The prosecution's burden is to establish an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence; failure to do so leads to acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP MEHTA, J.

1. Heard.

2. The instant case is yet another classic example of shabby and perfunctory investigation leading to failure of the prosecution case involving a gruesome incident of rape and murder of the budding life of a tender young girl¹ [Hereinafter referred to as ‘child’ or ‘child victim’] aged about 3 years and 9 months.

3. Despite the shabby investigation, the overzealous approach of the Courts below, to impart justice, in a sense that someone must be held responsible for the crime, has led to the conviction of the appellant herein² [Hereinafter, referred to as ‘accused appellant’] who was a young man aged about 25 years at the time of the incident and has remained incarcerated for more than 12 years with the Damocles sword of impending death penalty hanging over his head for more than 6 years.

4. Succinctly stated, the facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeals may be noted herein-below.

5. The complainant, Manoj Bhaskar Sadavarte (PW-1)³ [Hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’] a painter by profession, used to reside at Old Waghbil Gaon, Banjari Chawl, Laxminagar, Thane(W) along with his mother and daughter, i.e. the deceased child victim. On 30th September, 2013, at about 10:00 A.M. the complainant’s mother had gone out of the house to fetch water. At about 10:30 A.M. the complainant left his house to attend to some work. The child victim was alone in the house when the complainant went out. She came out of the house to play with the family pet dog. The complainant returned home at about 10:45 A.M. and noticed that his daughter and the pet dog were nowhere to be seen. Initially, he assumed that his child might have gone out in the vicinity to play with the dog and, thus, he set out to look for her in areas near his house. However, he could neither locate the child victim nor the pet dog. When the complainant’s mother came back to the house, he inquired about the whereabouts of the child from her, but she too was unaware about the same. Concerned about the child’s well-being, he and his mother commenced a frantic search for his daughter.

6. The complainant inquired from two persons living in the neighbourhood, who told him that they had seen the child playing with the dog. Thereafter, he went to the watchmen chawl located near his room, where several watchmen used to reside. The pet dog was found in the chawl, but his child was nowhere to be seen. The complainant got suspicious that some unknown person/s might have kidnapped his child. Accordingly, he proceeded to Police Station Kasarvadavali, Thane and lodged a complaint regarding his child, having gone missing. The police registered an FIR, bearing Crime No. I-306 of 2013, for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860.⁴ [Hereinafter, referred to as ‘IPC’] Investigation was assigned to the Assistant Police Inspector (API) Vikas Sarjerao Lokre (PW-16)⁵ [Hereinafter referred to as ‘1st Investigating Officer (PW-16)’] who prepared the spot panchnama⁶ [Exhibit No. 30] of the place of the incident on 1st October, 2013. The panchnama records the place where the child victim was last seen and the place from where she was purportedly kidnapped. The panchnama also gives out the names of the persons who had seen the child and the dog on 30th September, 2013, in the sequence enumerated below: