JUDGMENT :

D.P. Choudhury, J.

This Jail Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant from Jail assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence passed under Sections 302 and 377 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called as “I.P.C.”) by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Jeypore in Criminal Trial No.58 of 2004 sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-in default to undergo R.I. for one year for the said offence and further to undergo R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-for the offence under Section 377 IPC in default to undergo R.I. for six months for the said offence. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. The adumbrated facts leading to the case of prosecution is that on 04.10.2012 at about 4.30 PM, the deceased being seven years old boy, was playing with P.W.5, the accused-appellant came and called the deceased-boy to give him chocolate. After the accused-appellant took the boy, the deceased did not return to the village. On the next day, the dead body of boy was found in the well. On the report of one Hebal Garada, U.D. Case No.18/02 was registered on 06.10.2002 and police proceeded with inquiry. After one month on 06.11.2002, again one written FIR was submitted by the same informant upon which the police registered the case and proceeded with investigation. During inquiry in the U.D. Case, inquest over the dead body of the deceased-boy was made and doctor conducted post mortem examination. Police seized the wearing apparels of the deceased-boy and sent the same for chemical examination. Thereafter, he submitted the final report on 07.01.2003. But during the investigation upon the FIR lodged on 06.11.2002, police examined witnesses, visited the spot and arrested the accused-appellant. Police also made seizure of the properties and after completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted.

3. The plea of the accused-appellant, as revealed from his examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. and suggestions made to the prosecution witnesses during cross-examination that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He has taken further plea that as he has got previous quarrel with the material witness (P.W.1), she is deposing falsely against him.

4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined nine witnesses out of which P.W.1 is a witness to the extra judicial confession of the accused-appellant, P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 are post occurrence witnesses. P.W.5 is the child witness, P.W.6 is a seizure witness, P.W.7 is the doctor and P.Ws.8 and 9 are the I.Os. The defence examined none.

5. Learned Trial Court, after analyzing the evidence of each witness, came to a conclusion that it is the accused-appellant who is the perpetrator of the crime and cause death of the deceased-boy after committing carnal intercourse with him. As such, he convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as stated above.

6. Mr.Pani, learned counsel for the accused-appellant strenuously urged that the extra judicial confession made by the accused-appellant cannot be relied on as it is the plea of the appellant that P.W.1 falsely stated against him because of previous enmity with him. According to him, P.W.5 is a child witness and his evidence also cannot be relied on as he has been tutored by the family members of the deceased-boy to depose against the accused-appellant. Moreover, he submitted that there is no eye witness in this case and the circumstances have not been proved to make a chain of circumstance against the accused-appellant to prove him guilty. He also submitted that the FIR was lodged on 06.11.2002 which is one month after the occurrence and for such unexplainable delayed FIR, the case of the prosecution should be saddled with doubt. Since the prosecution falls sort of clear, cogent and consistent evidence, learned trial Court has erred in law in finding the accused-appellant guilty and as such, the conviction and senten