JAI PRAKASH ALIAS PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE alleged sodomy and brutal murder of a eight year old boy forms the background of this criminal appeal. THE appellant has challenged the judgment dated 31. 7. 2002 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Jhunjhunu whereby the appellant has been convicted for offences under Section 377 and 302 IPC. For the former offence, the appellant has been sentenced to 10 years R. I. and fined Rs. 500/- and to further undergo a sentence to fifteen days of simple imprisonment in default thereof. For the latter offence, he has been sentenced to life imprisonment and fined Rs. 2,000/- and to further undergo two months simple imprisonment in default thereof.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 7. 9. 2000 Chhala Ram (PW-1) lodged a report (Ex. P. 1) at Police Station, Chirawa wherein he claimed that "his young son Mintu, aged eight years, was missing from the afternoon of 2. 9. 2000. THE boy had left the house at 12'o clock in order to play. However, when the body did not return back home till 7'o clock in the evening, he started to search for him. He was told that the child was seen leaving the house of Jai Prakash and after that he was not seen. THErefore, on 3. 9. 2000 he had filed a report for the missing child. He further claimed that in the morning of the 7th, at 6'o clock, some of the villagers gathered and they started searching near the river. Around 9'o clock Bakhtawar and Jainarain Sharma, who went on the east side of the river among the tall grasses, discovered the dead body of his son and his clothes. He suspected that someone has killed his son. On the basis of the said report the police chalked out a former FIR, FIR No. 226/2000, and commenced the investigation. On the same day, the appellant was arrested as some of the witnesses had stated that they had seen the deceased on the last occasion with the appellant. Eventually, the police filed a charge-sheet for the offences under Section 377 and 302 IPC against the appellant. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined 15 witnesses and submitted 29 documents. Although the defence did not examine any witness, but it did submit the statement of Bakhtawar recorded under section 161 Cr. P. C. as a document. AFter considering the oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial court was pleased to convict and sentence the appellant as aforementioned. Hence this appeal before us.

(3.) THEREFORE, while appreciating the evidence in the present case we need to consider whether the prosecution has established the individual links of the circumstances by cogent evidence and whether these circumstances unerringly point to the appellant's guilt.