The court upheld the conviction for murder and sexual assault, affirming strong evidential links to the appellant despite procedural challenges in the case.

JUDGMENT :

MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, J.

1. The Death Reference and the appeal have emanated out of the impugned judgment of conviction dated December 5, 2023 and the order of sentence dated December 6, 2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge under POCSO Act, Baruipur, South 24 Parganas, in Special Sessions Trial No. 06 of 2020 arising out of CIS Spl. No. 82 of 2019.

2. By the impugned judgment, the appellant was found guilty and convicted of the offence punishable under Sections 363 /365 376AB/302/201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 6 of Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act (for short, ‘POSCO Act’).

3. By the impugned order of sentence, the appellant was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months, for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months, for the offence punishable under Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The appellant was further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life which shall mean imprisonment for remainder of the convict’s natural life and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months, for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The appellant was further sentenced to death for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months, for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The sentences were directed to run concurrent.

5. Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the post mortem report does not specify the time of death. According to learned advocate there is huge time gap between the disappearance of the victim and recovery of dead body. The victim went missing from her house on July 15, 2019 whereas the dead body was recovered on July 21, 2019.

6. Learned advocate for the appellant also submitted that after the appellant was arrested on July 21, 2019, the dead body of the victim was recovered at the behest of the appellant on such date at 6.55 a.m. Besides the dead body, certain other articles were also recovered as shown by the appellant and a seizure list, in this regard, was drawn up between 6.35 a.m. and 6.45 a.m. and thereafter the dead body was recovered at 6.55 a.m. as also such seizure list does not mention the recovery of dead body. According to learned advocate for the appellant, such sequence of events renders the case of the prosecution hig