S. I. JAFRI, J. ( 1 ) JUMMAN Khan, aged about 25 years, professionally a Rickshaw puller, resident of Mohalla Ramgarh Gaddha, Firozabad, district Agra, has filed this appeal against his conviction under Section 302 and 376 I. P. C. and sentences of death and imprisonment for life under the aforesaid Sections of the Penal Code, passed by Sri Vishnu Dutta Dubey, 11th Additional Sessions Judge, Agra in Sessions Trial No. 367 of 1984 by his judgment and order dated 30/11/1984. ( 2 ) IT was stated by the prosecution that the appellant Jumman Khan was Jiving in a rented house in the neighbourhood of the complainant Ausaf Khan lying at about a distance of 30 paces from the house of complainant Ausaf Khan. ( 3 ) THE case of the prosecution is that on 22nd June, 1983 at about 4 P. M. while Ausaf Khan was away on his work in the factory of his employer in the Town of Firozabad, District Agra, appellant Jumman Khan, went to the house of his neighbour Ausaf Khan at about 4 P. M. , and at that time Smt. Dulhey Khan Begum, wife of Ausaf Khan complainant was present in the house alongwith her minor children. The appellant met Smt. Dulhey Khan P. W. 7 and requested her to allow her daughter Km. Sakina aged about 6 years to go outside for bringing him the ice from a nearby shop Smt. Dulhey Khan Begum acceded to the request made by the appellant and asked her daughter Km. Sakina to go outside for bringing the ice for the appellant and consequently Km. Sakina went outside from her house in the company of the appellant for bringing the ice. ( 4 ) SMT. Dulhey Khan Begum after sending Km. Sakina in the company of the appellant for bringing him the ice, fell asleep and when she woke up after about an hour, she did not find her daughter, Km. Sakina in the house. She first thought that Km. Sakina might be playing with other children outside the house but as the time passed by, she grew apprehensive and came outside to find out Km. Sakina but she was not seen outside her house. She also looked towards the direction of the house of Jumman appellant but it was locked from outside. She first thought that Km. Sakina might be playing with other children outside the house but as the time passed by, she grew apprehensive and came outside to find out Km. Sakina but she was not seen outside her house. She also looked towards the direction of the house of Jumman appellant but it was locked from outside. At about 7 P. M. when Ausaf Khan P. W. 1 came back to his house after days work, his wife Smt. Dulhey Khan Begum told her husband that the appellant had come to her house at about 4 P. M. and had requested her to send Km. Sakina to bring ice for him from the nearby shop, whereupon, she had sent Km. Sakina in the company of the appellant for that purpose but since than she had not returned. Ausaf Khan complainant went outside his house in search of his daughter and then he was told by his neighbour Habib P. W. 3 that at about 4. 30 P. M. , while he was passing through in front of the house of the appellant, he bad noticed Km. Sakina entering the house of the appellant with ice wrapped in a cloth and the appellant was taking her inside his house by holding her hand. While Ausaf Khan was talking with Habib Khan P. W. 3 a number of persons including Inayat Khan, Ishtiyak Khan, also collected there. Inayat Khan P. W. 4, told Ausaf Khan that at about 5 P. M. while he was passing through near the house of appellant, he had heard the screams of a child coming out from the house of the appellant and at that time, the door of the house of the appellant was dosed from inside. Thereafter, the complainant and the witnesses who had assembled there, went to the house of the appellant which was found locked from outside. They peeped inside the house by means of a torch through the crevices as it was dark inside the house and they had noticed that the body of Km. Sakina deceased was lying on a cot wrapped in a Burqa (veil) inside the room. Thereafter, the door of the room was opened by taking out the lock from the latch and the dead body was found lying on a cot as noticed before. ( 5 ) AFTER the dead body of Km. Sakina deceased was lying on a cot wrapped in a Burqa (veil) inside the room. Thereafter, the door of the room was opened by taking out the lock from the latch and the dead body was found lying on a cot as noticed before. ( 5 ) AFTER the dead body of Km. Sakina deceased was found inside the room of the appellant, Ausaf Khan complainant got a report of the occurrence scribed by Rais Ahmad and left for the Police Station Firozabad (North) and handed over his written report to the Head Constable Ram Nath P. W. 12 who prepared the chik report at 10. 