JUDGMENT

1. This criminal appeal has been filed preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.8.2012 passed by passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Indore in Special Session Trial No.64/2010 whereby the trial Court has convicted the appellant of offence punishable under section 376 (2)(F) of IPC and sentenced him to undergo 10 years’ R.I. with fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, three months’ additional imprisonment.

2. According to prosecution story, on 7.6.2010 at 11.30 a.m. blooded dead-body of victim aged 5 years daughter of Laaduram Bhilala was found from railway campus of Cabin “C” under the Rajkumar Bridge, Indore. Then it was informed by PW-3 Mukesh Aacharya, Superintendent, Railway Station vide Ex.P-1 to GRP Police Station, Indore, which was registered as Merg intimation No.15/2010 at police station -Tukoganj, Indore. Sub-inspector Irfaan Saiyad PW-17 enquired the Merg by reaching at spot and prepared spot map Ex.P-25 and scientific officer also prepared spot map Ex.P-12. PW-1 Sub-inspector Irfaan Saiyad seized plain soil and blooded soil from the spot and prepared seizure memo Ex.P-1 and prepared dead-body Panchayatnama Ex.P-23 in presence of witnesses and then after prepared application form Ex.P-9 and sent dead-body for postmortem. In postmortem report, Dr. Prashant Rajput PW-8 found that the death is caused by injuries on the head and also gave information that before the death of deceased the victim was raped.

3. Police registered F.I.R. and during investigation police found that the accused took victim with him by alluring her or bringing biscuits and raped and assaulted her by stone causing death of the victim. Police arrested the accused and prepared memorandum under section 27 of Evidence Act Ex.P-4 and seized skirt of the deceased and clothes worn by the accused and prepared seizure memo Ex.P-5 and Ex.P-6. Accused/appellant was sent to hospital for medical examination. Doctor gave report that he was competent to do intercourse. During investigation, police seized his underwear, his pubic hair and prepared urethral slide and sealed it. Police prepared identification form of the accused for DNA report and sent it for FSL report vide Ex.P-20. During investigation, police took statements of witnesses and after completing due investigation filed charge-sheet before the magistrate Court. After committal, this case was sent to Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for trial.

4. Appellant abjured his guilt and sought trial. In turn, prosecution in order to prove its case examined 17 witnesses. After completion of prosecution witnesses, the appellant was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. Appellant took defence that he has not committed the offence he was falsely implicated in the offence. He did not examine any witness in his defence. After concluding the trial, the trial Court held the appellant guilty for the offence and sentenced him as mentioned above.

5. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, appellant has filed this appeal and submitted that trial Court has committed grave error in not considering the fact that case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and it is settled law that without establishment of chain of circumstances, appellant cannot be convicted.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that chain of circumstances has not been established by the prosecution and conviction is based on last seen theory. In this regard, prosecution witnesses PW-5 Ravi and PW-2 Sukhdev were examined by the prosecution but there are so many contradictions and omissions in the statements of PW-2 and PW-5 and trial Court has committed error in relying the evidence of these two witnesses. He further submits that prosecution has not been able to prove the memorandum Ex.P-4 and seizure memo Ex.P-5 and Ex.P-6. These seizures and memorandum were doubtful. He further submits that FSL report and DNA report are weak type of ev