testimonies of PWs 1 to 3 for invoking the last seen theory; and (ii) invoking Section 106 of the Evidence Act. 15. It is needless to point out that for the prosecution to successfully invoke Section 106 of the Evidence Act, they must first establish that there was “any fact especially within the knowledge of the” appellant. This can be done by the prosecution only by proving that the victim was last seen in the company of the appellant. To establish this last seen theory, the prosecution relies upon the evidence of PWs 1 to 3. PWs 1 and 2 claim to have seen the appellant taking away the girl at 04:00 p.m on 08.03.2012. PW­3 claims to have seen the appellant leaving the sugarcane field after about half­an­hour. Therefore, according to the prosecution, the burden of showing what happened to the girl was heavily upon the appellant/accused. 16. Hence we have to see whether the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 was trustworthy and same proved the last seen theory. Both the Sessions Court as well as the High Court have found the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 to be cogent and trustworthy. The contradictions pointed out by the defence were held by both the Courts to be 9