Last
Seen
his
is a case in which a minor boy, the victim of murder, was called away by and
seen in the company of the two young accused for the last time before
disappearance and then some time thereafter the body of the victim was found
out. The fact of calling away of victim Khairul by accused Khasru was
satisfactorily established as the first circumstance in support of the
prosecution and witnesses have also satisfactorily proved that the victim
travelled with the two accused from their village Noapara to a distant place
called Takerhat by bus and got down there at 4-00/4-30 PM on 4-1-79. This is
the second circumstance proved against the accused. From this point onward upto
the time of recovery of the body of Khairul at about 3-00/3-30 PM on the
following day the accused were alleged to have been seen along with the
deceased, the third circumstance in the absence of ocular evidence of murder,
by PWs 11 and 12. The High Court Division rejected their evidence due to
apparent contradiction between their evidence and the statement made by them
before the police and also for the reason that their identification of the
accused in the TI Parade had lost all significance in view of the fact that
they had chance to sec the accused. There has been no violation of any norm or procedure
in assessing the evidence of the said two witnesses for which the finding of
fact made by the High Court Division could be disturbed. The position,
therefore, comes to this that the third circumstance, that of seeing the three
boys together near the bank of the river where the victim's body was found was
not satisfactorily established. The circumstances of the case can never be said
to be conclusive as to the guilt of accused Khasru and his brother Nowab. The
High Court Division has correctly applied the rule as to circumstantial
evidence in the facts of the present case. State vs Khasru @ Syed Mostafa
Hossain 43 DLR (AD) 182.
"
Last seen"
The fact of calling and taking away by the accused the three victims one not proved by the prosecution witnesses and they did not tell fact to the 1.0. and thus the claim of circumstances is broken and as such Last seen is not proved. Md. Abdur Rashid -Vs.- The State 5 ALR (AD)2015(1) 153
Circumstantial evidence- Last seen- The victim had gone to the accused and the victim was last seen in the company of the accused of the same day. With a short gap of 10/11 hours the dead body was found in the guava garden, a adjacent area of the house PW 26, and the accused had been in the house of PW 26 at the night of occurrence who had visited the guava garden repeatedly on the false plea to attend natural call but he did not attend to any natural call and after the mid night of the night of occurrence he became very puzzled and hearing the news of the dead body of an unknown man he had left the house of PW 26 leaving his motorcycle. State vs Zakaria Kabiraj, 64 DLR 523
Last seen-The facts of the case has knitted the circumstantial evidence enmeshing the accused with murder of Tipu which is full, jammed and exhaustive having no gap in it that after the last seen of the victim in the company of the accused he (accused) was in the touch of the deceased as well as the place of occurrence till his dead body was found. But keeping in the view, the decision of the case of 52 DLR (AD) 143 the accused should have been convicted under sections 302/109 of the Penal Code instead of sections 302/34 of the Penal Code. State vs Zakaria Kabiraj, 64 DLR 523
