The judgment emphasizes the need for complete and irrefutable circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction and deliberates on the appropriateness of the death penalty, emphasizing that it should be reserved for the 'rarest of the rare cases.'

JUDGMENT :

1. Vide this order, above mentioned death reference as well as the appeal filed by the convict against the judgment/order dated 7.12.2019 passed by the trial court, whereby, convict was convicted and sentenced for offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(f), 302, 450 and 380 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC").

2. Prosecution case was set in motion on the basis of statement of Bhanwarlal-complainant. As per Exhibit-P.27, complainant alleged that on 21.5.2011 at about 9.00/10.00 AM he and his wife had gone to do labour work. His daughter aged about 7 years was alone at home. When complainant returned home at about 3.30 PM, he could not find his daughter or his goat and he inquired from the neighbourhood. At about 4.00-5.00 PM his wife returned home. Thereafter, Ramdayal contractor also came there and he (complainant) informed him (Ramdayal) that his (complainant) daughter was not traceable. He (Ramdayal) asked the complainant to bring a photograph of his daughter. While he (complainant) had gone to got the photograph of his daughter from the shop, Ramdayal and his wife found the dead body of his (complainant) daughter after opening the door of the room of the house. Then, Ramdayal contractor informed him on phone that dead body of his (complainant) daughter had been found. Complainant rushed home and saw the dead body of his daughter and found that his daughter was bleeding from her private parts and a jute string had been tied around her neck. Police reached the spot.

3. On the basis of complaint (Exhibit-P.27), First Information Report No.155 dated 21.5.2011 (Exhibit-P.28) was registered at Police Station Phagi, District Jaipur Rural under Sections 376, 302, 379 IPC.

4. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the convict.

5. Charges were framed against the convict under Sections 376(2)(f), 302, 450 and 380 IPC.

6. Convict did not plead guilty to the charges framed against him and claimed trial.

7. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 32 witnesses, during trial. After the close of prosecution evidence, convict when examined under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.), prayed that mobile and Subscriber Identity Module (SIM) did not belong to him. Articles 24 to 27 also did not belong to him, nor were taken in possession at his instance. His signatures were taken on 10-15 blank papers while he was in police custody. He had not given any information to the police regarding the place of incident. Steel Can had been recovered from the shop of Mukesh Saini (PW.22). Goat or steel Can had not been recovered from his possession. He was shown to Ramdayal and Ramotar in the police station before conducting identification parade. He had not sold the goat to anybody. He had no concern with the incident in question. He was innocent.

8. Trial court vide impugned judgment/order, ordered the conviction and sentence of the convict as under:-

U/s. 380 IPC: Seven years rigorous imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default thereof to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment.

U/s. 450 IPC: Ten years rigorous imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default thereof to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment.

U/s. 376(2)(f) IPC: Life imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- and in default thereof to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment.

U/s. 302 IPC: Death penalty, to pay a fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- each and in default thereof to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment.

9. Hence, the death reference by the trial court and the appeal filed by the convict.

10. Learned State counsel has submitted that the death sentence awarded to the convict was liable to be upheld as the offence committed by the convict was grave in nature. The victim in the present case is aged about 7 years. Convic