MAIN POINT
In absence of any documentary evidence about age of the accused raising plea of juvenility, Court has to go by report of the Medical Board.

JUDGMENT

T.S. THAKUR, J.

1. The appellant was tried and convicted for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 302 IPC. For the offence of rape punishable under Section 376, he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 10 years besides a fine of Rs.1000/-and default sentence of one month with rigorous imprisonment. Similarly, for the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment besides a fine of Rs.3,000/-and default sentence of three months’ rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Criminal Appeal No.604 of 2004 filed by him was heard and dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur. The present appeal assails the impugned judgment and order.

2. A first Information Report was registered at Police Station Rani in the State of Rajasthan on 11th April, 1998, inter alia, stating that the complainant on 9th April, 1998 had organised a “Jaagran” (night long prayer meet) near a well belonging to one Magga Ram. The complainant and other relatives, in all around 50 persons assembled for the “Jaagran” that continued till late night. This included his seven year old daughter-Kamala who went to sleep along with other children close to the place where the “Jaagran” was held. When he returned to his house he noticed that Kamala was missing. Assuming that she may have gone away with one of the relatives, a search was made at their houses but Kamala remained untraceable. The search was then extended to neighbouring areas where the dead body of Kamala was discovered by Magga Ram (PW-5) and Pura Ram. On receipt of this information he and Naina Ram (PW2) went to the place and found that baby Kamala had been raped and killed by crushing her head with a stone. The dead body of Kamala was, according to the report, lying on the spot.

3. A case under Sections 302 and 376 of the IPC was registered on the basis of the above information and investigation started which led to the arrest of the appellant and eventually a charge sheet against him before the jurisdictional magistrate who committed the case to Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track), Bali.

4. Before the Sessions Court, the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial. At the trial the prosecution produced 19 witnesses apart from placing reliance upon several documents. No evidence in defence was, however, led by the appellant. By its judgment and order dated 27th January, 2004 the trial Court eventually held the appellant guilty and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as indicated above. Aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the trial Court, the appellant preferred Criminal Appeal No.604 of 2004 which was, upon reappraisal of the evidence adduced before the trial Court, dismissed by the High Court affirming the conviction recorded against the appellant and the sentence awarded to him for both the offences.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. Prosecution case is based entirely on circumstantial evidence as no ocular account of the incident has been presented to the Court. Both the Courts below have, however, found the circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution to be sufficient to record a finding of guilt against the appellant for the offences with which he was charged. We may briefly refer to the circumstance as also the evidence supporting the same.

6. The first and foremost is the deposition of Ota Ram (PW-4) which clearly establishes that the appellant was also one of those who had participated in the “Jaagran” along with other villagers. To the same effect is the statement of Maga Ram (PW-5) who too had testified that the appellant was present in the “Jaagran”. He had seen Kamala at around 10.00 in the night. The deposition of both these witnesses proves that apart from the appellant a