Indira Banerjee JUDGMENT
Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The First Additional Sessions Judge, Maihar, District Satna, Madhya Pradesh in Special Sessions Trial No. 41 of 2015 vide judgment dated 06.08.2015 convicted the Accused/Appellant for the offences punishable Under Sections 363, 376(A), 302 and 201(II) of the Indian Penal Code (in short "the IPC") and Section 5(i)(m) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short "the POCSO Act") and sentenced him to death.
3. The judgment of the Trial Court was confirmed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur vide its judgment and order dated 03.03.2016 in Criminal Reference No. 5 of 2015 and in Criminal Appeal No. 2203 of 2015, except in respect of the offence Under Section 363 Indian Penal Code which means the Accused was acquitted Under Section 363 Indian Penal Code by the High Court.
These appeals are presented by the convicted accused.
4. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 23.02.2015, PW4 (the elder brother of the victim's father) came over from his village to drop the victim child to school in a vehicle bearing Registration No. MP 19 T 2374, owned and driven by the Accused/Appellant. PW4, on the assurance of the Accused/Appellant that he would go along with the victim child to her school, as he had to pay his own daughter's fees, alighted from the vehicle near the Sabzi Mandi. The child went along with the Accused/Appellant towards her school in the vehicle, but did not return home that day. Despite a frantic search by her parents, relatives and the villagers, the victim child could not be traced. The father of the deceased suspected that the Accused/Appellant had left his daughter somewhere else, however, the first information report (Ext. P1) came to be lodged against an unknown offender and the Accused/Appellant was apprehended after two days. After the trial, as mentioned supra, the Accused/Appellant was convicted by the Trial Court and the order of conviction was confirmed by the High Court.
5. Shri Mrigandra Singh, learned senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Accused/Appellant, took us through the material on record, and submitted that the case of the prosecution mainly rests on the last seen circumstance, but the said circumstance has not been duly proved. This is because grave suspicion arises against PW4 also, having regard to the evidence of PW5 Ramji Shukla. He also submits that the evidence that led to the recovery of the dead body based on the confession of the Accused/Appellant is liable to be rejected on the ground ........