrivasfavu, counsel for aécused/appeiian‘f Jagdish (“3 Vidyu‘r Sar-kar and Mr. Ranbir Smgh, Govt nuvGCGl€ AL-lu + £mn ivl +L. Ina .JiCug. C+ + y 1.; Ag far- as The: mama; of deafh of Dr. AWTaesh Bishwas, SmT. Mirani Bai, Miss Chandrani alias 59w, Miss Pushpa and Masfer‘ ViJay Bishwas being h5micidai is concerned, iearned counse! appearing for The accusad,appel!anfs ”ave npf dispufed fhis fact PW—5 Dr‘ Budhiyar' SirE}; has s‘ru‘fed in his evidence ‘rha‘i' on 18+“ January, 2001, he was ‘s Assisfa'if Surgeon in The Primary Heuifh Cen‘l're, Tamnar' and n of Poiice Station: Tamnar, he conducfed ‘i‘he $305? mor‘rem examinafion on The dead body of Dr. Animesh Bishwas. On examinaficn, he faund fha‘i fhe smeli was emana‘l'ing from fhe body of 1'he deceased; rigor mor‘ris was presenf on 'ihe body; ‘rhere was fracfure of maxiiiary and iower mandibie; fhere were maggofs over ‘i‘he face & mouth; there was no skin over the neck & upper ches'r; muscles and ver‘rebra; frac‘i'ured' ciavicie and ribs were found over fhe chesf wi‘rh fuii of maggo’rs; fhere was peeling of skin all over The body and fhere was full of magnets. The injuries were anfe morfem in na‘rure and . caused by hard and blum" object The cause of 'l'he deafh was shock due To injuries over fhe face, neck and upper ches‘r leading To cardio respira'rory failure and deafh. The na‘l'ure of dga'l'h seemed ‘l'o be homicidal. The posf mor‘ie'rn repor‘r is EXP—12. The docfor has furfher s+a+ed fhai: on the same day he conduc’fed fhe posf mor‘l’em examinafion on "rne body of Miss Chandrani. One rope around fhe neck was pr senf, share z'as mark of The rope around fhe neck and kno‘r mark was aiso seen. The rope mark was be'fween 1he chin and The T‘hyroid carfiiage. The righf hand was separafed from The shoulder and the whole body was pufrefied. The injuries were am‘e mor‘l’em in naTure and caused by hard and biun‘i' object The dea‘ih was wifhin 8-10 days Inn-u. +Lw. da? / J4" ’ of posf morfem examination. The cause of The deafh o/ f / ulvin Inc o frré a25€a§ed was: asiphyxia dLié To $Trczngula1'ion leading To cardio reshimmrv fai!ure and deat.. The deafh was homicidal in mfur'e. The I" I posj‘ mor‘rem repor‘i‘ is EXP-i3. He has fur‘i'her sfafed ‘i'ha‘r on “fhe same E uuyi A... L.“e “as L. cenuuc.eu .J + .i .tL. me pas: a. mar‘l’em axamincxfion on The dead body of 5m]? Mirani Bai. The mandible was found fracl'ur‘ed; “l'he skin on The cries? ' i and neck was missing; ‘l’he bone of fhe lef‘l' shouldei‘ was fracfured; the ring finger- e‘f fhe lefl’ hand was broken: The face was disfigured; The whole face was full of maaqo‘ls; and fher'e was fracl'ure Ui a: Lluvwm -ie..:_i‘ L Liana. ..- TI”We li‘ by Kara and. blanl‘ abject In his opinian, ifhe cause of fhe deafh was shock due 1‘0 injuries over The face; neck and upper ches‘r leading To cardio Fespira‘l'ory‘failure and the naTure of dea’l'h was homicidal. The pos‘l' mor‘rem repor'l' is EXP-14. He has fur‘l’her sfa'red fhal' on 'l'he same uay, J-. Ine conuucTeu .J J me I pos’r mar-Tern examina‘rion on The dead body of Masher \fiin n six monThs ald male child. The smell was emanaTing from hi body, rope kno‘r was presenf on The lefT side of The neck jusT nu»- ww'w ., The lefT masToid process and The rope mark was beTween The chin and Thyroid carTilage. In his opinion, The cause of deaTh was asphyxia due To sTrangLnaTion I leaning l I To carTilage respiraTory failure and cleaTh. The deaTh was hamicidal in naTure. The posT morTem reporT is EXP-15. He has furTher sTaTed ThaT on The same day he conducTed The posT mer‘Tem examinaTisn an &L me ueau A .I body 6f Miss Pushpa, aged abouT 19 years; On posT morTem examinaTion he found ThaT ThEre was fracTure oT r Tne .. mandible wiTn . Tun r .. OT r maggoTs an .. over The face; There was fracTure 9f The lefT clavicle’bone; There was peeiing of The skin over The hands, abdomen, Thigh and boTh lower iimbs. The injuries were anTe mar-“rem in naTur—e and caused by hard and blunT object In his opinion 3H“: made of The deaTh wasifshack due To injuries over The face, neck and upper chesT leading To cardio respiraTor'y failure. The deaTh was he. .icidai in naTure. The posT morTem repcrT is EXP-16. i Fies were anfe mom‘em in na‘rure and caused i .....