The court ruled that circumstantial evidence must conclusively establish guilt, and the absence of proof of the victim's life at the time of the alleged rape led to the overturning of the rape conviction.

JUDGMENT :

P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.

A bizarre and horrifying occurrence in which a sexagenarian nun was allegedly murdered in the convent where she was living is the subject matter of this appeal. The sole accused in the case who stands convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 449, 302, 376A, 392, 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is the appellant.

2. As the victim was not seen for the morning prayer at the Chapel attached to the convent on 17.09.2015, the Mother Superior of the convent along with another went to the room of the victim in search of her and in the room, they found the victim lying on her back on her cot in a pool of blood in her night dress. A doctor in the nearby hospital who reached the convent on coming to know of the occurrence, entertained a doubt as to the cause of death. The matter was accordingly informed to the police by the Mother Superior and a case was registered on the basis of the said information by the Pala Police on the same day as Crime No.1624 of 2015.

3. The then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Pala took over the investigation of the case soon and made arrangements for holding inquest and autopsy of the body of the victim. He also prepared the scene mahazar. In the course of preparing the scene mahazar, the investigating officer seized the objects found at the scene and caused the fingerprint experts to lift the chance fingerprints from the scene of occurrence as also surrounding areas. He questioned several witnesses in the meanwhile and thereafter, arrested the accused after a few days from Haridwar on 24.09.2015. The accused was brought to Pala on a transit warrant and had been produced before the Jurisdictional Magistrate on 27.09.2015. Later, the custody of the accused was obtained on 28.09.2015 and while the accused was in police custody, the weapon allegedly used by him for committing the crime is stated to have been discovered and seized based on the information furnished by the accused. The final report in the case has been submitted thereupon alleging commission of the offences for which he is punished.

4. The accusation in the final report is that with the intention of committing robbery, the accused trespassed into the courtyard of the convent building by night at about 11:30 p.m. on 16.09.2015, secured entry into the terrace of the said building, came down to its courtyard from the terrace, broke open the lock of the grilled door at the courtyard and entered the corridor of the building, kept the outer grilled door opened after obtaining its key from the kitchen and thereafter proceeded to the first floor of the building at about 1.00 a.m. It is also the accusation in the final report that on reaching the first floor, the accused opened the door of the room of one Sr.Ruby, opened the wall almirah kept therein and committed theft of Rs.500/- kept in a plastic box in the almirah. It is also the accusation in the final report that the accused then proceeded to the second floor, opened the room of the victim and when the victim got up sensing the presence of the accused in the room, with the intention to kill the victim and to commit rape on her, the accused inflicted two blows on her head with the blunt portion of an axe kept by him and when the victim went into a moribund state, he committed rape on her. It is also the accusation in the final report that the accused thereafter opened the wall almirah in the room and committed theft of Rs.2,000/- kept in a handbag. It is alleged in the final report that the victim succumbed to her injuries in the meanwhile.

5. On the case being committed for trial, the Court of Session framed charges against the accused in tune with the allegations in the final report. When the charges were read over and explained to the accused, he denied the same. Thereupon, on being called upon to give evidence, the prosecution examined 65 witnesses as PW1 to PW65 and proved through them 88 documents as Exts.P1 to P88. MOs 1 to 20 are the material ob