JUDGMENT 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar, the appellant named above preferred this appeal on the ground mentioned in the memo of appeal as also argued at the time of final hearing of the appeal. 2. Facts giving rise to the prosecution stated briefly are that on 9.8.1994 at about 7.00 a.m Bachchu Ram PW 1 lodged the first information report which was later on exhibited as Ex. R 2 in the Kotwali, Police Station, Sri Ganganagar City where he mentioned that he is working as Chawkidar and in the night of 8th August, 1994 left for his duty at about 10.30 in the night leaving his wife and son sleeping outside the house. At about 11.00 p.m., he came back to fill up water in the house and found the wife and son sleeping. When he returned at 12.30 in the night, he again found the wife and son sleeping. He has then said that when he came finally at 4.15 in the morning, he found his son sleeping on the cot outside the house, the house door was partially open and when he went inside the house, he found the wife lying dead, her clothes were disarrayed and therefore, he feels that his wife has been killed by some unknown person. On the basis of this information, investigation was commenced by the police and the accused was prosecuted. The accused was arrested on 9th August, 1994 at 8.00 p.m. vide Ex.R 8. It was found that there are certain injuries on the person of the accused. Ultimately, the matter was committed to sessions and evidence of as many as 10 witnesses was recorded. The witnesses prove certain documents on perusal of which along with the oral testimony, the learned Judge came to the conclusion of guilt as aforesaid and convicted the accused of having committed rape and murder punishable under Secs. 376 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It is this order which is assailed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused on the ground that there is no evidence enough to convict the accused, the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence and the circumstantial evidence does not establish beyond reasonable doubt the involvement and guilt of the accused in commission of the crime. 3. It is this order which is assailed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused on the ground that there is no evidence enough to convict the accused, the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence and the circumstantial evidence does not establish beyond reasonable doubt the involvement and guilt of the accused in commission of the crime. Several questions remain unanswered and consequently, reasonable doubt is created regarding correctness of the order of conviction and therefore, order be set aside and the accused by acquitted. 4. Opposing the appeal, the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the circumstantial evidence has enough intrinsic quality and is liable to be accepted. It has been correctly accepted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and there is therefore, no need to interfere. 5. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Public Prosecutor, we have re-appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record and re-scrutinised the entire evidence. 6. PW 1 Bachchu Ram is the complainant who lodged the first information report and who was the husband of the deceased Laxmi. He has deposed that in the night of the incident, he left at about 10.30 in the night to work as Chawkidar leaving behind his wife and son sleeping outside the room, while going, he had locked the outer gate. He returned at 11.00 in the night to fill up the water in the house, he put a container below the tap and left back for duty. He again returned at 1.30 in the night to change the filled container and found the wife and son sleeping on the bed. He has then deposed that he came at 2.30 in the night towards the plot and found the lock intact and therefore, returned to his duty without entering the plot. He then deposes that after finishing his duty, he came back and opened the lock and found the son sleeping on the cot, saw the door of the room partially opened and entered the room to find his wife lying on the floor. He, therefore, lighted a match stick to examine the wife when he found her neck tied to a saree, her clothes were disarrayed, her mouth and nose were bleeding and there was bleeding also from her vagina. He, therefore, lighted a match stick to examine the wife when he found her neck tied to a saree, her clothes were disarrayed, her mouth and nose were bleeding and there was bleeding also from her vagina. Seeing this condition of the wife, the witness informed his neighbour and then lodged the first information report. The witness has then deposed about the incident which occurred three days prior to the killing when the accused along with two others had come to the house of the witness and they being all Nepalies. They consumed liquor and had non-vegetarian lunch. The accused Tej Bahadur and Kishan Bhakt started quarrelling between each other, therefore, witness went out to call on Sudarshan to pacify the quarrel, on being told, he said that he cannot come. The witness then returned home to find both accused and Kishan Bhakt sleeping in the house and Tej Bahadur was lying naked. The wife deceased Laxmi said to the witness that why should you bring such drinkers home. The cross-examination of this witness does not reveal any infirmity on the basis of which the witness could be disbelieved. The witness has given truthful account of what he has seen and what happened prior to the homicidal death of his wife. 7. PW 2 Ram Raja is the brother of complainant Bachchu Ram and he speaks nothing. PW 3 Badri Bahadur is another Nepali who visited the scene of occurrence immediately after he was told about it. He has deposed that he was told at 6.00 in the morning that wife of Bachchu Ram has been killed and therefore, he came to the house with him. The police arrived on the scene of occurrence thereafter and he entered the room along with police, when he saw the wife of Bachchu Ram lying on the floor, her neck tied in a saree and her clothes were disarrayed, her mouth was bleeding so was her vagina. He has deposed to the body having abrasion marks. He has not been cross-examined. He has thus, witnessed what occurred immediately after the death was reported and has deposed to the condition of the body in which the body was found. He speaks of the body, disclosing evidence of violence and rape. The testimony of this witness who has not been cross-examined, cannot therefore, be rejected. 