JUDGMENT - VISHNU SAHAI, J.:---Through this appeal, the appellant challenges the judgment and order dated 20-1-1995, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nandurbar, in Sessions Case No. 114/1992, whereby he has been convicted and sentenced in the manner stated hereinafter :--- (i) under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer R.I. for one year; (ii) under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer R.I. for one year; and (iii) under section 404 of the Indian Penal Code to one year's R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer R.I. for three months. The substantive sentences of the appellant have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. Shortly stated, the prosecution case runs as under : The deceased Rohini Vidya was daughter of Puna Mangesh Patil, P.W. 1. At the time of the incident, she was residing with her father and family members in village Kauthal, taluka Shahade, district Dhule. At the said time, she was studying in first year Arts at Lonkheda College. On 12-9-1992, some times in the morning, Rohini Vidya along with, her friend Neeta Patil, P.W. 3, who was also studying in the said college, went to the College. At that time, Rohini was putting Karnaphuli (ear ornaments), Nakphuli (nose ornament) and Kankudi (ear ornament). She was also putting on a wrist watch. At about 11.30 a.m., Rohini returned from the college. She told her father Puna Patil that her wrist watch had stopped and he should provide her a new wrist watch. After a few minutes, Puna Patil went off to sleep. At about 1 p.m., Rohini's mother asked her to prepare tea, whereupon Rohini replied that she would prepare the same after answering the call of nature. Thereafter, she left the house to answer the call of nature. When she did not return till about 2-2.30 p.m., Puna Patil's wife woke up Puna Patil and informed him that Rohini had not returned. Thereafter, Puna Patil, along with some others, started searching her. When after some time, he entered the plantation near Veer Stone, he noticed Rohini's chappal at some distance. He thereafter found Rohini's corpse at some distance from Veer Stone. Thereafter, Puna Patil, along with some others, started searching her. When after some time, he entered the plantation near Veer Stone, he noticed Rohini's chappal at some distance. He thereafter found Rohini's corpse at some distance from Veer Stone. He found, there were scratches on it and the ornaments and wrist watch, which Rohini was putting on, were missing. He brought Rohini's corpse to the courtyard of his house. There, her clothes were removed and she was given a bath. Thereafter, he proceeded to Police Station, Shahade, were he lodged his F.I.R. 3. The evidence of A.P.I. Kashinath Bharate, P.W. 18, shows that on 12-9-1992, Puna Patil lodged an oral F.I.R. at Shahade Police Station on the basis of which Criminal No. 110/1992 under sections 302 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. The said criminal was registered at about 9 p.m. on 12-9-1992. The evidence of A.P.I. Kashinath Bharate further shows that after recording the F.I.R., he commenced the investigation. He immediately proceed to the house of Puna Patil in village Kauthal and prepared inquest panchnama of the corpse and sent the corpse for autopsy. After receipt of post mortem report, he added section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. On 13-9-1992, he prepared the spot panchnama. On the pointing out of Puna Patil, from the place of the incident, he recovered a red colour slipper and a small container. The said recovery was made under a panchnama, Exhibit 18. That day, Sheelabai Patil, P.W. 2, aunt of the appellant, produced the petticoat of the deceased, which he seized under a panchnama, Exhibit 16. On 14-9-1992, one Onkar Patil produced a rag of cotton cloth, which was found around the neck of the corpse of the deceased. He seized it under a panchnama, Exhibit 25. A.P.I. Bharate sought the services of dog squad, which came on the evening of 14-9-1992. The cotton rag produced by Onkar Patil was given to the dog to smell and it led to the place of the incident and to the house Babadibai, the mother of the appellant. A detained panchnama, Exhibit 53 was prepared. He was convinced that it was the appellant, who had murdered the deceased and consequently, he started searching him. The cotton rag produced by Onkar Patil was given to the dog to smell and it led to the place of the incident and to the house Babadibai, the mother of the appellant. A detained panchnama, Exhibit 53 was prepared. He was convinced that it was the appellant, who had murdered the deceased and consequently, he started searching him. He arrested him on 15-9-1992 and on the same date, in the presence of public panch, Dilip Patil, P.W. 9, he seized the clothes which were on the person of the appellant, namely, a pant, a shirt and an underpant, under a panchnama, Exhibit 29. At the time of arrest of the appellant, he noticed injuries on his person. He, therefore, sent him for medical examination. 