40 P. M. the same night. The Head Constable also registered a case in the general diary of the Police Station under Sees. 302 and 376, Indian Penal Code against the appellant. ( 6 ) THE Station Officer of Police Station Firozabad North R. P. Sharma P. W. 14 was present at the Police Station at the time of registration of the aforesaid case. He immediately took up the investigation of the case and recorded the statement of the complainant Ausaf Khan at the Police Station. He reached the place of occurrence at about mid-night and found the dead body of Km. Sakina wrapped in a Burqa (veil) lying on a cot inside the room of the appellant. However, he deferred the preparation of the inquest on the dead body of the deceased for the next morning for want of sufficient light on the spot. Next morning, the inquest on the dead body of the deceased was carried out by the Sub. Inspector Radhey Shyam Sharma on the instructions of R. P. Sharma P. W. 14. After the conclusion of the inquest, the dead body of Km. Sakina was despatched to the mortuary for postmortem examination through constables Het Singh P. W. 12 and Ramvir Singh. R. P. Sharma P. W. 14 recorded the statement of the witnesses and he also made hectic search for the appellant but he was not found. ( 7 ) DR. R. C. Choudhary P. W. 6 conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased at 3 P. M. on 23. 6. 1982. He found the following ante-mortem injuries on the person of the deceased. 1. Contusion 12 cm. x 5. cm. in front of neck below B over the thyroid cartilage. 2. ( 7 ) DR. R. C. Choudhary P. W. 6 conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased at 3 P. M. on 23. 6. 1982. He found the following ante-mortem injuries on the person of the deceased. 1. Contusion 12 cm. x 5. cm. in front of neck below B over the thyroid cartilage. 2. Vulva are contused, vagina lacerated, by men ruptured. ( 8 ) ON internal examination, both the lungs of the deceased were found deeply congested. he also found, pleura, larynx, trachea, pericardium, congested and tongue protruding out. ( 9 ) ACCORDING to the Doctor the cause of death was due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation. ( 10 ) THE vaginal smear was also taken for examination and after examination, it was found to contain few dead sperms and epithul cells. ( 11 ) THE Doctor opined that the deceased was raped before being strangulated to death. He also stated that the death of the deceased was probable at about 5 P. M. on 22. 6. 1983. ( 12 ) DURING the course of investigation, R. P. Sharma, P. W. 4 on getting a tip-off about the where about of the appellant, rushed to Aligarh in search of the appellant and the appellant was ultimately arrested at about 6 P. M. on 25. 1. 1982 at Kathpula intersection (Choraha ). ( 13 ) THE Investigating Officer R. P. Sharma also recorded the statement of Mohd. Akhtar Khan P. W. 9 who stated that the appellant had made an extra judicial confession of his guilt before him at Aligarh that he had raped Km. Sakina in his room and had also strangulated her to death. ( 14 ) AFTER completing the investigation, R. P. Sharma P. W. 14 filed charge-sheet Ex. Kha. 12 in the court against the appellant. ( 15 ) THERE is no eye-witness of the occurrence in this case. The conviction of the appellant solely rests on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution had led evidence before the trial court for establishing the various links of the circumstances in order to bring home the charges of rape and murder to appellant. 12 in the court against the appellant. ( 15 ) THERE is no eye-witness of the occurrence in this case. The conviction of the appellant solely rests on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution had led evidence before the trial court for establishing the various links of the circumstances in order to bring home the charges of rape and murder to appellant. The learned Sessions Judge after appraising the evidence adduced by the prosecution before him, had come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt and he has, therefore, convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 376, Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to death the transportation for life under the aforesaid Sections of the Penal Code respectively. ( 16 ) IN support of its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses in all. As stated earlier the conviction of the appellant solely rests on the circumstantial evidence, besides the extra judicial confession of the appellant which he had made before Mohd. Akhtar P. W. 9. ( 17 ) SMT. Dulhey Khan Begum P. W. 7 is the mother of the unfortunate girl Km. Sakina deceased and also the wife of complainant Ausaf Khan. She