JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.7.2002 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Jhunjhunu, in Sessions Case No. 4/2002, (217/2001) whereby the accused appellant Rajendra Sethi has been convicted and sentenced as under : Under Section 302 IPC : Rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo two months additional simple imprisonment. Under Section 376(2)(f) IPC : Rigorous Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to under to two months additional simple imprisonment. Under Section 366 IPC : Five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine to undergo 15 days additional simple imprisonment. Under Section 363 IPC : Five year:, Rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine to undergo 15 days additional simple imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that informant K. Tengwel submitted a written report (Ex.P. 1) on dated 30.9.01 at 11.30 A.M. to S.H.O. Bagar at 'Rohr (Jungle) Mamarwasi, where dead body of his daughter Sunita, aged 10 years, was found. In the report he has stated that he was resident of Palayam, district Paramtur, Tamil Nadu and was engaged in stone work with one Duli Chand Chandel for last 14-15 months at Marwar. He resided there with his daughter Sunita aged 10 years, who studied in Class Ill while his wife was running a shop at Kota. On dated 28.9.2001, Rajendra, resident of his village Perambatur came to him, who worked in a stone quarry at Marwar. After Rajendra came there, he left for taking vegetables and on return he found that his daughter was enticed away from home by Rajendra. He searched both of them with all other residents who hailed from Tamil Nadu and resided there. On 30.6.2001 in the morning at about 8 a.m. Hariji, who also hailed from Tamil Nadu, came to him and he was told that he had seen Rajendra taking his daughter towards Railway Level crossing. He searched both of them with all other residents who hailed from Tamil Nadu and resided there. On 30.6.2001 in the morning at about 8 a.m. Hariji, who also hailed from Tamil Nadu, came to him and he was told that he had seen Rajendra taking his daughter towards Railway Level crossing. Ganesh, Raju and Maniram, who also hailed from Tamil Nadu were informed by one villager that dead body of a girl was lying near Railway Lines in 'Rohl' (Jungle) 'Mamarwasi' so the police was informed. On recognising the dead body he came to know that Rajendra, who had enticed his daughter Sunita away from home had killed her and even raped. On receipt of the report, a case under Sections 363, 376, 302 IPC was registered at Police Station Bagar and investigation commenced. Necessary memos were drawn, dead body was subjected to post mortem, statements of witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Jhunjhunu. Charges under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(f) and 302 IPC were framed against the appellant, who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 16 witnesses. In explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the appellant claimed innocence and as stated that he and Tengwel, both worked at one place and there was enmity between them. He, however, produced no witness in defence. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated herein above. 3. We have heard learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant, learned so Public Prosecutor and with their assistance scanned the material on record. 4. Death of Sunita was indisputably homicidal in nature. As per Post Mortem Report (Ex.P. 28) following ante mortem injuries were found on dead body : (1) Bruise with abrasions in oval shape lining just above the left breast in area 6 cm x2 cm. (2) Abrasions 2 cm x1 cm in anterior aspect of rt. dark brown. (3) Abrasion 1 cm xl cm on Rt. Side of face, dark brown. (4) Abrasion 2 cm xl cm on lateral aspect of left knee dark brown. (5) Abrasion 2 cmx2 cm on exterior aspect of Rt. Elbow dark brown. (2) Abrasions 2 cm x1 cm in anterior aspect of rt. dark brown. (3) Abrasion 1 cm xl cm on Rt. Side of face, dark brown. (4) Abrasion 2 cm xl cm on lateral aspect of left knee dark brown. (5) Abrasion 2 cmx2 cm on exterior aspect of Rt. Elbow dark brown. In opinion of the board, cause of death of the deceased is Asphyxia as a result of strangulation. Strangulation and injuries over body were Ante mortem in nature. Time since death was found between 24 to 48 hours. There was a possibility of rape and hence Vaginal swab was preserved and sent to F.S.L. for examination. 5. The prosecution has entirely based its case on circumstantial evidence. Learned counsel for the appellant canvassed that the circumstances relied on by the prosecution have not been satisfactorily established and in any event the circumstances taken to have been established against the appellant do not provide complete chain to bring home the guilt against the appellant. Hon'ble Apex in Jaharlal Das v. State of Orissa, A.I.R. 1991 SC 1388 , laid down as under "It is well settled that the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain the conviction must satisfy three conditions : (i) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; (ii) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; (iii) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none-else, and it should also be incapable of explanation on any other hypotheses than that of the guilt of the accused". 6. In Mulakh Raj v. Satish Kumar, AIR 1992 SC 1175 , observed as under "It is trite to reiterate that in a case founded on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove all the circumstances connecting unbroken chain of links leading to only one inference that the accused committed the crime. If any other reasonable hypothesis of the innocence of the accused can be inferred from the proved circumstances, the accused would be entitled to the benefit. What is required is not the quantitative but qualitative, reliable and probable circumstances to complete the chain connecting the accused with the crime. If any other reasonable hypothesis of the innocence of the accused can be inferred from the proved circumstances, the accused would be entitled to the benefit. What is required is not the quantitative but qualitative, reliable and probable circumstances to complete the chain connecting the accused with the crime. If the conduct of the as accused in relation to the crime comes into question the previous and subsequent conduct are also relevant facts. Therefore, the absence of ordinary course of conduct of the accused and human probabilities of the case also would be relevant. The must weigh the evidence of the cumulative effect of the circumstances and if it reaches the conclusion that the accused committed the crime, the charge must be held proved and the conviction and sentence would follow." 