(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. for the State.
(2.) The present criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dtd. 16/5/2017 and the order of sentence dtd. 18/5/2017 passed by Shri Arvind Kumar Pandey, Additional Sessions Judge 2nd, Motihari, East Champaran in Sessions Trial No.473 of 1995/ 31 of 2017 arising out of Govindganj P.S. case No.23 of 1995, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted under Ss. 376 and 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code (referred to 'I.P.C.") and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs.10,000.00 for the offence under Sec. 376 of I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, further imprisonment for six months and the appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.10,000.00 for the offence under Sec. 302 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, further imprisonment for six months. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
(3.) The prosecution case, as per the fard beyan of informant Rama Shankar Prasad (P.W.11) recorded by S.H.O., Govindganj Police Station on 19/3/1995 at about 11:30 a.m. is that on 17/3/1995 at about 5 p.m. informant's daughter, aged about 7 years, in course of playing went somewhere in the village and thereafter she was found missing. In course of search, the informant learnt in the morning of 19/3/1995 that appellant Mulur Mahto in the evening of 17/3/1995 had caught hold the hands of his daughter on the pretext of taking her to her house. On getting such information, the informant started searching Mulur Mahto and went his house, but he was not found at his home. The informant got information from the nearby people that Mulur Mahto is absconding a day after Holi i.e. on 17/3/1995. The neighbours also told that Mulur Mahto was a drinker having bad character. The informant suspected that somebody, on the pretext of taking the victim to her home, took the victim somewhere and killed her.