~..-. . d- , - i 00 KU 1-, 13, [ha defer‘lca has- rm? béé'ri abie 1'0 efisi? any‘rhing in fhe cross— x-mina?ian 9f the docfor, which makes the evidence of This wh‘ness RW-E) doub‘rfui or unreiio'bie. in View of The above evidence of Dr. udhiyar Singh if smnds pmved fha‘r fhe nature of The 'dea'rhs of Dr. Ahimesh Bishwasi Sm‘r. Mirani Bai, Miss Pushpa, Miss Chandmni and Easier ‘v’ijay were homicidai. V( ‘ CO 14.1% far- as The quesfion of invnlvemenf of fhe accused persons in cemmifiin fhe five murders cf Dr. Animesh Bishwas, Smi‘. Mirani Bai, Miss Pushpa, Miss Chandmni and Masfer' Vijay is concerned, There is he eyewif'r‘iess To The crime and w'rmie case resfs on The circums‘ian'riai evidence. The law en The peint is Thai in a case based on circumsfanfiai evidence i'he Cour'f can record convici‘ion buf ii' mus‘r safisfy i’rself fha'i' fhe circumstances frcm which an inference of guilt could be drawn have been established by unimpeachable evidence led by fhe prosecu'iion and ihai ali +‘ne circumsiances pu-i‘ iogei‘her are noi' only of a conclusive nai'ure bui‘ also comple‘re i'he chain so fully as To unerringly poinT only To The guiiT of The accused and are noT capabie of any explanaTion which is noT consisTenT wiT'n The hypoThesis of The guilT of The accused. t 1-5. The prosecuTion has Tr§ed To prove The foTlowing circumsTances againsT . The accused/appellanTs in order To connecT Them wiTh The murders of i x r- 9 The above Tive persons: - ‘ i i. The ke' of The lock of The house of Dr. Animesh Bishwas was seize. aT The insTance of accused Jagdish @ VidyuT Sarkar. ii. Accused Jagdish @ VidyuT Sarkar and Pawan @ RaTan Mandai were sTaying in The house of The deceased persons Tor The lasT 10-15 days of The daTe of The Anni-h nF +ln9 rib‘mnconi Pers'me Ti‘i. Accused T-gdish @ ‘v’idyuT Sarkar purchased o om The shop of Babulal GupTa (PW—3). my“... u y u... «vvvuyv‘. w”... 16. ET is undispuTed ThaT accused Jagdish @ ‘v’idyuT Sarkar is The broTher— in—law {wife's broTher} o. deceased Dr. Animesh Bishwas and accuseV‘ // /\ 9 ‘13awa'fu €23 §<1‘r‘an Mam‘ai wa§ ww’r‘k‘ing in The clinic of Dr. Animesh Bishwas fa? fhe lasi’ 10-15 days prior To fhe da'i‘e of The incident IT has aiso no‘f been dispu‘l’ed Thu? ‘rhzse fwo accused persons were regiding wifh fhie deceased fam$ly fa.“ las’r more Than fen To fifTeen days prior 1'0 The dafe of offence in fheir house. f 17, As;‘ fgr- gs pain? (L) is concerned, PW—15 8,5. Parihar' has sfafed in his eviidence fhaf on 2&012601 in presence of PW—Z Sheefaidas Mahant & PW-lO Manikdas, accused gagdish gave f. e memorandum EXP-23 and in purEu‘ance of 'fha‘i’ memorandum a key was seized af fhe insfance of fhe QCCLiSeu unuer :x ? 9. PW-2 “1 efaldas has sfafed in his evidence fhaf no reéoveries were mn m his presence and Ex P—9 & Ex P—1O bear his siqnafures‘ in fh‘e examinafion in chief, he has nof sfafed Thai accused gdmh gave any infer. .mion ExP 23 .n ”is presence and as regards EXP-9 he has sfafed fha'r no recoveries were made in his presence. In fhe re—examinafion f'nis wifness has sfa’red fhaf affer 6-7 days of ’rhe ”m Poiice enquired from accused Jagdish and fhen he said Thai he had fhrown The key on fhe bank m ‘he pond Thereaffer fhey Took The accu ed To The pond and The key was recovered. BUT in The cross. examinaTion This wiTness has sTaTed ThaT The key (ArTicle W) is noT The‘ same which was sowed a, The insTance cf The accused. The key, which was seized aT The ins'rance of The accused, was of sTeel colour. He sT‘T‘d Thai ex r as ueurs nis signaTure. He could noT say wheTher The ey was The same or net He has fur-Thar sTaTed ThaT The Police people Toici him ThaT The accused has disclosed To Them as To where The key .ms in...