4. The appellant was medically examined by Dr. Ramkrishna Chaudhari, P.W. 11, who found following injuries on his person. (1) Abrasion on left cheek ½ x ¼" semi lunar crust formed, on removal of crust, it bleeds. (2) Bruise on left shoulder tip horizontally 2 x ½ x purple (brownish). (3) Three bruises on left clavicle horizontally ½ x ¼" brownish in colour. (4) Bruise on left back on upper border of scapula 1 x ¼" brown. (5) Abrasion on right arm ant. semi lunar in shape 1" crust formed, on removal it bleeds. (6) Abrasion on left clavicle at sternoclavicular joint 2" very thin semi lunar crust formed, on removal of crust, it bleeds. (7) Abrasion on right chest on 8th rib in midclavicular line 1" very thin semi lunar crust formed, on removal of crust, it bleeds. (8) Abrasion on left elbow post 1-½ x ¼" crust formed, on removal of crust, it bleeds. (9) Abrasion on right chest in ten space in ant. auxiliary line ½x very thin, crust formed, on removal of crust, it bleeds. (10) Abrasion on sternum at upper and 1" x very thin, crust formed, on removal of crust, it bleeds. (11) Abrasion on left back at the level of T 12 horizontally two in number, (i) 1-½ very thin (ii) 2 x very thin crust formed, on removal of crust it bleeds. (12) Abrasion on right knee joint ant. 2 x 1" crust formed, on removal of crust, it bleeds. (13) Abrasion on left knee joint ant. 1 x 1½" crust formed, on removal of crust it bleeds. (14) Abrasion on left ankle joint ant. (12) Abrasion on right knee joint ant. 2 x 1" crust formed, on removal of crust, it bleeds. (13) Abrasion on left knee joint ant. 1 x 1½" crust formed, on removal of crust it bleeds. (14) Abrasion on left ankle joint ant. 2 x ¼" crust formed, on removal it bleeds. 5. Reverting back to the investigation, we find that on 17-2-1992, during the course of interrogation, the appellant expressed his willingness to have the ornaments and the wrist watch, which he had removed from the person of the deceased Rohini, and which he had concealed in the field of Arjun Patil, P.W. 13, recovered. In the presence of pubic panchas, Sanjay Shankar, P.W. 10, and Harunbai Asmani, P.W. 12, he recorded the said willingness under a panchnama. Thereafter, A.P.I. Bharate, along with the said public panchas, the appellant and police personnel proceeded in a police jeep at about 7.30 a.m. to village Kauthal. At a distance of about one furlong, the appellant asked the jeep to be stopped. He along with A.P.I. Bharate and the public panchas went to the maize field of Arjun Patil, P.W. 13. At that time, Arjun Patil was also sitting in the said field. In the presence of the public panchas, Arjun Patil and A.P.I. Bharate, the appellant dug some earth and thereafter took out Karnaphule, Kanphull, Kankudi and a wrist watch. The said articles were seized under a panchnama. It is significant to point out that during investigation, they were shown to the informant Puna Patil, P.W. 1, and Sheelabai Patil, P.W. 2, the father and aunt respectively of the deceased, who identified them to be those of the deceased. It is pertinent to mention that the clothes of the deceased and the clothes recovered from the person of the appellant were sent by A.P.I. Bharate to the Chemical Analyst. On completion of investigation, A.P.I. Bharate submitted a charge-sheet against the appellant on 24-11-1992. 6. Going backwards, the autopsy on the corpse of the deceased Rohini Vidya was conducted on 13-9-1992 by Dr. Ramkrishna Vedu Patil, P.W. 11, who found on it the following antemortem injuries. (i) Abrasion on right knee ant. 1" x ¼" blood clot. (ii) Abrasion on left knee joint laterally ½" x ¼" blood clot. (iii) Abrasion on right thigh medially 3" below vagina ½ x ¼" blood clot semilunar. Ramkrishna Vedu Patil, P.W. 11, who found on it the following antemortem injuries. (i) Abrasion on right knee ant. 1" x ¼" blood clot. (ii) Abrasion on left knee joint laterally ½" x ¼" blood clot. (iii) Abrasion on right thigh medially 3" below vagina ½ x ¼" blood clot semilunar. (iv) Abrasion on vagina on lower angle 1" x ¼" blood clot placed vertically. (v) Abrasion on right labia minora ½ x ¼" blood clot. (vi) Hymen ruptured and blood clot on ruptured hymen. (vii) Abrasion on left vaginal wall 1 x ¼" blood clot and bleeding in vagina. (viii) Abrasion and bruise on neck ant. just above thyroid cartilage spread over 6 x 1" bruises six in number, red and blood clot at places. Abrasions are semi lunar in shape and ½" in length and 10 in number. Bruises are red subcutaneous tissue is congested. The veins at the neck congested, enlarged and blood clot in muscle of neck. (ix) Abrasion on left trapezes ½ x ¼" blood clot semi lunar. (x) Abrasion on left elbow post 1 x ¼" blood clot. (xi) Abrasion on right thumb ¼ x ¼" blood clot. (xii) Abrasion on left wrist ¼" x ¼" blood clot. In the opinion of Dr. Chaudhari, the injuries were caused by a hard and blunt object and semi lunar abrasions probably by nail marks. Their age was fresh. In the opinion of Dr. Chaudhari, the deceased died on account of asphyxia due to throttling. 7. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions in the usual manner, where the appellant was charged for the offences for which he has been found guilty by the learned trial Judge. He pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. His defence was of denial. During trial, in all the prosecution examined 18 witnesses. 7. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions in the usual manner, where the appellant was charged for the offences for which he has been found guilty by the learned trial Judge. He pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. His defence was of denial. During trial, in all the prosecution examined 18 witnesses. We may straightaway mention that there is no eye-witness of the incident and the case hinges on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances being :--- (a) Recovery of ornaments, which were on the person of the deceased Rohini Vidya on 12-9-1992 (date of the incident) on the pointing out of the appellant from the field of Arjun Patil, P.W. 13, on 17-9-1992 in the presence of A.P.I. Bharate, P.W. 18, public panch Sanjay Shankar, P.W. 10, public panch Harunbai Asmani, P.W. 12, and Arjun Patil, P.W. 13; (b) Presence of injuries on the person of the appellant when he was apprehended on 15-9-1992; (c) Semen of the appellant being of 'A' group, according to the Chemical Analyst, and the presence of semen of 'A' group on the jangia and petticoat of the deceased, as per the report of the Chemical Analyst; and (d) On the date of the incident, the appellant who some times before the incident had left village Kauthal where the incident had taken place and had started living in village Malpura in the State of Madhya Pradesh, was seen in village Kauthal by Amrit, P.W. 5, Chagan, P.W. 6, Shantabai, P.W. 7 and Jadhao, P.W. 15, all residents of village Kauthal. The learned trial Judge accepted the evidence in respect of the said circumstances and convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner stated in paragraph 1. Hence this appeal. 8. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire evidence on record. We are constrained to observe that we do not find any merit in this appeal. We may mention that Mrs. Asha Rakh, learned Counsel for the appellant, expressed her inability to argue the appeal, as she has been appointed as Additional Public Prosecutor by the State of Maharashtra and, at our behest, she has argued the appeal. We made such a request, because the appellant is in jail from 15-9-1992 and we did not think it just and proper to adjourn the appeal. 9. We made such a request, because the appellant is in jail from 15-9-1992 and we did not think it just and proper to adjourn the appeal. 9. We have earlier mentioned that the case hinges on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances being :--- (a) Recovery of ornaments, which were on the person of the deceased Rohini Vidya on 12-9-1992 (date of the incident) on the pointing out of the appellant from the field of Arjun Patil, P.W. 13, on 17-9-1992 in the presence of A.P.I. Bharate, P.W. 18, public panch Sanjay Shankar, P.W. 10, public panch Harunbai Asmani, P.W. 12 and Arjun Patil, P.W. 13; (b) Presence of injuries on the person of the appellant when he was apprehended on 15-9-1992; (c) Semen of the appellant being of 'A' group, according to the Chemical Analyst, and the presence of semen of 'A' group on the jangia and petticoat of the deceased, as per the report of the Chemical Analyst; and (d) On the date of the incident, the appellant who some times before, the incident had left village Kauthal where the incident had taken place and had started living in village Malpura in the State of Madhya Pradesh, was seen in village Kauthal by Amrit, P.W. 5, Chagan, P.W. 6, Shantabai, P.W. 7 and Jadhao, P.W. 15, all residents of village Kauthal. 10. The most question is two fold, namely, (i) whether these circumstances have been firmly established; and (ii) whether they unerringly lead to the inference of guilt of the appellant. Our answer to both the questions is in the affirmative. 