Dharnidhar Jha, J.- The solitary convict Ramdeo Prasad was tried by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Siwan, in Sessions Trial No.417 of 2006 for the charges under Sections 376 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. By the judgment of conviction dated 6th of September, 2008, the respondent was held guilty of committing the two offences and was sentenced to death by order dated 9th of September, 2008 and, as such, the present Death Reference under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for confirmation of the order of sentence passed by the learned Judge.

2. The respondent has not preferred an appeal, understandably because he could challenge the findings upon which the orders of conviction and sentence are based as if he had preferred an appeal. Finding that the respondent is under sentence of death, the Court requested Shri Ashwani Kumar Singh, Senior Advocate of the Court, to assist it in hearing and disposing of the present Death Reference, as may appear from order dated 19.8.2009 passed by this Court.

3. The prosecution case is contained in (Ext.4) the Fardbeyan of the informant Md. Kamruddin Mian (not examined). It was stated by him that all of his family had retired to their beds after having taken their meals in the night intervening 20th and 21st of December, 2004. He had gone into his room whereas others had slept on the verandah. His four-year-old daughter Laila Khatoon was sleeping with the mother of the informant on one side of the bed created by straw whereas the wife of the informant was on the other side of the same bed with a one and half year old child. The informant awoke at about 12 in the night to attend to the call of nature and when he came at the verandah he found that Laila Khatoon was not by the side of his mother and, as such, he awoke his wife and mother and enquired abut Laila Khatoon. They could not give any satisfactory replies. The informant told his neighbours about the child going missing and upon that P.W.2 Suman Kumar Sah, one of his next door neighbours, informed the informant that he had just seen the present respondent moving headily towards east with a child in his lap who was crying. The informant and his co-villagers set out in the pointed direction and when they had gone about 1 K.M., they heard stomping sound of feet and they moved in that direction from which the stomping sound was coming. The informant claimed that this respondent was seen running away with the informant’s daughter who immediately threw the child into a wheat field. When the informant and others went near the child Laila Khatoon, she was found moaning and bleeding from her private part. The informant alleged that he was confident that the present respondent had committed rape upon the child and in order to killing her, he was taking her to some unknown place where he could conceal her.

4. On the basis of Ext.4, the police registered the F.I.R. and P.W.4 S.I. Mahboob Alam Khan took up the investigation of the case. P.W.4 inspected the place of occurrence and recorded the further statement of the informant besides taking the statements of other witnesses, like, P.W.3 Rukhsana Khatoon, P.W.1 Nasir Mian and others. The fardbeyan (Ext.4) of the informant was recorded in the hospital while the child was being treated there and P.W.4 learnt on 22.12.2004 that the child died. As such, he prepared inquest report and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. The police submitted chargesheet sending up the present respondent for trial. It is how the respondent was tried and was directed to be hanged by his neck till he was dead.

5. There does not appear a clear-cut defence of the respondent except that he was falsely implicated by the villagers, as may appear from his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, when he stated that the villagers came together to brand him as an insane person to falsely rope him in the present case.

6. For proving the charges framed against the respondent, th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document