“ and me . l'ce people furTher said, “ieT us go There and recover The key". Memorandum EXP-23 was noT wriTTen in his presence, e.e. The recovery memo of The key was also noT wriTTen in his presence. The o k which VI s opened from The house of The deceased, was bigger Than The iock, which was shown To him in The CourT. He signed The papers in T; e Police $TaTwu mThouT reeding Them. Even The Police had if lyll‘& rm? wad ovar- fha§é pdgmr‘s ‘fo him, PW—iO Manikdas in The examina’rion in chief itseif .as stated 141a? the lock (Ar‘l’icle ‘B') was no? +he same ibck which was opened by ’rhe Poiice from fhe house of Dr. Arlimesh \ no-i' +he same key which was found and seized from fhe bank of fhe i V panda The Poiice had no? prepared any recovery memo in his presence. Memorandum EXP—23 bears his signai’ure’ IT is incorrec‘i‘ i'o say fha'i' on 23rd January, 2001, accused Jagd'ish gave The memorandum EXP-23 in his presence. The iock was bf-oke opened in his presence by fhe Police and the lock became fla‘i’ from fhe middle. The lock, which was broke opened from "rhe house of Dr. Animesh Bishwas wasrmuch bigger fhan The lock (ArTicle ‘B’)_shewn To him in The CourT. IT is incorrecT To say ThaT The arTicles were seized’vide EXP—8 and EXP—9 in his presence. Bishwas and fha Ray Arfick: ‘A‘ which was shown To him in The Cour-T was i 18. In view of The above evidence of The Two wiTnesses namely, PW—2 5hee’raldas‘ é’i PW—Lu iVianiKdas, iT is clear ThaT They have noT supporTed The recovery of The key of The lock of The house of deceased Dr. Animesh Bishwas aT The insTance of accused Jagdish and even They have gone To The exTenT of saying ThaT Tie .ock (ArTicle ‘8‘) which was produced in The CourT was noT The same lock which was broke opened from The house of The deceased. In view of This evidence, The recovery of key aT The insTence of The accused is doubTful and i1; is noT proved. Moreover, The key was recovered from an open place Le? from The bank of a pohd arid There is no evidence ThaT The key (ArTicle W) was Tried wiTh The lack, which was found on The house of The deceaSed, and in facf This Ar‘ricie ‘A‘ was The key of The lock (ArTicle ‘B'). Even oTherwise, There is no oTher evidence or: record on The basis of which iT can be said ThaT The key (Ariiiele ‘A’) is The same key of The lock of The house of deceased Dr. dnimes'n Bishwas. Thus, The recovery of The key iTself is doubTful. Moreover, The prosecuTion has noT been able To esTa'blish ThaT The key (ArTicie W) is The same key of The lock of The house of Dr. Ahimesh Bishwas. r l 4n u -| 11 19. F‘W—1 Bhuvari}ai i‘n his evidence has sfa‘i’ed f'na'r he enfered fhe house of ‘Dr. Animesh Bishwas from backside of 'rhe house by climbing a ladder lanai “ihereafi’e‘r, saw fhe dead bodies in +he house, whereas PW-12 ‘Lalaram Rafhiya haé ciear‘iy sfa’red in his evidence ihaf 1'he back door of f+he house of Dru Animesh Bishwas was found half opened and ‘Hne dead bodies iying in 'i'he house were visibie. Therefore, The case of ’rhe :prosecu‘hon fha? the accused per-sons affer' murdering ihe deceased :persons came oui' from fhe house and iocked i‘i from fronf side, beco.es ‘ . doubffui, beca.se according To fhe evidence of PW-12 Laiamm Rofhiyd, the back door was already found. half opened Through which any person could have enTereci inTo The house. Therefore The recovery of The key a? The insTance of accused Jagdish on This ground also is of no help To The prosecuTion. Thus, The prosecuTion has uTTerly failed in conneoTing accused/appeil”T J“dish wiTh The crime on The basis of recovery of +he key. I ~ a l\)0.Now, w- come T- The second circumstance, poinT (ii), ThaT accused x’ Jagdish d} Pawan were presenT in The house of deceased Dr. Animesh gishwas for The lasT 19-15 days prior To The deaTh of The deceased. In order To connecT The accused wiTh The murder of The deceased persons based on The circumsTance ThaT The accused persons were lasT seen { WiTh The deceased persons when They were alive, The law laid down by The Hon’ble Apex CourT on This poinT is ThaT in or‘der To esTablish The e of murder againsT The acc.sed persons based on The circumsTance of lasT seen, The prosecuTion has To prove ThaT The Time gap beTween The IasT seen and murder musT be so proximaTe and so close ThaT There shouid noT be any pos ibili ' of drawing any inference of innocence of The accused, persons and‘lfhere should noT be any possibiliTy of meeTing of any one else wiT'n The deceased in beTween‘ In oTher words, There s.ould be no oTher possibiliTy T.a. ThoT The accused persons and They aione have commiTTed The heinous crime. The lasT seen circumsTance is a very weak Type of evidence. IT should be corroboraTed