Vipul M. Pancholi, J. – The present appeal has been filed under Section- 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as ‘Cr.P.C.’) challenging the judgment of conviction dated 07.06.2023 and order of sentence dated 14.06.2023 passed by learned learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI-Cum-Special Judge, POCSO, Madhubani, in connection with G.R. POCSO Case No. 43 of 2020 (arising out of Kaluahi P.S. Case No. 116 of 2020) by which the appellant/convict has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 20, 000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, further three month Simple Imprisonment for the offence u/s-302 of the I.P.C. Further the convict has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of natural life of the convict and fine of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, further three month Simple Imprisonment for the offence u/s- 6 of the POCSO Act (read with Section 376(A) and 376(D) of the I.P.C. as per provision of Section-42 of POCSO Act). Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

2. Heard Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Tiwary assisted by Mr. Bhawesh Kumar Sah and Priyesh Kumar, learned Advocates for the appellant, Mr. Ajay Mishra, learned A.P.P. for the respondent-State and Mr. Bimal Kumar, learned advocate appearing for the informant.

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are as under:

“On the night of 17.08.2020, around 09:00-09:30 p.m., the daughter of the informant, namely Soni Kumari, went outside to ease out. When she did not return for a considerable period, the family members started to search her whereabouts. Despite hectic search, she could not be traced out. In the morning, they got information from the local people that a dead body is lying in the house of Kishori Sahani of village-Malmal, who is a handicapped person. The informant went to the police station and informed the police about the same. When police party reached, he along with the police party went to the house of Kishori Sahani. As soon as he saw the dead body, he identified it to be the dead body of his daughter Soni Kumari. In the meantime, so many villagers had assembled there. On carefully watching the articles around the place and from the discussion going among the local people, he came to know that Ram Nath Sahani (appellant), Vijay Kumar Sahani, Prasadi Sahni, Shivji Sahni, wife of Shivji Sahni and wife of Prasadi Sahani had together kidnapped his daughter, killed her and had concealed the deadbody in the house. He has apprehension that the accused have together committed gang rape on his daughter.”

4. After filing of the F.I.R., the investigating agency carried out the investigation and, during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the witnesses and collected the relevant documents and thereafter filed the charge-sheet against the accused. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.

5. Before the Trial Court, prosecution examined 9 prosecution witnesses and defence has also examined two defence witnesses.

6. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant, at the outset, submitted that the present is a case of circumstantial evidence and there is no eye-witness to the occurrence in question. It is submitted that the prosecution has examined only interested witnesses and no independent witness has been examined. It is thereafter contended that there are major contradictions in the depositions of the prosecution-witnesses and, though the prosecution has proved the death of the deceased as homicidal death, the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant herein has committed the alleged offences. It is also submitted that the prosecution has failed to complete the chain of circumstances from which it can be es