instance of accused/appellants, relied upon by the prosecution to connect accused/appellants with the crime in question have not been established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. So far as the circumstance of last seen is concerned, Muri Kudiyam (PW-5) is stated to have seen deceased in the house of accused/appellant No.3 at about 3 in the afternoon of 15.11.2012, but in the Court this witness has turned hostile on the point of last seen evidence and on being cross-examined by the prosecution she has denied having seen the deceased in the house of accused/appellant No.3. In absence of corroboration from PW-5, the prosecution story qua last seen evidence stands demolished. Apart from the statement of PW-5, there is no evidence to show that deceased was present in the house of accused/appellant No.3. Furthermore, the 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 the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of crime becomes impossible. Even in such a case, the court should look for some corroboration. In the present case, the evidence was of the deceased and the accused persons being seen in the house of accused/appellant No.3 at around 3 in the afternoon of 15.11.2012 and the dead body of deceased being found lying beside the road in the morning of 16.11.2012 at 6 am. Thus, the time lag between the time at which PW-5 allegedly saw the deceased in the house of accused No.3 and when the body of deceased was found on the next day is considerably long. So, the possibility of other persons coming in between is very much there and therefore, it is very much difficult, if not impossible, to conclude that it is the accused persons who are responsible for the homicidal death of the deceased.
