daughters regarding the fact that deceased left the house with any particular person. Thus, it is clear that before recovery of the dead body of deceased Vijay, P.W. 8 Rakhi and P.W. 12 Raveena did not apprise this material fact to their father that Vijay had gone with Rekha and her husband. In the above circumstances, the disclosure made by Rakhi and Raveena for the first time during their sworn testimony before the trial court to the effect that on 07.12.2017, Rekha came to their house and on her call, deceased went with her, is not trustworthy. In the police statement of Rakhi (Ex.D/2) also, this fact has not been narrated. There is contradiction regarding the date when deceased left the house. As per statement of P.W. 8 and P.W. 12, deceased left the house on 07.12.2017. On the contrary, as per F.I.R., the deceased left the house on 02.12.2017. There is no other evidence on record to suggest that the deceased was last seen with the accused, the respondents herein, anytime soon before his death. Considering the statements of P.W. 6 Manilal, P.W. 8 Rakhi & P.W. 12 Raveena, we are satisfied that the last seen evidence produced by the prosecution is totally unworthy and was rightly discarded by the trial court. The evidence of the sisters of the deceased i.e. P.W. 8 and P.W. 12 is totally unreliable. Only on account of alleged illicit relations between the deceased Vijay and accused Rekha, the accused-respondents cannot be convicted on the basis of mere suspicion. Suspicion, howsoever, cannot take place of strong evidence. Proper proof requires to bring home the charges.