8. He has not been cross-examined. He has thus, witnessed what occurred immediately after the death was reported and has deposed to the condition of the body in which the body was found. He speaks of the body, disclosing evidence of violence and rape. The testimony of this witness who has not been cross-examined, cannot therefore, be rejected. 8. The deposition of PW 4 Sudarshan is also to the same effect as that of PW 3. He visited the scene of occurrence immediately after he was told about it and discovered the dead body in the same condition as was discovered by PW 3. This witness was also a punch witness to the recovery of certain items. He saw a watch with broken glass and without belt lying on the scene. He is a witness to the arrest of the accused Tej Bahadur and is also a witness to the discovery of the belt and glass of the watch found on the scene of offence from the house of the accused. His cross-examination Is wholly inconsequential. There is therefore, no reason why the deposition of this -witness should be disbelieved. 9. PW 5 Dr. O.P. Sharma is the person who conducted the post mortem of the deceased as also examined the accused on 10.8.1994. He has deposed that the accused sustained following injuries : (i) Abrasion on the hand; (ii) Abrasion on the back towards left; (iii) Abrasion on the back towards right; (iv) Blunt mark below left rib; (v) Abrasion and injury mark on the left chest; (vi) Abrasion on the left rib; (vii) Abrasion on the shoulder; (viii) Abrasion on the left chick; (ix) Abrasion lining below the left eye; (x) Abrasion on the right chick and (xi) Abrasion on the face towards left. 10. There is no cross-examination of the Doctor on this point. The injuries described above speak volumes and unmistakably point out towars involvement of the accused in the assault on the deceased, such injuries can be caused in a scuffle that arise in rape cases. Each of the resistances of the woman and the injuries as are disclosures on her persons also correspond to violence committed by the accused in order to satisfy his lust. Each of the resistances of the woman and the injuries as are disclosures on her persons also correspond to violence committed by the accused in order to satisfy his lust. The evidence of this Doctor thus corroborates testimony of PW 1, 3 and 4 is enough to come to the conclusion that deceased Laxmi met homicidal death and the accused was responsible for the same. 11. PW 6 Shri Chain Singh is the Police Inspector who recorded the first information report as also made the spot punchnama and arrested the accused. He has proved the documents. He has also proved the recovery of belt and glass of the watch found on the scene of offence from the room of the accused Tej Bahadur. 12. PW 7 Mohan Lal is the person who took articles for analysis to the Forensic Science Laboratory. PW 8 Het Ram was Malkhana Incharge and speaks of its custody being safe with him. PW 9 Kishan Khaliwal is declared hostile. PW 10 is also declared hostile. It was on the basis of these two witnesses who have been declared hostile, it was pointed out that the evidence is not duly corroborated by independent witness and therefore, is liable to be rejected. 13. Having considered the evidence on record as discussed above, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove involvement of the accused in commission Of rape and murder of the deceased as has been held by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. We have also scrutinised the impugned judgment of the learned Judge and we agree with the reasons given by him for coming to the conclusion of guilt. Even on re-appreciation as has been done by us as above, we are of the view that the evidence on record in the shape of testimony of PWs. 1, 3 and 4 that certain items were recovered at the instance of accused from his premises. The injuries on the person of the accused and the deceased proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused sustained those injuries while raping the victim. An attempt has been made on the part of the accused to explain these injuries as having been caused by police beating. However, in our opinion, this is clearly after thought. The injuries on the person of the accused and the deceased proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused sustained those injuries while raping the victim. An attempt has been made on the part of the accused to explain these injuries as having been caused by police beating. However, in our opinion, this is clearly after thought. The accused did not disclose to the Magistrate before him, he was produced after arrest that he has been beaten by the Police, Even thereafter, no complaint was made to the learned Sessions Judge and it is only his deposition under Section 313 of the Cr.RC. that speaks of police beating. In such circumstances, we are convinced that the order of conviction as recorded by the learned Sessions Judge needs no interference. 14. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******