JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

The instant appeal is directed against the verdict drawn on 16.02.2018, upon Sessions Case No.180, instituted on 07.10.2016, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court for the cases of heinous crime against Women, Faridabad, where through, in respect of charges drawn for offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC, and, and under Section 6 of the PREVENTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT , he recorded a verdict of conviction against the convict. Moreover, through a separate sentencing order drawn on 19.02.2018, the learned trial Judge concerned, imposed, upon, the convict both sentence(s) of imprisonment as well as sentence(s) of fine, but in the hereinafter extracted manner.

2. All the above sentence(s) of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently, but the period spent in prison by the convict during investigation or trial was, in terms of Section 428 of Cr.P.C., ordered to be set off from the above imposed substantive sentence(s) of imprisonment, upon the convict.

3. The convict becomes aggrieved from the above drawn verdict of conviction besides also becomes aggrieved from the above drawn order of sentence, thus, he is led to institute there against the instant appeal before this Court.

Factual Background

4. The genesis of the prosecution case is embodied in the appeal FIR to which Ex.PP is assigned. It is recorded therein, that the present case was registered on the basis of statement given by complainant Sanjay before the police on 14.07.2016 with the allegations that he is running work of P.O.P. And Guddu, accused also works with him. Accused used to visit his house. Yesterday, at 8 p.m., the accused came to his house. His mother in law was present in the house and he and his wife were away. When they returned back home, his mother in law told that Guddu had come and had taken prosecutrix/victim child, aged six years (name withheld in order to pretext her identity) with him on the pretext of giving her eatable items. She refused but the accused do not accept her request and said that he will come after purchasing eatable items, but he did not come. They made search for the victim child but in vain and her dead body was found in the tenanted room of Guddu situated in Gali No.13. The complainant alleged that the accused had committed rape upon the victim child and had murdered her. He sought action against the accused.

Investigation

5. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, formal FIR was recorded. Investigation was conducted. Statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Were also recorded. Police visited the spot and prepared site plan. Accused was arrested. Post mortem on the dead body was got conducted. All other necessary formalities of investigation were completed and challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C., so as to prosecute the accused was prepared and was presented before the Sessions Court for trial.

Trial Proceedings

6. The prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses and, subsequently, the public prosecutor closed prosecution evidence. After the closure of the prosecution case, the learned trial Judge drew proceedings under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein, the accused pleaded innocence, and, claimed false implication. However, he did not choose to lead any