deposed that at about 1 year and 6 months before Jumman appellant, who was her neighbour, came to her house at about 4 P. M. and requested her to sent her daughter Km. Sakina with him for bringing the ice for him from the nearby shop. She also deposed that the appellant had kept a concubine Smt. Mumtaz alongwith her two children in his house but about 4 or 5 days prior to the present occurrence the appellant had turned her out along with her children from his house after giving her beating. She also stated that the appellant being her neighbour was also on visiting terms to her house and suspecting no foul play on his part, she had allowed her daughter Km. Sakina to go in the company of the appellant for bringing ice for him from the nearby shop. She further stated that at that time her husband Ausaf Khan was away to his factory and there was no male member in the house except the minor children. Smt. Dulhey Begum further deposed that after the departure of her daughter Km. Sakina to go in the company of the appellant for bringing ice for him from the nearby shop. She further stated that at that time her husband Ausaf Khan was away to his factory and there was no male member in the house except the minor children. Smt. Dulhey Begum further deposed that after the departure of her daughter Km. Sakina, in the company of the appellant, she fell asleep and when she woke up after about an hour, she did not find her daughter in the house. She then though that Km. Sakina might be playing outside the house with other children but as the time ticked away, she grew apprehensive and looked for her daughter outside the house but she was not there. She further stated that when she threw a look towards the house of the appellant, she found the house locked from outside. On return of her husband from the factory at about 7 P. M. she then told to him all about Km. Sakina Ausaf Khan complainant, thereupon, went outside the house in search of his daughter and after sometime, she was informed that her daughter Km. Sakina was found dead in the room of the appellant. There is not an iota of doubt in her statement to discredit or disbelieve her statement; she had categorically stated that the appellant had come to her house at about 4 P M. on the day of occurrence and had taken away her daughter Km. Sakina on the pretext of getting him ice from a nearby-shop. We have very carefully and cautiously gone through her statement and we feel that her evidence is most natural and inspires confidence. There is no trace of any enmity or bad blood whatsoever between the appellant and Smt. Dulhey Khan Begum. However, it was suggested to her that she was related to Smt. Mumtaz, concubine of the appellant who was turned out by the appellant 4 days prior to the present occurrence. Smt. Dulhey Khan Begum had repelled the suggestion that she had falsely nominated the appellant on account of Smt. Mumtaz. However, it was suggested to her that she was related to Smt. Mumtaz, concubine of the appellant who was turned out by the appellant 4 days prior to the present occurrence. Smt. Dulhey Khan Begum had repelled the suggestion that she had falsely nominated the appellant on account of Smt. Mumtaz. It may be noted that in an answer to question No. 22, the appellant had admitted that he had turned out from his house Smt. Mumtaz 3 or 4 days prior to the occurrence and this admission fully goes to establish that at the time of occurrence, there was no one in the house except the appellant himself and it is, therefore, probable that Smt. Dulhey Khan Begum had allowed her daughter Km. Sakina to bring ice for the appellant from the nearby shop as there was no one else in the house of the appellant on the day of occurrence. Nothing material has been brought out by the defence in her cross-examination which may render her evidence doubtful. We therefore, hold that the appellant had taken with him Km. Sakina from her house at about 4 or 4. 30 P. M. on the day of occurrence on the pretext of bringing ice for him from the nearby shop. ( 18 ) MALKHAN P. W. 10 shop-keeper, stated that his shop is situated at a distance of 40 to 50 steps away from the house of the complainant Ausaf Khan. He deposed that about 1 year and 4 months before at about 4 P. M. Km. Sakina had come to his shop and had purchased ice and, thereafter, she had gone away. He further stated that Km. Sakina often used to come to his shop to purchase ice, biscuits and other small articles and he knew her well from before the occurrence. He further stated that at about 8 P. M. the same day he came to know of the death of the deceased. Km. Sakina Malkhan P. W. 10 is an independent witness. No infirmity has been