11. We now propose individually examining the evidence relating to each of the circumstances. We begin with circumstance (a), namely, Recovery of ornaments, which were on the person of the deceased Rohini Vidya on 12-9-1992 (date of the incident) on the pointing out of the appellant from the field of Arjun Patil, P.W. 13, on 17-9-1992 in the presence of A.P.I. Bharate, P.W. 18, public panch Sanjay Shankar, P.W. 10, public panch Harunbai Asmani, P.W. 12, and Arjun Patil, P.W. 13. In respect of this circumstance, we have the evidence of Puna Patil, P.W. 1, Sheelabai Patil, P.W. 2, Neeta Patil, P.W. 3, A.P.I. Bharate, P.W. 18, public panch Sanjay Shankar, P.W. 10, public panch Harunbai Asmani, P.W. 12 and Arjun Patil, P.W. 13. In respect of this circumstance, we have the evidence of Puna Patil, P.W. 1, Sheelabai Patil, P.W. 2, Neeta Patil, P.W. 3, A.P.I. Bharate, P.W. 18, public panch Sanjay Shankar, P.W. 10, public panch Harunbai Asmani, P.W. 12 and Arjun Patil, P.W. 13. The evidence of Puna Patil, Sheelabai Patil and Neeta Patil shows that the deceased used to always put on her person karnaphuli (ear ornament), kanphuli (nose ornament), kankudi (ear ornament) and a wrist watch. The evidence of Puna Patil, Sheelabai Patil and Neeta Patil shows that in the morning on 12-9-1992, the deceased with the said ornaments on her person and a wrist watch on her hand went to the college and returned therefrom at about 11.30 a.m. The evidence of Puna Patil shows that at about 1 p.m., the deceased went to answer the call of nature and when she did not return till about 2.30 p.m., his wife woke him up. Thereafter, he searched her and found her corpse near Veer Stone and the ornaments and the wrist watch were missing. The evidence of A.P.I. Bharate shows that on 17-9-1992, during the course of his interrogation, the appellant expressed his willingness to have the ornaments and the wrist watch of the deceased, which he had concealed in the maize field of Arjun Patil, P.W. 13, recovered. Consequently, he (A.P.I. Bharate) sent for public panchas, Sanjay Shankar, P.W. 10 and Harunbai Asmani, P.W. 12. In their presence, he recorded the aforesaid willingness of the appellant under a panchnama. Thereafter, he along with the appellant, the said public panchas and police personnel proceeded to the maize field of Arjun Patil. At about 8-8.30 a.m., the appellant took them inside the field. At that time, Arjun Patil, P.W. 13, was in the field. Thereafter, he dug some earth and therefrom took out the aforesaid ornaments, namely, karnaphuli, karnakudi, kankudi and a wrist watch. The said seizure was made under a panchnama. It is pertinent to mention that during investigation, the said ornaments and wrist watch were shown to Puna Patil and Sheelabai Patil, the father and aunt of the deceased respectively, and they identified them as those of the deceased. 12. The said seizure was made under a panchnama. It is pertinent to mention that during investigation, the said ornaments and wrist watch were shown to Puna Patil and Sheelabai Patil, the father and aunt of the deceased respectively, and they identified them as those of the deceased. 12. It is true that public panch Sanjay Shankar, P.W. 10, in his examination in chief stated that the appellant was not interrogated by the police in his presence nor in his presence expressed his willingness to have the ornaments and wrist watch recovered. It is also true that in cross-examination, he stated that the ornaments and the wrist watch were not recovered on the pointing out of the appellant in his presence from the maize field of Arjun Patil. However, in our view, even if the evidence of Sanjay Shankar, P.W. 10, is eliminated, there remains the credible evidence of A.P.I. Bharate, P.W. 18, public panch Harunbai Asmani, P.W. 12 and Arjun Patil, P.W. 13. We have gone through the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses and are constrained to observe that they were scantily cross-examined with respect to the aforesaid recovery of ornaments and the wrist watch and the said recoveries have not been rendered suspect in any manner from their cross-examination. It should be borne in mind that neither of these three witnesses had any rancour or ill will against the appellant and, in our view, in the absence of the same, would not have foisted the recovery on the appellant. Mrs. Rakh, learned Counsel for the appellant, urged that we should not place reliance on the recovery, because the recovery has been effected from an open place, namely, the maize field of Arjun Patil P.W. 13. We have examined her submission and have no compunction in observing that we find it to be devoid of substance. The evidence