Circumstantial evidence can support conviction despite the absence of eyewitnesses; the death penalty may be commuted based on mitigating factors including youth and possibility of reform.

JUDGMENT :

R.Mukhopadhyay, J.

1. Heard Mr. Sabyasanchi, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Learned Special P.P.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 31.01.2018 (sentence passed on 12.02.2018) passed by Sri Shiv Pal Singh, learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-I, Ranchi in S.T. No. 33/2015, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 376 (2)(i), 302 and 201 of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 6 of POCSO Act, five years imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 201 of I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under of I.P.C. and has been sentenced to death for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C.

3. The prosecution case arises out of the Fardbayan of Mashi Das Toppo recorded on 20.03.2014 in which it has been stated that the informant is at present staying at Khadgarha Bhuinyatoli for the last 12-14 years by constructing a house along with his wife and children. The informant works as a Khalasi in Sanju Bus. It has been alleged that on 19.03.2014 at around 7.00 pm the informant was having a quarrel with his wife and his daughter victim ‘X’ was also present. After the quarrel ended the informant, his wife and children went to sleep but victim ‘X’ could not be found. The informant had searched for his daughter who could not be traced out at which the informant had thought that she might have gone to the house of Manik Garari in the vicinity. In the morning there was a commotion that the dead body of a child was found lying in Kantatoli graveyard. When the informant and his wife went to the said place they could recognize the dead body to be that of their daughter victim ‘X’ and it was found that the face and head was crushed with a stone.

Based on the aforesaid allegations Lower Bazaar P.S. Case No. 73 of 2014 was instituted against unknown for the offences under Sections 302 , 376 and 201 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. On conclusion of investigation charge sheet was submitted against the accused Gandhi Oraon for the offences under Sections 376 , 302 and 201 and Section 6 of the POCSO Act and after cognizance was taken the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charge was framed under (2)(i), 302 and 201 and Section 6 POCSO Act against the accused which was read over and explained to him in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses in support of its case.

5. P.W.1 Sudha Toppo is the mother of the victim ‘X’ who has stated that the incident is of 1 year 4 months back at around 7.00-8.00pm when she and her husband were having some difference of opinion. Her daughter victim ‘X’, Diya, Neha and son Mahanand were present. Her brother-in-law Dinesh was also present and so was Gandhi Oraon. After the quarrel ended, she could not find her daughter victim ‘X’ in spite of searching for her. She had thought that Gandhi Oraon had taken away her daughter on the pretext of giving her toffee.In the morning she learnt that a dead body was found lying in the graveyard and when she went to the said place she found the dead body to be that of her daughter. Her head was crushed with a stone and her pant and frock were smeared with blood. The police had already