The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in witness testimony and doubts over evidence credibility can lead to acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL, J.

1.This criminal appeal assails the judgment dated 29.06.2016 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dholpur (for short, ‘learned trial Court’) in Sessions Case No.88/2013 whereby, the accused- appellant (for short, ‘appellant’) has been convicted and sentenced as under:

Section 376(2)(i) IPC: Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/-; in default whereof, one year additional simple imprisonment.

Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012: Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/-; in default whereof, one year additional simple imprisonment.

Section 302 IPC: Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/-; in default whereof, one year additional simple imprisonment.

Section 201 IPC: Seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-; in default whereof, one year additional simple imprisonment.

2. All the substantive sentences to run concurrently.

3. The relevant facts in brief are that Shri Mahendra Singh (PW1) submitted a written report dated 26.03.2013 at about 8:30 am to the Police Station, Kolari, District Dholpur stating therein that in the midnight of 25-26/03/2013 at about 12’ O clock when, he, alongwith his family, was sleeping in front of his house, he heard a noise whereupon, in torch light, he saw his neighbour- the appellant kidnapping his eight years old daughter from a nearby cot. It was stated that when he raised alarm, his father, mother and wife, sleeping nearby, woke up and also saw the appellant taking away the girl. It was averred that when they all raised hue and cry, Dharmveer, Balveer and whole of the village turned up but, despite search, the appellant and his daughter could not be found. It was alleged that in the morning, when the appellant tried to flee from the sugarcane field behind his house, he was caught by Dharmveer and informed that under intoxication, he has thrown her in the well after her murder. It was further alleged that when the daughter was taken out, it was found that she was raped. Based thereupon, an FIR No.37 dated 26.03.2013 was registered under Sections 302, 201 and 376 IPC and Section 4/6 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, ‘Act of 2012’). After investigation, the appellant was charge- sheeted under Sections 302, 376(2)(f), 201 IPC and under Section 4/6 of the Act of 2012. Charges against him were framed under Sections 376 (2)(i), 302, 201 IPC and 4/6 of Act of 2012. After trial, he has been convicted and sentenced, as stated hereinabove.

4. Assailing the impugned judgment, Shri Vivek Raj Singh Bajwa-learned Senior Counsel-Amicus Curaie, submitted that though, the case is based on circumstantial evidence but, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the complete chain of events leading to irresistible conclusion of his guilt. He submitted that the learned trial Court has, relying upon the testimony of Shri Mahendra Singh (PW1), Smt. Maandai (PW2) and Smt. Samanti (PW3), held that the appellant was seen last in the company of the deceased but, their testimony did not reflect so. Inviting attention of this Court towards their deposition, learned Senior Counsel contended that the same is full of contradictions on the aspect as to where they were sleeping at the relevant time and conspicuously, no site plan of the place from where the girl was allegedly kidnapp