The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for clear and unequivocal proof in cases relying on circumstantial evidence, the need to establish motive, and the cautious approach required when basing a conviction on circumstantial evidence.

S.K. SETH, J.

1. The death reference and connected appeal No. 742/2017 arise out of the Judgment of conviction and order of capital sentence handed down by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Sidhi holding the appellant guilty of the charges levelled against him in the trial.

2. As per prosecution case, in the night intervening 13th September and 14th September 2013, appellant along with Nitesh @ Bhola (a juvenile separately dealt with by the Juvenile Board) committed house trespass and sexually assaulted Sushma, a young married woman (since deceased), and then turn by turn ravished her and when she resisted she was done to death by hitting her fore-head with bamboo staff. Thereafter, not satisfied with rape, dead body was subjected to offence punishable under Section 377 of IPC by appellant Nagendra and the dead body was dragged to nearby pit or trench in order to conceal the crime and some jewellery articles of insignificant values were stolen.

3. At the time of the incident, deceased was all alone in her abode in small hamlet 'Bhitri' situated within Police Station Rampur Naikin in District Sidhi. Shrinivas(PW4), her husband, a truck driver by profession, received information on 14th around 11 AM on mobile from neighbour's wife Sunita(PW6) and she informed Shrinivas (PW4) that something was amiss as deceased was found missing and blood was splattered all over the place with broken pieces of bangles lying on the courtyard (Angan) and things were not in order. Shrinivas(PW4)immediately contacted his brother Vinod Kumar(PW3) and asked him to go and find out as to what had happened. By the time Vinod Kumar(PW3) reached the place of the incident, two-three villagers were already reached there and upon discovery of dead body Marg Intimation (ExP-2) was given by him, which lead to registration of FIR (Ex.P/17). After the inquest the dead body was sent for the post mortem.

4. Autopsy was perfomered by Dr. Sandeep Bhagat (PW5) and the post mortem examination report is Ex.P/6. In the opinion of Dr. Bhagat, deceased met with a homicidal death within 24 hours of post mortem on account of head injury and injuries on her private parts.

5. During investigation the Police arrested the accused on suspicion of being involved in the horrendous crime. The basis for the prosecution case rests on the following pillars viz. (1) the accused had motive because of the previous quarrel with the deceased; (2) he failed to account for his absence on the date of incident; (3) extra judicial confession; (4) false plea of alibi and (5) recovery of bamboo staff and jewellery.

6. After completing the investigation, Challan was filed against appellant Nagendra and he was put to trial for offences punishable under Sections 302, 376, 377, 460, 201, 457 and 380 of the IPC. Appellant abjured his guilt and asked for the trial.

7. Deceased died a homicidal death is not in dispute. Even otherwise, this fact is duly established by the evidence of Dr. Sandeep Bhaghat (PW-5) which is not challenged in this appeal. Therefore, this aspect of the matter need not detain us any longer.

8. In order to bring home the charges, prosecution examined 25 witnesses. Appellant examined one witness in his defense to prove that in the night intervening 13th and 14th September, he was with Ram Sunder Gupta (D.W.1).

9. The trial Court in the light of prosecution evidence found the appellant guilty on each count and sentenced him to various terms of imprisonment, but so far as offense punishable under Section 302 IPC, the trial Court awarded capital punishment. Hence this reference for confirmation of death sentence and appeal by Nagendra.

10. There is no direct evidence to connect the appellant with the crime alleged to have been committed by him. The entire prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence. It is well settled that when dealing with the serious question of guilt of persons charged with a crime, there must be clear and unequivocal proof of the corpus delicti and the hy