DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Heard.

2. Challenge by the State of Uttar Pradesh in these appeals is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court directing acquittal of the respondent Raja @ Jalil (hereinafter referred to as the accused). Learned Sessions Judge, Barabanki had found the accused guilty of offences punishable under Sections 302, 376/511, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short IPC) and imposed death sentence and three years respectively.

3. The accused filed appeal from jail and a represented appeal through counsel. A reference was made to the High Court under Section 366 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short CrPC) for confirmation of death sentence. The High Court disposed of all the three matters by the impugned judgment. The allegation against the accused was that he had taken a girl of about 11 years of age namely Kumari Reema, tried to commit rape on her and killed her.

4. According to the prosecution on 17.10.1994 at about 8 a.m. the accused requested the mother of the deceased to allow the deceased to accompany him for harvesting paddy crop in the fields of Naumi Lal and Ganga Ram. Since the deceased did not return late in the evening. Sushila Devi, the mother of the deceased, went to the house of Naumi Lal and Ganga Ram who told her that paddy crop in the field was not even ripe for harvesting. Thereafter Sushila Devi continued to search for her missing daughter and went to the market, where in front of the house of one Yaseen Chikwa, she met Jung Bahadur. Jagat Narain, Vishwanath. Ram Shankar and others. In the meantime, Ganga Ram accompanied by the accused arrived there. Vishwanath and Ram Shankar told Sushila Devi that they had seen the deceased going along with the accused around 8 or 9 a.m. On hearing this, the accused started running but was chased and apprehended. It was about 10 p.m. at that time. On being interrogated, the accused stated that he had taken the deceased for harvesting, paddy crop in the field of Ganga Ram. After some paddy crop was cut, he overpowered her and took her to the field of Ram Khelawan Yadav and tried to commit rape. When the deceased resisted he wanted to close her mouth the deceased bit on his hand whereupon the accused struck Khurpa on her neck and killed her. The accused led all these persons to the sugarcane field of Ram Khelawan Yadav and the dead body was pointed out. He further led to his house and handed over the blood stained Khurpa. FIR was lodged at the police station. A case was registered. Post-mortem was conducted and 14 injuries were found.

5. The appellant was also medically examined after was apprehended by Dr. J.P. Bhargava PW5 who found seven injuries on the body of the accused. Injury No. 3 was kept under observation and the accused was referred to the District Hospital Barabanki for the opinion of surgeon.

6. Similarly, injury Nos. 4 and 6 were also kept under observation. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed. Silence the accused pleaded innocence, trial was held. Seven witnesses were examined to further the prosecution version. Sushila Devi (PW1) stated about the request made by the accused to allow the deceased to accompany him. Learned Sessions Judge was of the view that the case rested on circumstantial evidence brought on record. Accordingly, the accused was found guilty.

7. As noted, at the outset, the accused tiled two appeals and reference was made by the trial court to the High Court for confirmation of death sentence.

8. The High Court found that the prosecution version lacks credibility. The serious injuries sustained by the accused were not explained. The evidence of PW1 was also found to lack credence. The High Court found that the evidence relating to extra judicial confession on which the prosecution version rested was not reliable. There was serious injury on the eyes of the accused. There were also other injuries sustained by him. The High Court analysed the evidence and taking note of the nature o