Nanavati, J. - (1.) The appellant has been convicted for committing offences punishable under Sections 376 and 302, IPC and Section 3 (ii) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. For the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC death sentence has been imposed upon him. The appellant is challenging his conviction and sentence imposed under those Sections.
(2.) The prosecution case was that on 7-9-95 at about 7.00 a.m. Kumari Marri, aged about 14 years had gone to ease herself in a field near her house and that while she was so doing, the appellant pounced upon her, pinned her down on the ground, committed rape and when she started resisting and raising shouts, strangulated and killed her by tying her Salwar around her neck. It was also the prosecution case that hearing her shouts her father Mihilal (PW-1) and Avadh Ram (PW-2) who had also gone near that field for answering the call of nature, rushed to that place. It was also the prosecution case that they had seen the appellant committing rape and on seeing them the appellant got up and ran away. They had also chased the appellant but he was able to escape.
(3.) In order to prove its case, besides the medical and other evidence the prosecution had led the evidence of Mihilal (PW-1), Avadh Ram (PW-2) who were the eye-witnesses. Believing their evidence the trial Court convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 302, IPC and also under Section 3 (ii)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. As the trial Court had imposed death sentence upon the appellant for the offence of murder, it forwarded the record to the High Court for confirmation of that sentence. The appellant also filed an appeal challenging his conviction. The High Court after re-appreciating the evidence, agreed with the findings recorded by the trial Court and confirmed the death sentence by observing as under: "It was he who, acting as a beast of prey, pounced upon an unprotected, helpless and physically weak young girl, and just to satisfy his sexual lust defiled her despite the best possible resistance coming from the victim. And still the innate, albeit-depraved, urge for self survival was so strong in him that he would not hesitate a bit in squeezing out the last breath of the poor little duck. His diabolic, vile and wicked deed was the worst from of degraded gender crime, sparing him from the gallows would be nothing short of letting loose a sex maniac onprowl. Succinctly put mercy to the appellant under these circumstances would be quite misplaced. It would not only slight the valient resistance put up by the deceased in protecting her honour and chastity but also an insult to the entire womenhood. We, therefore, reject the appeal in its entirety and affirm the reference for confirmation moved by the trial Court." ;