STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. GOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts of this case remind us the poem of `leila Seth' on `the Girl Child' which reads thus: " Where have all the young girls gone? Some were aborted before they were born A few were buried or choked with coarse paddy; Others were smothered, starved or drowned in a well; Poisoned with berries of oleander till dead, So that dowry need not be paid or in-law's fed, or daughters raped, beaten or burnt- This is the sad story of the girl child's hell. "

(2.) THIS case reveals a sordid and obnoxious incident that occurred sometime in the evening of February 18, 2005 in which the alleged sexual assault followed by brutal and merciless murder by the dastardly and monstrous act of adherent nature is said to have been committed by the appellant herein with victim Meenakshi, a girl of the tender age of about 7 years, who feel a prey to his lust. The appellant Gopal was charged and tried under Sections 366, 376 (2), 302 and 201 IPC for having committed rape on victim and then murder her. Learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jaipur relying on the circumstantial evidence convicted appellant for the offences under Sections 302, 363, 376 and 201 IPC and having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case found it to be rarest of rare cases and therefore, sentenced him thus:- U/s. 302 IPC: Sentence of death of fine of Rs. 500/- to be recovered from the property of accused Gopal. U/s. 363 IPC: To suffer rigorous imprisonment seven years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer six months rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 376 IPC: To suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer six months rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 201 IPC: To suffer rigorous imprisonment seven years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer six months rigorous imprisonment.

(3.) THERE is no ocular version of the incident and the prosecution entirely based its case on circumstantial evidence. Learned counsel for the appellant vigorously canvassed before us that the circumstances relied on by the prosecution have not been satisfactorily established and that in any event the circumstances said to establish against the appellant do not provide a complete chain to bring home the guilt against the appellant. Learned counsel vehemently submitted that Leela (PW. 4), Surendra (PW. 5) and Mukesh (PW. 6) who are said to have last seen the appellant and the deceased, were children between the age of 8 to 12 years and the evidence of these witnesses should not be accepted as credible as they were tutored by the prosecution. Learned counsel for the appellant further assailed the evidence of Lakha Ram, Investigating officer (PW. 16) by contending that his testimony did not get corroboration by the independent Motbirs viz. , Ranglal (PW. 10) and Mohd. Razak (PW. 11 ). The Motbirs did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile. The memos Ex. P-30 and Ex. P-31 drawn by the IO in connection with the disclosure statements of the appellant and the recovery memos Ex. P-21 through which stone and pieces of frock were allegedly recovered could not be relied upon on the basis of the evidence of the IO. Learned counsel that contended that the appellant was falsely implicated in the case by Raju Lal (PW. 8) in connivance with Indra, the wife of the appellant, who was residing separately for the last one and half year because of inimical relations with the appellant. Learned counsel also urged that as per the prosecution story deceased had taken food and then proceeded with the appellant at 4 PM but in the post-mortem report undigested food was not found in the stomach of the deceased. It thus appears that prosecution story was false and deceased appeared to be missing from 7 AM.