submissions, learned counsels have submitted that there was large time gap between the point of time when the accused and deceased were last seen and the dead body was recorded. In the present case, as per the evidence brought on record by P.W.1 and P.W.2 they have seen the deceased with Ali @ Dharmendra Kumar Singh and two unknown persons in the previous evening. P.W. 1, Ram Pravesh Singh has seen the victim with Ali @ Dharmendra Kumar Singh at 3 P.M. on the previous day, whereas Ram Prakash Singh, another brother, who has been examined as P.W. 2 has categorically stated that he has seen the deceased with Ali @ Dharmendra Kumar Singh on the previous day at 4-5 P.M. Learned counsels have submitted that the dead body was recovered on subsequent day. The prosecution has failed to prove that in between 4 P.M to the recovery of the dead body there was no other person, who can come in contact with the deceased. As such, learned counsels relying on the aforesaid judgment have submitted that last seen theory has been wrongly relied upon by learned trial court. As such, the impugned judgments passed by courts below are fit to be set aside. Learned counsels have further submitted that another circumstance, which has been taken against the appellants are extra judicial confession of the accused, purportedly leading to recovery of blood stained cloth and weapon, seizurelist of which have been marked as Exts. 4 and 5. Learned counsels have submitted that the confessional statement or part of the confessional statement has not been exhibited so as to bring such recovery i.e. Exts. 4 & 5 under ambit of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Learned counsels have submitted that the recovered articles have not been sent for forensic examination so as to establish that the blood mark found on the cloth and the weapon are of the same group, as of deceased. Learned counsels thus submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence on the basis of alleged confessional statement of the accused, purportedly leading to recovery of the cloth and weapon are not legally proved to bring as an evidence as against the appellants. Learned counsels have further submitted that P.W.7, Birsi has been declared hostile by the prosecution. The Prosecution has relied upon the statement of Birsi recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C, which has been proved by P.W. 11, Kumari Ranjana Asthana, learned Munsif which has been marked as Ext.-9. But from perusal of the evidence of P.W. 11, it appears that she is not identifying the accused nor she has proved her thumb impression on the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, rather as per Ext.-9, the same is in the handwriting and signature of learned Munsif. The same document has not been supported by the witness, Birsi, who was examined as P.W.7, as Birsi
