JUDGMENT

Rajiv Sharma, J. - Since common questions of law and facts are involved in the aforesaid murder reference and appeal, therefore these are taken up together and disposed of by a common judgment.

2. The Murder Reference No.02 of 2018 has been made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Mansa, for confirmation of death sentence awarded in Sessions Case No.32 of 01.07.2016. The Criminal Appeal No.CRA-D-764-DB-2018 has been filed on behalf of the appellant against his conviction in aforesaid Sessions case whereby he was charged with and tried for offences punishable under Sections 364, 376, 302, 2O1 of the Indian Penal Code (in short "IPC") and sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short "POCSO Act"). He was awarded death sentence under Section 376-A IPC for committing rape and murder of the victim (name withheld), aged 6 years, subject to confirmation by this Court. He was also sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in default of which to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under Section 376-A IPC in case his death sentence is not confirmed by this Court. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, for the offence under Section 364 IPC in case his death sentence is not confirmed by this Court. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, for the offence under Section 302 IPC in case his death sentence is not confirmed by this Court. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months, for the offence under Section 201 IPC in case his death sentence is not confirmed by this Court. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently if the death sentence is not confirmed by this Court.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellant.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has prayed for confirmation of death sentence.

5. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that on 12.05.2016, Inspector/SHO Pritpal Singh, Police Station Boha, along with ASI Parshotam Singh, HC Jagdev Singh, HC Sukhmander Singh etc. was present for patrolling and checking. Mehma Singh son of Surjit Singh, resident of Alampur Mandran made statement to the effect that he had two daughters, victim and younger daughter aged about 3 years. On 11.05.2016 there was marriage of Gurpreet Kaur daughter of Charanjit Singh son of Pohla Singh, resident of village Alampur Mandran. The entire family had gone to join the marriage. The appellant was also present to participate in the marriage. He came back to his house at about 7.00 P.M. His daughter (victim) was missing. He tried to find her. She could not be located. Simultaneously, the appellant Kala Ram was also found missing. The statement was recorded vide Ex.PA, on the basis of which FIR Ex.PW10/B was registered on 12.05.2016. The dead body was recovered on 12.05.2016 vide recovery memo dated 12.05.2016 Ex.PW4/B. The dead body was sent for postmortem examination. The statement of the appellant was recorded under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Recoveries were made and sent to FSL. The investigation was carried out and challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities.

6. The prosecution had examined 10 witnesses in its support. The statement of appellant was also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 He denied the case of the prosecution. He was convicted and sentenced as noticed hereinabove. Hence the murd