show by the defence in his statement to discredit his testimony. So, therefore, hold that Km. Sakina went to the shop of Malkhan at about 4 P. M. and had purchased the ice from his shop and she had returned from his shop with the ice wrapped in a cloth. No infirmity has been show by the defence in his statement to discredit his testimony. So, therefore, hold that Km. Sakina went to the shop of Malkhan at about 4 P. M. and had purchased the ice from his shop and she had returned from his shop with the ice wrapped in a cloth. ( 19 ) P. W. 11 Ishtiyak Khan corroborated the statement of Malkhan P. W. 10. He stated that his house is at a distance of 20 paces from the shop of Malkhan, and about 1 year and 5 months before, while he was purchasing Bidi at the shop of Malkhan, he had noticed Km. Sakina purchasing the ice from the shop of Malkhan and he had also seen her going towards the house of Jumman appellant with ice in his hand. Ishtiyak Khan is also an independent witness and we do not find anything material in his evidence to doubt this testimony. ( 20 ) INAYAT Khan P. W. 4 stated that about 1 year and five months before, at about 5 P. M. while he was passing through near the house of appellant on his way back from the brick-kiln after days work, he has heard the screams of a child coming out from the house of the appellant, and he had noticed that the door of the house of the appellant was bolted from inside. He also stated that at that time, he did not take any notice of it and moved on towards his house. He further stated that at about 7 of 7. 15 P. M. when he came out of his house, he went near the house of Ausaf Khan complainant, who was being told by Habib Khan that at about 5 P. M. , he had see Km. Sakina at about 5 P. M. going inside the house of Jumman Khan appellant and the appellant at that time was holding her hand. He on bearing the conversation also told Ausaf Khan that while be was returning after days work from the brick-kiln at about 5 P. M. , he bad heard the screams of child coming out from the house of the appellant. He further stated that in the meantime, a number of persons namely, Gulfam, Rqis, Sharif, Pappu etc. He on bearing the conversation also told Ausaf Khan that while be was returning after days work from the brick-kiln at about 5 P. M. , he bad heard the screams of child coming out from the house of the appellant. He further stated that in the meantime, a number of persons namely, Gulfam, Rqis, Sharif, Pappu etc. , arrived there and they all had gone to the house of the appellant Jumman Khan which was locked from outside but on seeing through the crevices of the door inside the room of the appellant with the help of a torch of Ausaf Khan, the dead body of Km. Sakina was see lying on a cot. He further stated that the lock of the room was taken out through the latch and all of them went inside the room where the dead body of the deceased was found wrapped in a Burqa as noticed before. Inayat Khan is also a witness of the same locality and he is a most natural witness together with being independent. Nothing material has been brought out by the defence in his cross-examination to discredit his testimony. His evidence also inspires confidence. ( 21 ) SHARAFAT Khan P. W. 8 is a close neighbour of the appellant and he is also one of the tenants of the house in which the appellant was residing at the time of the occurrence. Sharafat Khan had deposed that on the day of occurrence, no other tenant was living in the house which was occupied by him and. the appellant. He stated that about 1 year and five months before the occurrence, he was sitting in front of his house under a that (Chhappar) and be had seen the appellant locking the door of his house from outside at about 5. 15 P. M. and going away with a p0th in his hand. He further stated that he enquired from the appellant as to where ht: was going but at that time Jumman Khan appeared to be perplexed. However, he replied that he had no time and he would talk to him later-on. Sharafat Khan further stated that he, then, went to Bazar and when he came back at about 8 P. M. he was informed that Jumman Khan appellant had not only raped Km. However, he replied that he had no time and he would talk to him later-on. Sharafat Khan further stated that he, then, went to Bazar and when he came back at about 8 P. M. he was informed that Jumman Khan appellant had not only raped Km. Sakina but also had killed her and had made good his escape, leaving behind the dead body of Km. Sakina inside his room. Sharafat Khan is a natural witness. His presence at his house is probable. His evidence is not natural and inspires confidence. Nothing material has been shown by