S. K. SHARMA, J. - (1.) P, a female child aged about 4 years was ravished and killed by an unknown person, who was so intelligent that he left all his clothes stained with blood and semen at the place of incident itself. This clueless crime was investigated by an Investigating Officer, who was neither vigilant nor well versed with the techniques of the job to collect the threads of evidence finding out the path which leads to the culprit. It was the culprit himself (appellant herein), who became over smart and himself jumped on to the net of justice. He was convicted and sentenced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1 Jaipur District as under:- u/s. 302 IPC: To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/ -. u/s. 376 IPC: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 1000/ -. u/s. 302/201 IPC: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 500/ -. In default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. Substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) KUMARI P, suddenly missed on May 22, 2001. Her father Rohitash vigorously searched her and reported the matter to police. However in the morning of May 24, 2001 she was found lying dead in a lonely house situated just opposite Umrao Talkies. Rohitash then submitted written report (Ex. P. 1) at Police Station Kotputli. On that report a case under Section 302 and 201 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. Post mortem on the dead body was performed. Necessary memos were drawn, statements of witnesses were recorded, the appellant 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 District, Jaipur. Charges under Sections 302, 201 and 376 IPC were framed against the appellant, who 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 Crpc, the appellant claimed innocence. No evidence in defence was however examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated herein above. As per postmortem report (Ex. P. 21) following ante mortem injuries were found on the dead body:- Body swollen, abdomen distended, eyes protruded, lips swollen, no magotts over body, skin pealed off here and there, mouth semi opened, bleeding from both nostrils and lt. ear. PM rigidly absent due to second stage of relaxor, PM lividity present over dependent parts of body, back of chest presents and both buttocks blush black. Labia Majora swollen and teared, hymen teared, vaginal walls teared. Rectum protruding through posterior vaginal wall, posterior formix ruptured. In the opinion of Medical Board the cause of death was neurogenic shock, coma due to head injury. The appellant was examined on May 28, 2001 vide Ex. P. 22 and it was found that body of penis and glans were swelling, tenderness present, there was abrasion of the size of 0. 2cm x 0. 2 cm on corona penis & sign of inflammation was present. Length of penis was 6. 4 cm and circumference of mid part of penis was 3. 8 cm. There was nothing to suggest that appellant was incapable to perform sexual intercourse. 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 evidence of Rohitash (PW. 1) Indira (PW. 2), Kalawati (PW 3) and Naurang (PW. 4) was wrongly relied upon by the learned trial Court. 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.
(3.) THE pieces of circumstantial evidence which have been found proved and held as forming an incriminating chain against the appellant are as under:- (i) Conduct of appellant. (ii) False explanation given by appellant. (iii) evidence relating to injuries on the deceased. (iv) evidence relating to injuries on the appellant. We shall now examine each of the pieces of incriminating circumstantial evidence and at the same time consider the rival contentions advanced before us. CONDUCT OF APPELLANT: Informant Rohitash (PW. 1) father of deceased P, in his deposition stated that after he reported matter to police at 8 Am about the missing of P, the appellant came to him at 4 PM and demanded a sum of Rs. 2000/- and said that he will bring P. Indra (PW. 2) wife of Rohitash and Kalawati (PW. 3) grand mother of P and Norang (PW. 4) also deposed on the similar line. All these witnesses also stated that they informed the police about the demand made by the appellant. ;