of the aforesaid witnesses clearly shows that although the said recovery was effected from a maize field, but it was not from an open place. Their evidence shows that the appellant, after entering the maize field, dug some earth and thereafter took out the ornaments and wrist watch. Hence, we reject the submission of Mrs. Rakh. 13. The evidence of the aforesaid witnesses clearly shows that although the said recovery was effected from a maize field, but it was not from an open place. Their evidence shows that the appellant, after entering the maize field, dug some earth and thereafter took out the ornaments and wrist watch. Hence, we reject the submission of Mrs. Rakh. 13. It is pertinent to mention that this circumstance was put to the appellant in his statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and he gave stock answer that the recovery was false; an answer which we are not prepared to accept on the face of credible evidence of A.P.I. Bharate, P.W. 18, public panch Harunbai Asmani, P.W. 12 and Arjun Patil, P.W. 13. 14. In our view, this circumstance is not only firmly established, but on its basis the presumption contained in section 114(a) of the Indian Evidence Act can be drawn against the appellant. The said provision provides that :--- "The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct, and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case. The Court may presume--- (a) that a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he account for his possession;" Since there was only a time gap of five days between the murder of the deceased and the recovery of the said ornaments and wrist watch, in our judgment, not only can it be inferred that the appellant committed offences punishable under sections 394 and 404 of the Indian Penal Code, but also that under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 15. 15. Our view is fortified by a decision of the Supreme Court reported in A.I.R. 1995 S.C. 1598, (Gulab Chand v. State of Madhya Pradesh)1, wherein some stolen articles were recovered from the house of the accused, at his instance, within 3 to 4 days of the murder, and the Supreme Court took the view that in the absence of any plausible explanation forthcoming from the side of the accused regarding the possession of the said articles, a presumption under section 114(a) of the Indian Evidence Act in terms that he had committed the murder of the deceased could be drawn against the accused. Consequently, on the said recovery, the Supreme Court sustained the conviction of the accused not only for the offences under sections 394 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code, but also for that under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In our view, the said decision is applicable on all fours to this case. 16. We now come to the next circumstance, namely circumstance (b), presence of injuries on the person of the appellant when he was apprehended on 15-9-1992. In respect of this circumstance, we have the evidence of A.P.I. Bharate, P.W. 18, public panch Dilip Patil, P.W. 9 and Dr. Ramkrishna Chaudhari, P.W. Patil. The evidence of A.P.I. Bharate, P.W. 18 and Dilip Patil, P.W. 9, shows that the appellant was arrested on 15-9-1992 and had injuries on his person. The evidence of A.P.I. Bharate shows that since there were injuries on the person of the appellant, he sent him for medical examination. The evidence of Dr. Ramkrishna Chaudhari, P.W. 11, shows that he medically examined the appellant vide Exhibit 35 and found on his person 14 injuries, which we have enumerated earlier. In his statement in the trial Court, Dr. Chaudhari stated that the injuries on the back of the deceased Rohini were possible, because of resistance at the time of commission of rape. He also stated that the remaining abrasions were possible as a result of thorny bushes. It is common knowledge that when a victim is being ravished, she resists with all her might. In view of such a probability, the evidence of Dr. Chaudhari, P.W. 11, that the injuries on the back of the deceased were the result of resistance on the part of the victim appears to be probable. It is common knowledge that when a victim is being ravished, she resists with all her might. In view of such a probability, the evidence of Dr. Chaudhari, P.W. 11, that the injuries on the back of the deceased were the result of resistance on the part of the victim appears to be probable. In our view, the other injuries on the person of the appellant could also have been caused as a result of resistance on the part of the deceased not only when the appellant was trying to ravish her, but also when he was trying to throttle her. 17. Mrs. Rakh, learned Counsel for the