Judgment

Per Hon’ble Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J.

Under challenge in these appeals is the judgment dated 18.01.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhalawar (Rajasthan) (for short, ‘the learned trial Court’) in Sessions Case No.28/2016 whereby, the accused-appellants (for short, ‘appellants’) have been convicted and sentenced as under:

Accused-appellant Badari Lal:-

Section 302 IPC:- Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/-; in default whereof, 1 year’s additional rigorous imprisonment.

Section 201 IPC:- 7 years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.3,000/-; in default whereof, three months’ additional rigorous imprisonment.

Sentences to run concurrently.

Accused-appellants-Sujan Singh @ Gatiya and Ghanshyam:-

Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC:- Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/-; in default whereof, 1 year’s additional rigorous imprisonment.

Section 201 IPC:- 7 years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.3,000/-; in default whereof, 3 months’ additional rigorous imprisonment.

Sentences to run concurrently.

The relevant facts in brief are that Shri Shafiq Mohammad (PW3) lodged a written report (Ex. P2) with the SHO, Police Station Bakani on 01.06.2014 at about 10:00 am wherein, it was averred that at about 3:30 pm on 31.05.2014, his daughter Parveen had taken the goats for grazing to forest but, did not return by evening. It was further stated that despite intense search by the family members and villagers during whole night, she could not be traced but, in the morning, her dead body with a chunri noosed around her neck was found about a kilometer away from village near ‘Nakaliya Anicut’. It was alleged that there were injury marks on her face, cigarette burn marks on her body with a hand broken and stone in her mouth. It was alleged that Pappu Tanwar, Shyam Lal and Lal Chand, with whom he has had previous enmity, have murdered her after subjecting her to gang rape. Based thereupon, an FIR No.215 dated 01.06.2014 came to be registered under Sections 302, 376D IPC and Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. After investigation, the appellants were charge-sheeted alongwith co-accused Pappu @ Dwarka Lal and Radhey Shyam @ Shyam. Charges under Sections 376, 302 read with Section 120B, Section 201 IPC read with Section 120B IPC were framed against the appellant-Badari Lal, charges under Section 302 IPC read with Section 120B and Section 201 IPC read with Section 120B were framed against the appellants-Sujan Singh @ Gatiya and Ghanshyam. Charge under Section 376(D) IPC was framed against the co-accused- Pappu @ Dwarka Lal and Radhey Shyam @ Shyam. After trial, while, co-accused Pappu @ Dwarka, Radhey Shyam @ Shyam as also the appellant-Badari Lal were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Sections 376(D) IPC and 376 IPC respectively, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced, as supra.

Assailing the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that finding of the learned trial Court are based on conjectures and surmises and there was no legally admissible evidence available on record to connect them with the alleged offence. He contended that it was a case based on circumstantial evidence but, the learned trial Court failed to appreciate that the prosecution could not establish a complete chain of events leading to only conclusion of his guilt. Inviting attention of this Court towards the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, he would contend that without recording a specific finding as to who were the witnesses of ‘last seen’, it was held that the prosecution was able to establish that the deceased was seen ‘last’ in the company of the appellants. Learned counsel submitted that the appellant-Badari Lal has been connected with the alleged offence on the strength of recovery of a shirt allegedly worn by him at the time of incident and a piece of cloth-stated to be torn part of the pocket of the shirt, recovered on his disclosur