the Evidence Act, the Sessions Court and the High Court came to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty. 11. Assailing the concurrent judgments of the Sessions Court and the High Court, it was contended by Shri S. Nagamuthu, learned senior counsel for the appellant that the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is untrustworthy; that there was an unexplained delay of five days in forwarding the FIR to the jurisdictional Court; that there were serious contradictions regarding the place where the body of the victim was kept and the place where the inquest was conducted; that the evidence to support the last seen theory was insufficient to convict the appellant; that there was complete failure on the part of the prosecution to examine material witnesses; that in a shocking abdication of duties, the I.O. failed to produce forensic/medical evidence; and that the mandatory requirement of Section 313 of the Code was not fulfilled. 12. However, it was contended by Shri Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, learned AAG for the State that there are no reasons for PWs 1 to 3 to implicate the appellant; that their evidence was found to be cogent and trustworthy by two Courts; that the delay in forwarding 7