7. On reappraisal of circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution, it is revealed that the appellant and the informant belonged to the same village in the State of Tamil Nadu and were working in stone quarries at Marwar. This fact also stands admitted by the appellant in his explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that he and informant Tengwel (P.W. 1) worked together. From the Testimony of (P.W. 1) Tengwel, it revealed that he had gone to take vegetables leaving behind his daughter Sunita and Rajendra and on return he found both of them missing. The fact that (P.W. 1) Tengwel lived with his daughter, aged ten years and the accused used to come to him, was further corroborated by P.W. 4 Smt. Munni w/o Munna, who also resided there and hailed from Tamil Nadu. Likewise P.W. 5 Smt. Sala also corroborated the fact that Tengwel's daughter Sunita lived with him and the appellant Rajendra had come to the house of (P.W. 1) Tengwel about five months back. P.W. 6 Sapi further corroborated the fact that about six months before his deposition, the accused Rajendra worked with him for about one and a half months and he got the house of Ganesh Mahajan rented out to him. P.W. 6 Sapi further corroborated the fact that about six months before his deposition, the accused Rajendra worked with him for about one and a half months and he got the house of Ganesh Mahajan rented out to him. Thus, this stands established that the appellant Rajendra was the person who was left in the company of deceased Sunita aged ten years when the informant (P.W. 1) Tengwel went to take vegetables and she along with the appellant found missing from the house on return of P.W. 1 Tengwel until her dead body was found lying on 30.9.2001 in the 'Rohi' (Jungle) of Mamarwasi. 8. The next circumstance pertains to the recovery of dead body of deceased Sunita on 30.9.2001 from Rohi Mamarwasi (Jungle). From the testimony of (P.W. 8) Narendra Kumar, S.H.O. Police Station Bagar, as also the motbirs (P.W. 10) Raghuvir and (P.W. 9) Maniram, it is established that so dead body of deceased Sunita, aged ten years was found lying naked. There was bleeding from her mouth, nose and genitals. She was strangulated with her 'Jumpher' (shirt) and her 'Salwar' and 'Chaddi' (underwear) were lying near the dead body and Memo Ex.P. 4 and Ex.P. 7 were prepared in this regard. More-over the fact that the underwear and salwar of the deceased sent for F.S.L. Examination were found to stained with human blood vide FSL Report Ex.P. 34 and also with human semen vide FSL Report EX.P. 30. 9. The fact that the appellant was arrested on 2.10.2001 at 5 PM. and from his person, pent, bushirt stained with human blood, and his underwear appeared to be stained with blood and semen were recovered vide Ex.P. 12 and this fact has been established by (P.W. 1) Tengwel and (P.W. 7) Narain as well as by (P.W. 8) Narendra Kumar, S.H.O. and this was further confirmed by FSL report Ex.P. 30 and Ex.P 34. This further connects that it could be appellant and none else who was associated with the murder and rape of the deceased. 10. The testimony of (P.W. 12), Dr. This further connects that it could be appellant and none else who was associated with the murder and rape of the deceased. 10. The testimony of (P.W. 12), Dr. Nathu Singh and other members of the team, who examined the dead body is further corroborated on the point that their opinion regarding possibility of rape was confirmed by F.S.L. Report Ex.P. 30 and Ex.P. 34 as the vaginal swab sent for examination was found contained with human semen as well as human blood and thereby confirmed that the murder was preceded by rape. 11. In view of the nature of evidence adduced by prosecution, the explanation of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.PC. that he was falsely implicated by (P.W. 1) Tengwel on account of enmity is unconvincing and without any base. 12. The other connecting limb is the disclosure statement made by the appellant (Ex.P. 17) on his arrest on 2.10.2001 whereby he led the Police Party to the place of occurrence which was in Rohi (Jungle) of Mamarwasi at a distance of 12 KM. Though the dead body of the deceased Sunita was already recovered on dated 30.9.2001 but as the place of occurrence was in Jungle, the discovery of the fact may be a feeble link but it lends further support to the prosecution case based on circumstantial evidence. 13. In the instant case the circumstances are of conclusive nature and chain of evidence is so complete as to leave no reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the appellant and it shows that in all human probability the criminal act was done by the appellant. Thus we find that the prosecution has been successful in proving that it was the appellant who enticed deceased Sunita, the young girl of ten years out of the lawful guardianship of her father Tengwel (F.W. 1) with the intent to commit rape and it was he who committed rape with her before she was put to death by strangulation. 14. We thus see no infirmity in the impugned judgment of learned trial Judge. In our opinion the guilt under Section 302, 376(2)(f). 363 and 366 IPC is proved against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 15. For these reasons, we find no merit in the instant appeal and the same accordingly stands dismissed. 14. We thus see no infirmity in the impugned judgment of learned trial Judge. In our opinion the guilt under Section 302, 376(2)(f). 363 and 366 IPC is proved against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 15. For these reasons, we find no merit in the instant appeal and the same accordingly stands dismissed. Conviction and sentence of appellant Rajendra under Section 302, 376(2)(f), 366 and 363 IPC are maintained.Appeal Dismissed. *******