appellant, strenuously contended that neither in his examination in chief nor in the injury report prepared by him. Dr. Chaudhari, P.W. 11, has mentioned the age of the injuries. She, therefore, urged that these injuries cannot be correlated with the murder of the deceased and the rape on her. On the first blush, her submission appeared to be attractive. But, on a deeper scrutiny, we found that it was devoid of substance. We may this because in his cross-examination, Dr. Chaudhari, P.W. 11, stated that on account of oversight, he had not mentioned the age of injuries in the injury report, Exhibit 35, but he had recorded the same in the medicolegal register, which he had brought in the Court. He filed the extract of the injury report of the deceased, Exhibit 37, wherein the age of the injuries is mentioned as 3 to 5 days. We examined Exhibit 37 and we found that the age of the injuries mentioned therein is 3 to 5 days. It is pertinent to mention that Dr. Chaudhari medically examined the appellant on 15-9-1992 at 5.30 p.m. and the deceased was murdered some times about 2.30 p.m. on 12-9-1992. This means that three days and three hours had elapsed between the murder of the deceased and the medical examination of the appellant by Dr. Chaudhari. Hence, in our view, the submission of Mrs. Rakh that the injuries of the deceased cannot be correlated with the incident is devoid of substance. 18. This means that three days and three hours had elapsed between the murder of the deceased and the medical examination of the appellant by Dr. Chaudhari. Hence, in our view, the submission of Mrs. Rakh that the injuries of the deceased cannot be correlated with the incident is devoid of substance. 18. It is pertinent to mention that in his examination under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant was questioned about these injuries and although in answer to Question No. 20, he admitted that he was examined by the doctor, but denied that any injuries were found on his person. We have no compunction in observing that the answer given by the appellant is a tissue of lies. Dr. Chaudhari, P.W. 11, was a respectable person. He had no animus against the appellant. He had no reason to foist any injuries on the person of the appellant. 19. In our view, this circumstance is also proved and goes against the appellant. 20. We now come to the third circumstance, namely, semen of the appellant being of 'A' group accordingly to the Chemical Analyst, and the presence of semen of 'A' group on the jangia and petticoat of the deceased, as per the report of the Chemical Analyst. In respect of this circumstance, we have the evidence of A.P.I. Bharate and the report of the Chemical Analyst. The evidence of A.P.I. Bharate shows that the semen of the appellant was sent to the Chemical Analyst. The report of the Chemical Analyst shows that he found the semen of the appellant to be of 'A' group. The evidence of A.P.I. Bharate shows that the jangia, the petticoat and other clothes of the deceased were also sent to the Chemical Analyst. The report of the Chemical Analyst shows that the jangia and petticoat of the deceased were marked as Article No. 3 and 5 respectively. It also shows that the semen of the appellant was of 'A' group and semen of 'A' group was found on the jangia. (Article No. 3) and petticoat (Article No. 5). It appears to us that when the appellant raped the deceased, his semen fell on her jangia (underwear) and petticoat, and this is why the Chemical Analyst found semen of 'A' group on her jangia and petticoat. (Article No. 3) and petticoat (Article No. 5). It appears to us that when the appellant raped the deceased, his semen fell on her jangia (underwear) and petticoat, and this is why the Chemical Analyst found semen of 'A' group on her jangia and petticoat. That the deceased was raped is borne out by the injuries found on her person by the autopsy surgeon. The said injuries have been enumerated by us earlier. They include:--- (i) Abrasion on right knee ant. 1" x ¼" blood clot. (ii) Abrasion on left knee joint laterally ½" x ¼" blood clot. (iii) Abrasion on right thigh medially 3" below vagina ½ x ¼" blood clot semilunar. (iv) Abrasion on vagina on lower angle 1"¼" blood clot placed vertically. (v) Abrasion on right labia minore ½x ¼" blood clot. (vi) Hymen ruptured and blood clot on ruptured hymen. (vii) Abrasion on left vaginal wall 1 x ¼" blood clot and bleeding in vagina. 