JUDGMENT :

MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, J.

1. The Death Reference and the Appeal are in assailment of judgment of conviction dated March 26, 2019 and order of sentence dated March 28, 2019 passed learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta, in connection with Sessions Trial No. 1 (4) of 2014 corresponding to Sessions Case No. 115 of 2013.

2. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 364/376A/302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as well as Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. He was sentenced to suffer imprisonment of death for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. He was also sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment of 8 years and a fine of ₹5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, the convict was directed to undergo a further imprisonment of 2 years. The convict was further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment of 20 years and a fine of ₹50,000/- and in default of payment of such fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 5 years for the offence punishable under Section 376A of the Code of 1860. The convict was also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 8 years and a fine of ₹5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and in default of payment of fine, the convict was to undergo a further imprisonment of 2 years. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant/convict that the prosecution has not been bring any eyewitness to the incident. The case is completely based on circumstantial evident. The chain of circumstances has not been proved by the prosecution to be complete so as to draw an inference that the incident must have been perpetrated by none other than the convict alone. There are material contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.

4. It was further contended by learned Senior Advocate for the appellant that the testimony of PW6 and PW7 are wholly unreliable. They claimed to have identified the victim as well as the appellant even under insufficient light and visibility. Learned Senior Advocate also termed the action on the part of such witnesses in appearing voluntarily before the police and linking their sighting the victim with the recovery of the child victim as unnatural, motivated and tutored. According to learned Senior Advocate for the appellant, such an action on the part of prosecution is an attempt to falsely implicate the appellant in the case based on manipulated witnesses. A normal human being cannot, with only one sight, remember the detailed account as given by such witnesses at the trial.

5. Learned Senior Advocate for the appellant also submitted that the recovery of wearing apparel of the victim at the behest of the appellant is also suspicious as there was no report of such missing garments in the first information report nor in the evidence of PW 3 i.e. the grandmother of the victim. Learned Senior Advocate for the appellant also stated that PW 8 and PW 9 are stock witnesses. They have deposed for the police in many other cases and as such their testimony is not at all trustworthy. Similarly, according to learned Senior Advocate for the appellant, PW 10 and PW 11 were claimed to be the employees of Royal Calcutta Turf Club but the prosecution has not produced any document in support of such employment. In that view of the fact their presence at the relevant point of time is suspect. Such witnesses could not have been relied upon to secure conviction of the appellant.

6. Learned Senior Advocate for the appellant also submitted that the evidence of the medical officer who first examined the victim, PW 14, did not find any injury on the lower part of the body of the victim. The Forensic Science Laboratory also did not find any mark of violence or of for