Ashutosh Kumar, J.—Heard Mr. Vishwajeet Kumar Mishra, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Binod Bihari Singh for the State.

2. The appellant has been convicted under Sections 376, 302 and 201 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for the remainder of his life, fine of Rs. 5000/- for the offence under Section 302 IPC and R.I. for ten years, fine of Rs. 5000/- for the offence under Section 376 IPC and R.I. for five years for the offence under Section 201 IPC and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for one year vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.04.2014 and 16.04.2014 respectively, in connection with G.R. No. 2185 of 2013/Sessions Trial No. 372 of 2013, arising out of Hussainganj P.S. Case No. 109 of 2013 passed by the learned Special Judge, Siwan.

3. The appellant is said to have raped and killed a 5½ year old girl. The father of the deceased viz. Binod Kumar Yadav (P.W. 1) had lodged the FIR on 03.06.2013 alleging that on 02.06.2013, he along with his daughter (deceased) had gone to the house of Panchratan Yadav (P.W. 3) whose daughter was to be married to the son of the co-brother of P.W. 1. Since his daughter had fallen asleep, she was left behind in the vehicle with which the Barat party had come to the house of P.W. 3 and the appellant who drove the vehicle was given the charge of the daughter of P.W. 1. After the ceremonies inside the courtyard of P.W. 3, when P.W. 1 came out of his house looking for his daughter, he did not find either the vehicle or the driver. Prem Kumar Yadav (P.W. 2), a relative of P.W. 1 informed him that he had seen the driver taking the vehicle towards the pond in the village. This led P.W. 1 along with others to go up to the pond in search of his daughter.

4. All the persons accompanying P.W. 1 to the pond found the vehicle parked near the pond and the dead body of his daughter lying on the banks of the pond. The lower garment of the deceased was missing. Blood was oozing out from her mouth and genitalia. It was clear to P.W. 1 and others that the deceased had been ravished brutally leading to her death. The assertion of P.W. 1 therefore was that the appellant had raped and killed his daughter.

5. On the basis of the written report of P.W. 1 referred to above which was scribed by Vijay Choudhary (P.W. 6), Hussainganj P.S. Case No. 109 of 2013 dated 03.06.2013 was instituted for investigation for the offences under Sections 302, 376 and 201 of the IPC.

6. On investigation, the case was found to be true against the appellant whereupon he was put on trial as aforesaid.

7. The Trial Court, after examining nine witnesses on behalf of the prosecution, convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid.

8. Mr. Vishwajeet Kumar Mishra, learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted before us that notwithstanding the fact that the deceased was left behind in the vehicle of which the appellant was the driver and that vehicle was not seen at the place where it had been parked, the chain of evidence does not completed for the Trial Court to convict the appellant for the offences under Sections 376 and 302 of the IPC.

9. The charge under Section 201 IPC, it has been argued, is also not made out as there is no evidence of any attempt at hiding the dead body. The dead body allegedly was found in the open on the banks of the pond, right in the middle of the village. So far as the act of rape is concerned, the accusation, according to the appellant, is highly presumptive. There could have been a situation where the appellant may have come out of his vehicle for personal needs and in the meantime the deceased may have been taken away by someone and ultimately killed. Though there is no evidence to this effect but the possibility of such a situation cannot be ruled out.

10. For surely coming to the conclusion that the appellant had raped and killed the deceased, it has been argued, there should be evidence of his having either committed rape on her, either in the ve