INDRAJ CHHAGURAM HARIJAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal arises out of the Judgment and Order dtd. 5/5/2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan in Sessions Case No. 207 of 2009, convicting the sole Appellant (Accused) under Sec. 363, 376(2)(f), 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC") for kidnapping a minor girl, (victim) and committing her rape and murder. The learned Trial Court had sentenced the Appellant as follows:

(2.) The prosecution case, in a nutshell, is that on 9 th June 2009, at around 9.00 pm, the accused (here-in-after referred to as the Appellant) had taken the victim girl along with him for buying chocolates. Thereafter, he took the victim girl to an isolated place located behind a Shiv Mandir and, thereafter, committed her rape and murder. The father of the victim, namely, Mahendra Dudhnath Yadav, who is the informant in the case (PW-1), had initially lodged a missing report in the evening of 9 th June 2009 when he could not find his daughter after carrying out search in the vicinity. The dead-body of the victim was later recovered in the morning hours of 10/6/2009. There was signs of sexual assault being committed upon the victim. Accordingly, the PW-1 had lodged a complaint with the police, based on which, C.R. No. I-74/2009 was registered with the Shivaji Nagar Police Station under Sec. 363, 376(2)(f), 302 and 201 of the IPC. The police took up the matter for investigation. Upon completion of the investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the Appellant. The Appellant had pleaded innocence. Therefore, he was made to face trial. On conclusion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan had passed the impugned Judgment dtd. 5/5/2012 holding that the charges brought against the Appellant had been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

(3.) The prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. In order to establish the charge brought against the Appellant, the prosecution had examined as many as 10 (ten) witness, including the Informant (PW-1), the Doctor, who had conducted the postmortem examination (PW-6) and the Investigating Officer, who had completed the investigation (PW-9). That apart, four witnesses, viz., PW3-, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-7, who had seen the victim in the company of the Appellant just before her dead body was recovered, were also examined as prosecution witnesses so as to establish the last seen together circumstance.