(Delivered on 13/04/2022)

Per Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, J:-

This is an appeal u/S 374(2) of CrPC against the

judgment dated 03/11/2010 passed by First Additional

Sessions Judge, Datia (MP) in Sessions Trial No.33 of 2007

whereby the appellant has been convicted u/S 302 of IPC and

sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment with fine of

Rs.10,000/-, u/S 376 of IPC sentenced to undergo Ten Years'

Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- and u/S 201

of IPC, sentenced to undergo seven years' Rigorous

Imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- with default

stipulations.

(2)

In brief, the prosecution case is that on 19-07-2006, at

about 11:00 in the night at Police Station Chirula, District

Datia, a merg intimation (Ex.P28) was recorded mentioning

2

therein that on 19-07-2006 at about 08:00 in the night the

prosecutrix (x) daughter of the appellant accused had gone

for attending the call of nature and after half an hour, the

appellant accused saw that his daughter (x) is lying dead and

thereafter, he informed about the incident to the locality and

on the basis of said merg intimation, police conducted an

enquiry. PW12 Janved Singh Rathor reduced in writing the

aforesaid merg intimation report (Ex.P28) on the basis of

which Safina Form (Ex.P11) for preparation of memo of

corpse of deceased was issued. Memo of corpse (Ex.P12) was

prepared by M.S. Saxena, Crime Details (Spot Map) Ex.P.29

was prepared, postmortem of the deceased was conducted at

District Hospital Datia on 20-07-2006 at about 11:00 am by

Dr.G.L.Verma (PW8) vide Ex.P16, seizure memo of the

seized articles was prepared vide Ex.P13, the accused-

appellant was arrested on 29-11-2006 by Sunil Sharma

(PW9) vide arrest memo Ex.P1. Shri Saxena, who had

conducted inquest of the deceased- prosecutrix (X) died

during investigation in respect of whom, the statement of

Janved Singh Rathor (PW12) was also recorded. In

furtherance of investigation, after recording of statements of

witnesses and other formalities, police filed a charge sheet

u/S 302 of IPC before the Court.

(3)

It is needless to emphasize that the statement of

3

appellant- accused was recorded u/S 313 of CrPC. The

appellant- accused abjured his guilt and in his defence, he did

not choose to examine any witness. In order to prove charges,

Prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses. The Trial

Court, after evaluating the evidence on record, has convicted

and sentenced the appellant accused for the aforesaid

offences, as indicated in Para 1 of this judgment.

(4)

It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant

that on going through the evidence led by the prosecution, it

cannot be said that any offence is proved against the

appellant. There is no eye-witness to the incident and the case

is based upon the circumstantial evidence; and case is lacking

complete chain of circumstances and there is no direct

evidence of connectivity of appellant- accused in the alleged

crime and the chain of circumstances is also not complete. If

the evidence is scanned in its entirety, one can say that no

offence is proved against the appellant. The Trial Court has

committed an error in passing the impugned judgment

without analyzing evidence properly. Hence, it is prayed that

the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside.

(5)

Refuting the aforesaid contentions raised by learned

counsel for the appellant, learned State Counsel submitted

that considering the nature and gravity of offence as well as

the material available on record, the Trial Court has rightly

4

assigned cogent reasons in order to hold the appellant guilty

and, therefore, no interference is required and the appeal

deserves to be dismissed.

(6)

Following questions are necessary for determination

of present appeal:-

(1) Whether on or before 19-07-2006, accused-

appellant Komal Tiwari has committed rape with

murder of his