SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE facts of this case remind us the poem of `leila Seth' on `the Girl Child' which reads thus: " Where have all the young girls gone? Some were aborted before they were born A few were buried or choked with coarse paddy; Others were smothered, starved or drowned in a well; Poisoned with berries of oleander till dead, So that dowry need not be paid or in-law's fed, or daughters raped, beaten or burnt- This is the sad story of the girl child's hell. "
(2.) THIS case reveals a sordid and obnoxious incident that occurred sometime in the evening of February 18, 2005 in which the alleged sexual assault followed by brutal and merciless murder by the dastardly and monstrous act of adherent nature is said to have been committed by the appellant herein with victim Meenakshi, a girl of the tender age of about 7 years, who feel a prey to his lust. The appellant Gopal was charged and tried under Sections 366, 376 (2), 302 and 201 IPC for having committed rape on victim and then murder her. Learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jaipur relying on the circumstantial evidence convicted appellant for the offences under Sections 302, 363, 376 and 201 IPC and having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case found it to be rarest of rare cases and therefore, sentenced him thus:- U/s. 302 IPC: Sentence of death of fine of Rs. 500/- to be recovered from the property of accused Gopal. U/s. 363 IPC: To suffer rigorous imprisonment seven years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer six months rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 376 IPC: To suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer six months rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 201 IPC: To suffer rigorous imprisonment seven years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer six months rigorous imprisonment. The learned Additional Sessions Judge made a reference (bearing Death Reference No. 2/2005) under Section 366 Cr. P. C. for confirmation of death sentence. The appellant Gopal also preferred appeal challenging his conviction and sentence as aforesaid. We straightway proceed in accordance with sections 366 and 368 Cr. P. C. to examine the entire evidence independently. The brief facts of this shameless intrigue as unraveled by the prosecution at the trial are as follows:- On February 18, 2005 the informant Gopi Lal, father of victim Meenakshi, submitted a written report (Ex. P-1) at police station Narena, Camp Sakhun Fort, stating therein that while he and his family members were worshiping deity Mataji in the house of his uncle Ramlal, his daughter Meenakshi along with Surendra, Mukesh and other children of Mohalla (ward) went to take bath at the water tap at 4. 00 PM, when Meenakshi did not return till 6. 00 PM the informant went to the children and asked about Meenakshi. The children told informant that Gopal (appellant) took her with him to the fort on the pretext of giving her money for toffee. When the informant and other family members were searching Meenakshi they saw appellant coming from the fort. On being enquired about Meenakshi he pleaded ignorance. After vigorous search Meenakshi was found lying dead in empty Tanka (water tank) of the fort. There were injuries on her face and head and blood was oozing out from her private parts. Her hair and clothes were found burnt. Police Station Narena on the basis of this report registered a case under Sections 366, 376, 302 and 201 IPC and investigation commenced. Post-mortem on the dead body was performed. Necessary memos were drawn, statement of witnesses were recorded, the accused was arrested and on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur. Charges under Sections 366, 376 (2) (f), 302 and 201 IPC were framed. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 17 witnesses. In the explanation under Section 313 Cr. P. C. , the accused claimed innocence and stated that he was falsely implicated. No evidence in defence was however, examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions decided the case as indicated herein above. As per post-mortem report (Ex. P-26) following ante mortem injuries were found on the dead body:- 1. Haematoma Forehead. 2. Lacerated wound 0. 5" x 2" x bone deep on Rt. parietal region of skull (in middle) - of underlying bone (scalp) 3. Bruise (multiple) on face. Rt. shoulder, Arm & forearm. 4. Bleeding from both ears. 5. Multiple abrasions on back, both knee & Rt. thigh. 6. Lacerated wound `" x Ms. deep left parietal region of skull. 7.External genital region. No evidence of any injury (Labia majora, L. Minora, ulna no injury Cloths of blood present about vagina & anus. 8. Internal Genital. Pv or one finger easily. Hymen ruptured and clotted blood present. In the opinion of Medical Board the cause of death was due to Haematoma because of head injury. The appellant was examined on February 19, 2005 vide Ex. P-33 and it was found that there was swelling and redness at glans penis with bleeding of junction.
(3.) THERE is no ocular version of the incident and the prosecution entirely based its case on circumstantial evidence. Learned counsel for the appellant vigorously canvassed before us that the circumstances relied on by the prosecution have not been satisfactorily established and that in any event the circumstances said to establish against the appellant do not provide a complete chain to bring home the guilt against the appellant. Learned counsel vehemently submitted that Leela (PW. 4), Surendra (PW. 5) and Mukesh (PW. 6) who are said to have last seen the appellant and the deceased, were children between the age of 8 to 12 years and the evidence of these witnesses should not be accepted as credible as they were tutored by the prosecution. Learned counsel for the appellant further assailed the evidence of Lakha Ram, Investigating officer (PW. 16) by contending that his testimony did not get corroboration by the independent Motbirs viz. , Ranglal (PW. 10) and Mohd. Razak (PW. 11 ). The Motbirs did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile. The memos Ex. P-30 and Ex. P-31 drawn by the IO in connection with the disclosure statements of the appellant and the recovery memos Ex. P-21 through which stone and pieces of frock were allegedly recovered could not be relied upon on the basis of the evidence of the IO. Learned counsel that contended that the appellant was falsely implicated in the case by Raju Lal (PW. 8) in connivance with Indra, the wife of the appellant, who was residing separately for the last one and half year because of inimical relations with the appellant. Learned counsel also urged that as per the prosecution story deceased had taken food and then proceeded with the appellant at 4 PM but in the post-mortem report undigested food was not found in the stomach of the deceased. It thus appears that prosecution story was false and deceased appeared to be missing from 7 AM. The standard of proof required to convict a person on circumstantial evidence is now well established by a series of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. According to that standard the circumstances relied upon in support of the conviction must be fully established and the chain of evidence furnished by those circumstances must be so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. The circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn have not only to be fully established but also that all the circumstances so established should be of a conclusive nature and consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and should not be capable of being explained by any other hypothesis, except the guilt of the accused and when all the circumstances cumulatively taken together should lead to the only irresistible conclusion that the accused alone is the perpetrator of the crime. Bearing these principles in mind we shall now examine the various circumstances said to be appearing against the appellant and at the same time consider the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant referred to above. Evidence of Last Seen : ;