IMPORTANT POINT
Death sentence can be imposed only in a rarest of rare case.

JUDGMENT :

M.R.SHAH, J.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 02.07.2014 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur passed in Criminal Appeal No.198 of 2014 by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the judgment and order dated 23.12.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rehli, District Sagar, Madhya Pradesh in Sessions Trial No.49 of 2013 and has confirmed the conviction of the original accused for the offences punishable under Section 376 (2) (f) and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as well as Sections 5(i), 5(m) and 5(r) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and has confirmed the death penalty imposed, original accused has preferred the present appeal.

2. That the appellant/original accused was tried by the Trial Court for the offences punishable under Section 376 (2) (f) and Section 201 of the IPC as well as Sections 5(i), 5(m) and 5(r) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act for having committed the murder of the minor girl aged 7 ½ years after raping her. On considering the incriminating material against the accused and on appreciation the evidences and having considered that the accused was last seen together with the deceased and that the frock of the victim was found lying on the cot along with blood stains on bed mattress and bedsheet in the house of the accused, which was not explained by the accused, and also considering the medical evidence, the Trial Court convicted the accused for the offences under Section 376 (2) (f) and Section 201 of the IPC as well as Sections 5(i), 5(m) and 5(r) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The Trial Court sentenced the accused to life imprisonment and other terms of the imprisonment with fine. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Learned Additional Sessions Judge also sentenced the accused to death penalty. Having sentenced the accused with death penalty, the learned Additional Sessions Judge made the reference to the High Court. Being aggrieved with the conviction and the sentence, the accused also preferred Criminal Appeal No.198 of 2014 before the High Court. By the impugned common judgment and order, the High Court has decided the reference against the accused and has also dismissed the criminal appeal preferred by the accused, whereby, the High Court has confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, the conviction and sentence of death penalty, the accused has preferred the present criminal appeal.

3. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused at length.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, both the courts below have materially erred in holding the accused guilty for the offences under Section 376 (2) (f) and Section 201 of the IPC as well as Sections 5(i), 5(m) and 5(r) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. He has vehemently submitted that in the present case, there is no eyewitness of the incident and the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. It is submitted that unless and until the chain of evidence proves the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in committing the crime, both the courts have materially erred in convicting the accused.

5. Alternatively, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused has prayed to commute the death sentence to life imprisonment. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused has heavily relied upon the decision of this Court in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684 as well as the recent decision of this Court in Shyam Singh alias Bhima v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2017) 11 SCC 265.

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. Considering the submissions made by the learn