A conviction cannot rely solely on the testimony of an unreliable witness without corroboration; unexplained delays and a witness's criminal background may compromise credibility and thus the prosecution's case.

JUDGMENT :

ILESH J. VORA, J.

1. This criminal appeal preferred by the accused Jitendra @ Jigo @ Jigneshbhai Bhailalbhai Parmar, under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.03.2014 passed by the learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Sessions Case No.58 of 2012 by which the appellant accused has been convicted under Sections 302 , 397 and 201 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and sentenced as tabulated hereinunder:

2. The case of the prosecution leading to conviction of the appellant accused is as follows:

2.1 The accused appellant was charged with the rape and murder of victim aged about 22 years old and after committing her murder, he looted ornaments and cash amount and causing disappearance of the evidence of the offence.

2.2 The accused and victim are resident of Vadodara. The victim was in relations with one Rakesh, resident of Vadodara who happened to be a friend of the appellant, as a result, the accused was in touch with her. On 13.05.2011, the accused called her the victim under the pretext that her friend Rakesh was waiting for her. On arrival of the victim, the accused convinced her to come with him at Ahmedabad. At that time, the victim was engaged with someone and her marriage was going to be solemnized in the next month or so. The accused invited his friend PW:10 Sachinsingh Rajput to accompany him so that they enjoyed together in the company of the victim. The trio came to Ahmedabad at about 03:00 p.m. They travelled by public transport. They came near railway track, Sanathal Cross Road, Changodar, Ahmedabad, where the accused found one room in a dilapidated condition. The victim was taken inside the room where the accused appellant committed and act of rape and unnatural sex upon her. The witness PW:10 Sachinsingh Rajput did not have taken any benefit of the situation and was standing nearby the room. Thereafter, the accused appellant and PW:10 proceeded towards the railway bridge. When they reached near the railway pole 32/5, the appellant stabbed the deceased multiple time with the knife which he carried with him. The dead body was thrown near the railway track. According to the prosecution case, the victim deceased when she left the home, had carried a cash amount of Rs.1,25,000/- and gold ornaments like chain and earing which alleged to have been looted by the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant and PW:10 left Ahmedabad and came to Vadodara and did not inform anyone as nothing being happened. The accused had destroyed the mobile phone and bloodstained clothes of him. The looted ornaments had been sold by the accused to goldsmith and sale amount was utilized for purchasing the car.

2.3 According to the prosecution case, on 03.05.2011, the victim before leaving, informed the family that she is going to beauty parlour and will come in a short time. The family members till late night did not get any clue about whereabouts the victim, as a result, the missing complaint with Vadodara Police Station came to be filed by the brother Jigneshbhai.

2.4 On 14.05.2011, i.e. next day of the incident, PW:1 Tashinlash Christian being a railway gang-man found the dead body of the deceased when he was on patrolling. He immediately informed his superior. The Changodar Police, Ahmedabad was informed by the railway official and on ar