The court upheld the conviction based on established circumstantial evidence, affirming that all necessary conditions for such conviction were met.

1. This appeal under S.374 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, has been filed by the appellant / accused being aggrieved by the judgment dated 28/09/2007 passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Satna, in Session Trial No.67/2005, in which the trial Court held the appellant guilty for commission of offence punishable under S.376 (1), 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded the sentences as follows -

All the sentences to be run concurrently.

2. The prosecution story in brief is that deceased victim aged 8 years was the daughter of Smt. Kuraisa Bi (P.W - 6). Deceased was playing in front of the house of Smt. Kuraisa on 21.1.2005 in the evening. It was the day of Bakrid. After sometime Kuraisa came out of her house but deceased was not visible. She searched and informed her father Jumman (P.W - 1) and others. Kodulal @ Santosh (PW. 8), Biti Bai (PW. 5) and Nafis Khan (PW 8) told her that the appellant along with deceased were wandering in auto. When appellant returned, Kuraisa asked him about deceased. Appellant told Kuraisa that he left the deceased near temple. Deceased was not found and, therefore, Kuraisa informed the Police, which was written in Rojnamcha Sanha vide Ex. P - 13.

3. On the next day i.e. 22/01/2005, some women were shouting that a girl's corpse was lying beside the garbage and the dogs were screwing the body. Jumman Khan went the spot and found that the body of deceased was lying there. Thereafter the marg was registered vide Ex. P - 1. Jumman Khan informed the police that yesterday the accused - Om Prakash was wandering with deceased in his auto. On the basis of aforesaid information, police registered Marg No. 7/05. B.D. Pandey (P.W. 19) reached the spot. He issued notice vide Ex. P - 2 under S.175 Cr.P.C. to the witnesses requiring them to appear. Lash Panchnama was prepared vide Ex. P - 3. He prepared spot map vide Ex. P -

4. Dead body was identified to be of deceased vide Ex. P - 6. Pieces of locket in two parts of necklace, coin of one rupee and bread and omelet wrapped in leaf were seized from the spot vide Ex. P - 7. First Information Report was lodged vide Ex. P - 17. Deadbody was sent for postmortem vide Ex. P - 12. Dr. Preeti Nema (P.W.11) and Dr. P.D. Nema (P.W. 12) have prepared the autopsy report vide Ex. P - 12. Slide was prepared and sent to police vide Ex. P - 4. Appellant was taken into custody on 23.1.2005. Arresting memorandum was prepared vide Ex. P - 11. On his memorandum one nylon underwear, one Full Shirt and one black full pant were seized vide Ex. P8. Memorandum of accused under S.27, Evidence Act was prepared vide Ex.P - 10. Medical examination of the appellant was conducted vide Ex. P - 14. Memo for examination was sent to F.S.L vide Ex. P - 18. F.S.L. Report was marked as Ex. P - 19 and P - 20.

4. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed. Appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded innocence. After appreciation of evidence, learned trial Court held the appellant guilty for commission of offence under S.376 (1), 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded the sentences as mentioned above.

5. After taking us through the reverent materials relied by the prosecution learned amicus curiae raised the following contentions: -

1. In this case, there are materials, contradictions and omissions in the Court statement of witnesses.

2. The entire evidence is based on hearsay evidence.

3. The important last seen witness namely Kodulal (PW - 8) has been turned hostile.

4. There is no dire