circumstance of last seen together by leading credible evidence. 57. The second segment of circumstantial evidence on which the prosecution heavily relied upon was that of the extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the accused appellant to Anil Mahatam Singh (PW17), who was the Supervisor under whom the accused appellant was working. The witness (PW-17) stated that he knew the accused appellant, who had joined duty as a watchman about 6 to 7 days before the incident. On 30th September 2013, a small girl went missing. On that day, the accused appellant was assigned work at Phase 2 Building No. 5 and had reported for duty. The police came to the building for the purpose of inquiry and took some watchmen from there. On the next day, i.e., on 1st October 2013, he went for a round but did not find the accused appellant on duty. The accused appellant was 48 Criminal Appeal No(s). 1954-1955 of 2022