The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, especially in cases based on circumstantial evidence.

JUDGMENT

Prakash D. Naik, J. - The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C." for short) challenging the judgment and order dated 09.09.2011 passed by the District Judge - 12 and Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions case No. 141 of 2010, convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC" for short) and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- and also convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code thereby he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and six months and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/-.

2. The prosecution case is as follows :

(a) The victim was a young girl of 15 years of age. She was ravished by the accused and since he did not succeed in his attempt of committing rape on her, he committed murder of the victim Chhoti @ Sujata @ Sulochana. The accused was aged about 62 years.

(b) It is alleged that the deceased girl was missing on 13.10.2011. It was a date of election and therefore there was no school. Deceased and her younger brother were at home and their parents went for work. When the parents returned home, they found that deceased was not at home. They took search of their daughter with the help of villagers but she was not found on that day. On the next day morning again they took search. During search body of victim was found in the field of one Shinde. There were ligature marks on her neck, her clothes were not properly on her person, blood was oozing from her mouth and nose.

(c) The complaint was lodged against unknown person. On the basis of complaint Criminal C.R. No. 229 of 2009 was registered with Shikrapur Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 302 and 376 of IPC. The accused was arrested. Investigation commenced. The body was sent for postmortem.

(d) Spot panchnama was recorded in the presence of panch witnesses. Samples of mud mixed with blood and mud was collected. Inquest panchnama was conducted. Advance cause of death certificate was received. Seizure panchnama of clothes of deceased was recorded. On completing investigating chargesheet was filed.

3. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charge was framed by the Trial Court by order dated 13.07.2010 under Section 376 and 302 of IPC.

4. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses. The defence of the accused is of denial. Several documents were exhibited during the trial. On completing recording of evidence the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused had stated that he do not know anything about the incident and he has been falsely implicated in this crime by villagers.

5. Learned Advocate for the appellant and Learned APP pointed evidence on record in the form of deposition of witnesses and documents exhibited in evidence. Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the prosecution has not been able to establish the charges against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. There is no eye witness to the incident. The evidence of witnesses suffered from serious infirmities. There is delay in recording statement of P.W. No.4. The case is based on circumstantial evidence. The evidence adduced by the prosecution was weak. There are discrepancies in recovery of paijama. The appellant cannot be convicted only on the basis of suspicion. There was no sexual assault on the victim. The Medical Officer had ruled out theory of rape. However, the Trial Court had convicted the appellant by invoking Section 511 of IPC for attempting to commit rape. P.W. No.2 is the child witness and he had not seen his sister searching goats near Bori which was at 100 feet distance from his house. Although the said witness has deposed that cloths of accused was torn. Exhibit-39 shows that cloths were not torn. The evidence of P.