the defence to doubt his testimony. We have very carefully gone through his evidence and we hold that the appellant had locked the door of his house from outside at about 5 P. M. in the presence of Sharafat Khan, P. W. 5 and had made good his escape. ( 22 ) HABIB Khan P. W. 3 who also resides in Ramgarh Gadha, deposed that about 1 and 5 months since, while he was passing through in front of the house of Ausaf Khan complainant, he had seen Km. Sakina, daughter of Ausaf Khan aged about six years going inside the house of appellant with the ice wrapped in hand-kerchief in her hand and the appellant at that time was taking her to his house by holding her hand. He further stated that he then went to his house and the same day at about 7 P. M. , complainant Ausaf Khan meet him near his house and he enquired about the whereabouts of his daughter Km. Sakina. Thereupon, he had told Ausaf Khan that at about 5 P. M. , he had seen the appellant Jumman Khan taking Km. Sakina to his house by holding her hand and at that time Km. Sakina was having ice in her hand wrapped in a cloth. Sakina. Thereupon, he had told Ausaf Khan that at about 5 P. M. , he had seen the appellant Jumman Khan taking Km. Sakina to his house by holding her hand and at that time Km. Sakina was having ice in her hand wrapped in a cloth. He further stated that while he was talking to Ausaf Khan, Inayat Khan P. W. 4 arrived there who also told Ausaf Khan that while be was coming back from his days work at the brick-kiln and passing through in front of the house of the appellant, he had heard the screams of a child coming out from the house of the appellant at about 5 P. M. Thereafter, a number of persons also reached there and they all went to the house of Jumman appellant and there with the help of a torch, they had noticed from the crevices of the door that the dead body of the deceased Km. Sakina was lying inside the room on a cot. He further stated that thereupon, the lock of the room was taken out through the latch and they all went inside the room and found the dead body of Km. Sakina lying on a cot wrapped in a Burqa as notified before, Habib Khan is also an independent witness. His evidence does not suffer from any material infirmity and it also inspires-confidence. He has no enmity with the appellant. He is also not related to the complainant Ausaf Khan No. enmity whatsoever has, even been suggested to him during cross-examination. He has fully corroborated the statement of Smt. Dulhey Khan Begum who had deposed that she had allowed her daughter to go in the company of the appellant for bringing ice from the appellant from the nearby shop. ( 23 ) AUSAF Khan P. W. 1 is the father of Km. Sakina deceased. He stated that on the day of occurrence, he was residing with his wife and children in the house of Gulfam in Mohalla Ramgarh Gadha as a tenant. He further stated that he was working in a factory and on that day, he had gone to his work at the factory. He further deposed that when he came back to his house at about 7. He further stated that he was working in a factory and on that day, he had gone to his work at the factory. He further deposed that when he came back to his house at about 7. P. M. he was told by his wife Smt. Dulhey Khan Begum that at about 4 P. M. , the appellant Jumman had come to her house and requested her to allow her daughter Km. Sakina to bring ice for him from the nearby shop whereupon, she had allowed Km. Sakina to go with the appellant. He further stated that Smt. Dulhey Khan Begum also told him that after the departure of his daughter Km. Sakina in the company of the appellant, she fell asleep and when she woke up after an hour she did not find her daughter in the house. She waited for sometime for her daughter but when Sakina did not return till late, she grew apprehensive and came outside the house and looked around but she was not seen anywhere. She also told Ausaf Khan that when she looked towards the house of the appellant, it was found locked from outside. Ausaf Khan further stated that on hearing the happening, he came out of his house and searched for his daughter Km. Sakina and he then met Habib Khan P. W. 3 outside his house who told him that he had seen the deceased girl going in the house of the appellant with the ice in her hand at about 5 p. m. Habib also told him that at that time, appellant was holding the hand of the deceased while taking her towards his house. He further stated that while he was being told by Habib Khan, Inayat Khan P. W. 4 also joined them in talks and told him that at about 5 P. M. when, he was passing through in front of the house of the appellant, he had heard the cries of a child coming out from