CHHAGAN LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the judgment dated 19.2.2003 passed by learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Kama in sessions case No. 165/2002 whereby the accused -appellant Chhagan Lal was convicted and sentenced as under:

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution case is that one Nazar Khan, resident of P.S. Pahadi submitted a written report on 12.9.98 at 11.00 AM to the Station House Officer, P.S. Pahadi, District -Bharatpur who had reached to the place of occurrence on receiving information about a dead body lying in a well at village Pahadi. In the report, it was reported by Nazar Khan that on 11.9.98, his niece Ruksina, aged 8 years, had gone to graze goats in nearby jungle as usual. When he was returning to his house at about 5.00 PM in the evening, her niece Ruksina was sighted grazing goats in the nearby jungle. At that time, one Chhaganlal son of Chota was also grazing his catties there. When deceased Ruksina did not return to home until 7.00 PM, he got worried and tried to search her in the village but he did not get any clue of her whereabouts. On 12.9.98 in the morning, Roojdar (PW -3) and Jeewan (PW -2) informed him that when they were returning from their field in the preceding night at about 2.00 AM, they heard a sound of something being thrown in the Well. There they met Chhagan and on seeing him, they thought that some stone could have been thrown by him in the Well. They asked Chhagan as to what he was doing there in the dead of night, he told that he was searching his lost goats. So Sami Khan (PW -9), Moobil Khan (PW -4) and Nazar Khan (PW -8) called Chhagan in the morning and inquired about Ruksina. Then Chhagan confessed before them that he first committed rape with Ruksina in the nearby 'Jawar' field and when she became unconscious, he had threw her in the Well. On receipt of this report containing above' facts, the same was sent by Uttam lal, SHO to the Police Station for registering the case.

(3.) IT is contended on behalf of the accused -appellant that evidence pertaining to extra judicial confession adduced by the prosecution is a very weak type of evidence as the extra judicial confession has not been made voluntarily because the accused appellant was beaten by the villagers including witnesses to extract the confession. It has further been contended that rest of the evidence led by the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and the circumstance proved do not complete the chain so as to bring home the guilt of the accused -appellant beyond doubt.