R. BASANT, J.

(i) Have the circumstances relied by the prosecution against the appellant/accused been proved satisfactorily?

(ii) Do the proved circumstances lead to a safe inference of guilt against the appellant?

(iii) Is the appellant entitled to the benefit of any reasonable doubt?

(iv) Does the impugned judgment warrant any interference?

These questions have been raised before us for our consideration in this appeal by the learned senior counsel Advocate Gracious Kuriakose.

2. The appellant has been found guilty, convicted and sentenced under Section 376 (2) (f) and Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Separate sentences of imprisonment for life have been imposed under each of those two sections. The appellant also has been sentenced to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-each for the said offences. Default sentences have also been imposed.

3. According to the prosecution, on 26.05.2005, the appellant had enticed the victim, a child aged about 11 = years, to a forest area and had committed rape and murder of the said child at some time between 9.30 a.m and 2.20 p.m.

4. Investigation commenced with registration of Ext.P1 (a) F.I.R on the basis of Ext.P1 F.I statement lodged by PW1, the father of the child. Investigation was completed and final report/charge sheet was filed by PW22. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the court of session after observing all legal formalities. The learned Sessions Judge took cognizance of the offences alleged. Charges framed against the appellant were denied by the appellant. Thereupon the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 22 and proved Exts.P1 to P21. MOs.1 to 10 were also marked.

5. The appellant/accused took up a defence of total denial. He did not examine any defence witnesses. Exts.D1 to D3 case diary contradictions were marked when PW3, PW11 and PW12 were examined.

6. The learned Sessions Judge on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs came to the conclusion that the appellant has committed the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(f) and Section 302 I.P.C. He was acquitted of the charges under Section 376A I.P.C and 3(1)(xi) and 3(2)(v) of the S.C/S.T Prevention of Atrocities Act. The said acquittal has now become final without challenge.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the circumstances have not been proved satisfactorily by the prosecution. The proved circumstances do not lead to a safe conclusion of guilt. At any rate, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt, it is urged. The learned Public Prosecutor on the contrary asserts that the circumstances have been well established and the circumstances lead to a safe conclusion of guilt against the appellant.

8. We have considered all the relevant inputs. An appellate judgment is; is intended to be read and must be reckoned as one rendered in continuation of the judgment of the trial court. In that view of the matter, we do not deem it necessary to re-narrate the oral and documentary evidence placed before the learned Sessions Judge by the parties. Suffice it to say that we have been taken in detail through the oral evidence of PWs 1 to 22. The contents of Exts.P1 to P21 and Exts.D1 to D3 have been read to us in detail. We have also been taken through the charges framed against the appellant by the learned Sessions Judge and the answers given by the appellant in the course of his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

9. The case against the appellant rests entirely on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution has not been able to place any direct ocular testimony about the crime allegedly committed by the appellant.

10. We shall first of all have a look at the law relating to the burden of proof in a case where the prosecution rests entirely on circumstantial evidence. It is trite that the circumstances must be proved satisfactorily and beyond doubt by the prosecution. The circumstances establish