the house of the appellant. He further stated that while he was being told by Habib Khan, Inayat Khan P. W. 4 also joined them in talks and told him that at about 5 P. M. when, he was passing through in front of the house of the appellant, he had heard the cries of a child coming out from the house of the appellant. Ausaf Khan further stated that in the meantime, a number of persons including Pappu, Gulafan, Raisa, and others had also reached there and they all jointly went to the house of the appellant which was found locked from outside and then with the help of a torch, they peeped inside there on through the crevices of the door, the dead body of the deceased was noticed lying on a cot inside the room. Thereupon, the lock of the door was taken out through the latch and all the persons assembled there, went inside the room and found the dead body of Km. Sakina lying on a cot wrapped in a Burqa as noticed before. Thereafter, he got the report of the occurrence scribed by Rais Khan and went to the Police Station Kotwali Firozabad North were he handed over his written report to the Head Constable. ( 24 ) THE statement of Ausaf Khan complainant fully finds corroboration from the statement of Dulhey Khan Begum P. W. 7, Habib Khan P. W. 3 and Inayat Khan P. W. 4. Nothing has been shown by the defence to discredit the testimony of Ausaf Khan. No enmity has been suggested to Ausaf Khan with the appellant. Under the circumstance, the evidence of Ausaf Khan P. W. 1 also inspires confidence. ( 25 ) THE last witness examined in this case, is Mohammad Akhtar P. W. 9 who stated that while he was at the house of Iftikhar Hussain one of his relation at Aligarh on 24. 6. 1983 the appellant had reached there and called him out of the house and made an extra judicial confession before him about his guilt stating that he had committed rape and killed the deceased. He further stated that the appellant pleaded for help from him in order to save him. The witness further stated that thereafter, he came-back to Firozabad next day and informed the Sub-Inspector about the statement which the appellant had confessed before him. Mohd. He further stated that the appellant pleaded for help from him in order to save him. The witness further stated that thereafter, he came-back to Firozabad next day and informed the Sub-Inspector about the statement which the appellant had confessed before him. Mohd. Akhtar had fully stood the test of cross-examination and nothing material has been shown by the defence to disbelieve his testimony. ( 26 ) IT is no doubt true that the extra judicial confession is weak type of evidence and much reliance cannot be placed if the statement of a witness fails to stand the test of reliability. No infirmity has been shown by the defence in his statement to doubt his testimony, and as such his evidence inspires confidence. He has no enmity with the appellant. There is no reason for him to have falsely stated about the extra-judicial confession made before him by the appellant about his guilt. We, therefore, are fully satisfied that the appellant had made a confession of his guilt before Mohd. Akhtar P. W. 9 at Aligarh as stated by the witness P. W. 9. It may be noted that the next day of the confession i. e. on 25. 6. 1983 the appellant was arrested at Kathpula Intersection (CHURAHA) Aligarh by R. P. Sharma P. W. 14. Therefore, the extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made before Mohd. Akhtar P. W. 9 at Aligarh, is probable. ( 27 ) THE prosecution has also examined Dr. R. C. Choudhary P. W. 6 who had conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. The Doctor had deposed that Km. Sakina was aged about six years at the time of post mortem examination and on the basis of the injuries found on the person of the deceased, he was of the opinion that Km. Sakina was not only raped but also was strangulated to death. The Doctor had deposed that Km. Sakina was aged about six years at the time of post mortem examination and on the basis of the injuries found on the person of the deceased, he was of the opinion that Km. Sakina was not only raped but also was strangulated to death. ( 28 ) THE prosecution case that the deceased was taken from the house in the presence of Smt. Dulhey Khan on the pretext of getting him ice from the nearby shop and, thereafter, she was taken into his house by the appellant where he had committed rape on her and strangulated her to death, is fully corroborated not only by the circumstantial evidence as stated by the witnesses examined in this case, but also by the medical evidence as stated by Doctor R. C. Choudhary P. W. 6. In this case, as shown above, there is a complete chain of