STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. RAJU ALIAS RAJKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Death Reference is submitted by the First Additional sessions Judge, Vidisha for confirmation of death sentence imposed by him in S. T. No. 191/2005, whereby the accused Raju alias rajkumar is found guilty for commission of offence under Sections 376 (2) (1) and 302 of i. P. C. and sentenced him death sentence. Criminal Appeal No. 451/2007 is filed by accused Raju alias Rajkumar challenging the death sentence and conviction. Hence, this judgment shall govern the disposal of death Reference No. 2/2007 and Criminal appeal No. 451/2007.

(2.) AS per prosecution case, one Ku. Sitabai aged about 11 years was school going girl. She had gone to school on 12-9-2005 and after closing of her school, she used to return at about 4. 00 p. m. , but on that date she did not return to her home. Hence, her father Harprasad (PW5) went to the school for searching his daughter, where he was told that his daughter had already left the school for home. When Harprasad (PW-5) was returning, he found her dead body lying in the bushes on the way with her school bag, books nd dress. He lodged a report of the said incident with Outpost khamkhera, where report was recorded as ex. P-13 and Ex. P. 12 is the 'marg. On the basis of this FIR and 'marg\ another FIR was lodged at main Police Station Satpada as Ex. P-20 and 'marg' as Ex. P-21. The spot map was prepared as Ex. P-5. The police during investigation arrested the accused in pursuance of proceeding of Sniffer Dog and filed challan against him. The matter was committed to the Sessions Court and the Sessions court after recording the evidence and apperciating the same held the accused guilty of the said offence and imposed death sentence.

(3.) SHRI Padam Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused has submitted that the Sessions Court has committed grave error in holding that the accused is guilty of the offence. He submitted that there is no eye-witness to the said incident and the case totally depends upon the circumstantial evidence. He further submitted that the chain of circumstances in the present case is not complete, hence the accused cannot be convicted. He further submitted that the proceeding of Sniffer Dog/ tracking Dog itself is doubtful in light of evidence of Investigating Officer. He submitted that the evidence of Sniffer dog is always a weak type of evidence, on the basis of which the accused cannot be convicted. He further submitted that the prosecution has changed the entire genesis of the crime. According to him, death has occurred much prior to the time put forth by the prosecution, and the medical evidence and the scientific report do not support the prosecution story. He further submitted that death sentence should be awarded only in rare of rarest cases. The present case is not covered in a rare of the rarest cases and, therefore, for this reason also the death sentence should not be confirmed by this Court.