Ashim Kumar Roy, J.

On January 20, 2011 from around 9.30 a.m. in the morning, Sabana Khatun (aged about 10 years), the daughter of Rejbanur Bibi (PW/1) was found missing. The entire village was searched by her mother (PW/1) and the villagers and in course of such search, according to Rejbanur Bibi (PW/1), when she had been to the house of her former landlord Prasanta Mahapatra, she was filthily abused and was told that they have killed her daughter and concealed the dead body. It was claimed by the PW/1 some dispute crept in, between the PW/1 and her landlord, the accused persons, when she was staying at the house of said Prasanta Mahapatra, for default of payment of rent for a few months and the son of the landlord Laltu Mahapatra (appellant/convict) threatened that her daughter would be raped and killed. Thereafter, on that day, at around 3 p.m. one of the villagers Raju Mondal (PW/4) found a dead body was floating in a pond inside the bamboo grove and bushes. After the news spread, the PW/1 Rejbanur Bibi and the villagers assembled there and police was also informed at once. The police came to the spot and recovered a fully naked dead body and the same found to be that of Sabana Khatun, the daughter of the PW/1. Thereafter her wearing apparels were recovered from the house of accused Prasanta Mahapatra.

2. Following the recovery of the dead body on January 20, 2011, Ghatal P.S. U.D. Case No. 7/11 was registered, the inquest was held and the dead body was sent for postmortem examination.

3. Thereafter on the next day an FIR was lodged by Rejbanur Bibi, the mother of the victim, as aforesaid, which gave rise to Ghatal P.S. Case No. 7/2011 under sections 376/302/201/34 IPC against the appellant/convict and his parents.

4. The police after completion of investigation submitted charge sheet against all the three accused under sections 376/302/201/109 IPC, including the appellant/convict.

5. The appellant/convict was then placed on trial before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ghatal to answer charges under sections 376/302/201 IPC.

In the same trial, two other accused's, the parents of the appellant/convict were also charged under sections 302/109 IPC.

6. During the trial the prosecution to prove the case against the appellant/convict examined as many as 16 witnesses. However, defence examined none and it appears from the trend of cross-examination of the witnesses and the reply of the appellant/convict during his examination under section 313 CrPC, that the defence tends to make out a case of false implication and innocence and the victim died due to an accidental drowning.

7. The prosecution case, in absence of any eye-witness to the occurrence, rests entirely on circumstantial evidence.

8. We find from the impugned judgment that the learned trial Judge noted down following circumstances, which according to him proved, beyond all reasonable doubts, the guilt of the appellant/convict and the chain of circumstances was complete, without any missing link.

a. That PW/1, Rejbanur Bibi was a tenant of the accused Prasanta Mahapatra. At that relevant point of time she had been residing in the house of Prasanta Mahapatra with her two children.

b. PW/1 was a defaulter in payment of rent, for four months. Since PW/1, could not pay the rent to the accused Prasanta Mahapatra, there was bitter relation between the accused Prasanta Mahapatra and PW/1.

c. The accused Laltu Mahapatra used to threat PW/1, that he would rape and murder her daughter, since she could not pay rent to his father Prasanta Mahapatra for four months.

d. The daughter of PW/1, the deceased minor victim girl, used to report her mother i.e. PW/1, that the accused Laltu Mahapatra used to pull her hands on some occasions prior to the date of incident. Since the aforesaid statement was made by the aforesaid daughter of PW/1, immediately prior to her death, the same is relevant in view of section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

e. The afor