circumstantial evidence which lead to the only inference of the guilt of the accused. All the links of the chain are quite intact and defence has absolutely failed to break the chain at any stage of the prosecution case. ( 29 ) MOREOVER, the investigation in this case is exemplary in its fairness and promptitude besides being above-board. We record our appreciation for the Investigating Officer Sri R. P. Sharma, Station Officer Police Station Kotwali Firozabad North Distt. Agra for conducting fair, impartial and prompt investigation in this case, which inspires confidence. ( 30 ) WE have devoted our anxious thoughts to the evidence recorded in this case and have very carefully and closely scrutinised the evidence of the witnesses produced in this case and, ultimately have come to the irresistible conclusion that the appellant had committed beastly act upon Km. Sakina a minor and helpless child and then, in order to cover up his misdeed, he had strangulated her to death. A complete chain of circumstantial evidence is fully established in this case by the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Besides this, there is an extra-judicial confession of the guilt of the appellant before an independent witness Mohd. Akhtar P. W. 9. This happens to be one of the rare of the rarest cases in which the only sentence which can be imposed upon the appellant is the death penalty taking into account the nature of the heinous offence. Besides this, there is an extra-judicial confession of the guilt of the appellant before an independent witness Mohd. Akhtar P. W. 9. This happens to be one of the rare of the rarest cases in which the only sentence which can be imposed upon the appellant is the death penalty taking into account the nature of the heinous offence. This was a pre-mediated rape accompanied by murder on an innocent child aged only about six years. ( 31 ) ONCE the pre-mediated rape followed by murder of a minor child is fully established by independent, cogent and reliable evidence, the court should not hesitate in imposing capital punishment upon the accused on the charge of murder so that the punishment may also act as deterrent to others. There is no reason in such cases which may warrant awarding of lesser sentence of life imprisonment to the accused. ( 32 ) THE prosecution therefore, has fully succeeded in proving its case by adducing independent, cogent and reliable evidence in this case. We are fully satisfied and are in complete agreement with the trial court that it was none else but the appellant who had taken Km. Sakina from her house on the pretext of getting him the ice and had out raged her modesty and, thereafter, he had strangulated her to death. ( 33 ) UNDER the circumstances, as discussed above, we uphold the conviction of the appellant under sections 202 and 276 Indian Penal Code. ( 34 ) NOW coming to the question of sentence, Sri Rama Shankar, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant may be awarded life imprisonment as the conviction rests solely on circumstantial evidence. We are not at all impressed by the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant that if there is no eyewitness in a murder case, the accused should not be awarded extreme penalty of death on the basis of circumstantial evidence. It has been rightly said that man may tell a lie but circumstances do not. ( 35 ) CONSIDERING the nature and most gruesome and beastly Act perpetrated by the appellant, the appellant deserves no leniency. He had committed pre-mediated rape on a helpless child aged about six years and he had gone to the extent of strangulating her to death. ( 36 ) IN the result, the appeal is dismissed. ( 35 ) CONSIDERING the nature and most gruesome and beastly Act perpetrated by the appellant, the appellant deserves no leniency. He had committed pre-mediated rape on a helpless child aged about six years and he had gone to the extent of strangulating her to death. ( 36 ) IN the result, the appeal is dismissed. The order of conviction and sentences as recorded by the trial Court is affirmed. The appellant is in Jail. The sentence of death awarded to the appellant shall be carried out according to law. ( 37 ) THE reference made by the learned Sessions Judge for the confirmation of the sentence of death awarded to the appellant is accepted. ( 38 ) BEFORE parting with the case, we observe that we are much impressed by fair, efficient and prompt conduct of the investigation in this case and we therefore record our appreciation for Sri R. P. Sharma, Investigating Officer of this case. ( 39 ) LET a copy of this judgment be sent to the Director General of Police, U. P. Lucknow. Death sentence confirmed. .