21. We now come to circumstance (d), namely, on the date of the incident, the appellant who some times before the incident had left village Kauthal where the incident had taken place and had started living in village Malpura in the State of Madhya Pradesh, was seen in village Kauthal by Amrit, P.W. 5, Chagan, P.W. 6, Shantabai, P.W. 7 and Jadhao, P.W. 15, all residents of village Kauthal. The evidence of Amrit and Chagan shows that on the date of the incident, at about 4.30 p.m., the appellant had come to the field of Ramakant Chaudhari, where they and his mother, Babadibai, were working and he talked to his mother. The evidence of Jadhao, the real brother of the appellant, shows that on the date of the incident, he was also working in the said field along with his mother and the aforesaid persons. The appellant came there at about 11 a.m. and stayed there till 5 p.m. It is true that during the course of his cross-examination, Jadhao admitted that he did not tell the Investigating Officer that the appellant had come to the field at about 11 a.m., but he furnished a plausible reason, namely, that the Investigating Officer had not asked him the time when he had come to the field. It should be borne in mind that Jadhao was the real brother of the appellant and from his cross-examination, it has not been extracted that he was in any way inimical to the appellant. In that view of the matter, in our judgment, he would not have made any improvement, which would incriminate his brother. In our view, the evidence of Amrit Chagan and Jadhao inspires implicit confidence. Like Jadhao, Amrit and Chagan also had no rancour or ill will against the appellant. We may also mention that all these witnesses were cross-examined, but nothing could be extracted therefrom, which would impair their veracity. The evidence of Shantabai, P.W. 7, shows that she sells liquor and on the date of the incident, at about 7 p.m., the appellant came and purchased from her liquor worth Rs. 5/-. We see no reason to disbelieve her, because like Amrit, Chagan and Jadhao, she had no enmity with the appellant and like them, she could not be discredited in her cross-examination. 22. In our view, circumstance (d) is also established. This circumstance has to be examined in the background of the fact that the murder of the deceased took place some times between 1 p.m. and 4.30 p.m. and during the said time on the date of incident, the appellant was present in village Kauthal, where the incident had taken place. It is in this background that the other three circumstances, namely, (a) to (c), have to be examined. And we dare say, once they are examined in this perspective, they conclusively lead to the inference that it was the appellant who committed the offences in question. 23. Before proceeding to the operative part of our judgment, we cannot refrain from observing that the appellant should thank his stars that the learned trial Judge did not award him death penalty. In our judgment, this was a tailor-made case for imposition of death penalty. The appellant was aged 35 years at the time of the incident. The circumstances, which we have relied upon, show that in a beastly manner, he not only ravished a girl of half his age, but also robbed her of her ornaments and murdered her. In our view, if this case would not fall in the category of "rarest of rare", we wonder which case would. The circumstances, which we have relied upon, show that in a beastly manner, he not only ravished a girl of half his age, but also robbed her of her ornaments and murdered her. In our view, if this case would not fall in the category of "rarest of rare", we wonder which case would. In our judgment, this was a most appropriate case wherein the State of Maharashtra should have preferred an appeal under section 377(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for enhancement of the sentence of the appellant, from life to death. But we find that the conscience of the State has not been stirred and the State is snoring. We are not oblivious to the fact that it lies within our province to suo motu issue a notice of enhancement of sentence to the appellant, but we cannot shut our eyes to the circumstance that the impugned judgment was passed by the trial Court six and a half years ago. In our view, such a notice would have been well-merited at the time of the admission of the appeal, but, today, after six and a half years, it would be against considerations of justice and fairness. It should always be borne in mind that Judges should not be blood thirsty. 24. For the said reasons, we confirm the convictions and sentences of the appellant on all the three counts, namely, under sections 302, 376 and 404 of the Indian Penal Code and dismiss this appeal. The appellant is in jail and shall serve out his sentence. Since Mrs. Rakh has been appointed by us as an Advocate for the appellant and has rendered admirable assistance in the disposal of this appeal, we quantify her fees at Rs. 2,000/-. Appeal dismissed. -----