JUDGMENT (L. Narasimha Reddy) The respondent was tried for the offence of committing rape and murder of one Theegala Lalitha @ Lalli, the daughter of PW-1, at about 8 A.M. on 4.12.1998. Through its judgment, dated 18.6.2004, the trial court acquitted the respondent. State preferred the appeal, challenging the acquittal of the respondent. 2. The facts presented by the prosecution before the trial court, in brief, are as under. The respondent was employed by PW-1 to do household work, as well as to work in the Kirana shop, about 10 years prior to the date of incident. On 3.12.1998, PW-1 and his wife have gone to a village, by name Jangareddygudem, to settle the alliance of their daughter, the deceased. PW-1 informed his elder brother, PW-3, to take care of the house, in his absence. 3. According to the prosecution: On 4.12.1998, PW-2, the son of PW-1, has gone to the shop at about 7 A.M. and opened it. He instructed the respondent, to get breakfast from a hotel and deliver the same to him in the shop, and to his sister, the deceased, at the residence. PW-3 had gone towards the house of PW-1 at around 8 A.M. on the same day. There, he found the neighbours of PW-1; viz., PWs-4 and 5, chitchatting. Shortly after he joined them, all the three heard cries from the house of PW-1. When they proceeded towards the house, they found the respondent coming out of it, with blood stained clothes, and he had ran away by pushing them aside. When the said witnesses went inside, the deceased was in a pool of blood, struggling for life. She informed them that taking advantage of the fact that she is alone, the respondent held her hand and insisted on, to have sex with him, and on that, she slapped the respondent. The latter has taken Chutney Grinder and hit her on head and other parts, indiscriminately, and thereafter stabbed with a knife. She requested PWs.3, 4 and 5, to extend medical assistance to her. The witnesses have taken the deceased to a local RMP doctor, PW-8, who gave some First Aid, but having regard to the serious condition of the patient, asked them to take her to a hospital at Rajahmundry. A taxi was arranged, and in the hospital at Rajahmundry, she was declared dead. The witnesses have taken the deceased to a local RMP doctor, PW-8, who gave some First Aid, but having regard to the serious condition of the patient, asked them to take her to a hospital at Rajahmundry. A taxi was arranged, and in the hospital at Rajahmundry, she was declared dead. The dead body was brought back to the native village of the deceased, Deverapalli. 4. Soon after the occurrence, PW-3 informed PWs-1 and 2 about the incident. After returning from Rajahmundry, he submitted the report, Ex.P-1, to the police, and investigation was taken up. The inquest of the dead body was conducted, vide Ex.P-5. The dead body was sent for post-mortem to Kovvur. The post-mortem certificate is marked as Ex.P-7. The Chemical Examiners Report, in relation to bloodstains, material objects, etc, was obtained, vide Ex.P-8, and the final opinion of the Medical Officer is rendered through Ex.P-9. Other formalities, such as, preparation of sketch of scene of offence, sending the respondent for medical examination about his ability to commit rape, were also complied with. On the basis of the information gathered during the investigation, separate charges were framed under Sections 376 and 302 IPC. The respondent pleaded not guilty. The trial court acquitted him. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that there is consistent evidence of PWs-3, 4 and 5, who have seen the respondent running away, soon after the commission of offence, and found the deceased in a seriously injured condition. According to him, the evidence of these witnesses is corroborated by PW-7, who saw the respondent running away with the bloodstains on his clothes. Learned Public Prosecutor further contends that the oral evidence of these witnesses is fully corroborated by the medical evidence, which clearly disclosed that not only the bloodstains, but also the semen, were present, on the clothes recovered from the respondent. He submits that the trial court made several observations, which are not borne out by the record, and did not appreciate the evidence, on the correct lines. He further points out that the discrepancies, as to the time at which the police visited the scene of occurrence, were projected, as though they are fatal to the entire prosecution, and that the reasons furnished by the trial court, in acquitting the respondent, cannot be sustained in law. He further points out that the discrepancies, as to the time at which the police visited the scene of occurrence, were projected, as though they are fatal to the entire prosecution, and that the reasons furnished by the trial court, in acquitting the respondent, cannot be sustained in law. Learned Public Prosecutor has also drawn the attention of the court to the fact that no explanation, worth its name, was offered by the respondent, under Section 313 Cr.P.C, though he admitted his immediate presence, at the scene of occurrence, at the relevant point of time. He places reliance upon certain decided cases. 6. Sri Sarvabouma Rao, learned counsel appearing for Sri Jyothi Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent, submits that the trial court had arrived at correct conclusion, as a result of proper appreciation of evidence on record. He contends that there are several discrepancies and inconsistencies in the evidence of PWs-3, 4, 5 and 7. According to him, it is the respondent, who has noticed the occurrence first, and soon thereafter informed the other witnesses, whereas, the prosecution has implicated the respondent, without any basis. It is also his case that when the medical report clearly discloses that there are no traces of first aid, on the body of the deceased, the very theory of her being taken to PW-8 for first aid, and thereby, the evidence of PWs.3, 4 and 5, in this regard, becomes untenable. Learned counsel further submits that being a rustic villager, the respondent did not think it fit, to offer any explanation, during the course of examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C, and that factor by itself, cannot be a basis to reverse the judgment of the trial court. 7. Of the 14 witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, PWs-1 to 3 are the father, brother and senior paternal uncle of the deceased. PWs-4, 5, 6 and 7 are the residents, in the neighbourhood of PW-1. PW-8 is an RMP in the same village. PW-9 is a witness to the seizure of material objects, from the scene of offence. PW-10 is a panch to the inquest. PW-11 is the doctor, through whom the Post- mortem Certificate, Ex.P-7; the Chemical Analyst Report, Ex.P-8; and the Final Opinion, Ex.P-9, were marked. PW-12 is the Photographer. PW-13 is the Sub- Inspector of Police, who registered the case on receiving Ex.P-1, and PW-14 is the Investigating Officer. 8. PW-10 is a panch to the inquest. PW-11 is the doctor, through whom the Post- mortem Certificate, Ex.P-7; the Chemical Analyst Report, Ex.P-8; and the Final Opinion, Ex.P-9, were marked. PW-12 is the Photographer. PW-13 is the Sub- Inspector of Police, who registered the case on receiving Ex.P-1, and PW-14 is the Investigating Officer. 8. The fact that the respondent was employed with PW-1 from about 1998 is not disputed. On 3.12.1998, PW-1 and his wife went to another village, by name Jangareddygudem, to settle the alliance for their daughter, the deceased. In Ex.P-1, as well as in his deposition in the Court, PW-3 stated that he was asked by his younger brother, to look after his house, in his absence. It was in this context that PW-3 went towards the house of PW-1 at about 8 A.M. By that time, PW-2, the son of PW-1, went to the shop and opened it. The deceased alone was in the house. 9. PW-2 categorically stated that the respondent came to the shop and stated that he delivered the milk at the house and thereupon, he instructed him to bring breakfast, to himself and his sister, and deliver the same at the shop and house, respectively. This statement made by the witness, in the chief- examination, was not at all contradicted, through any suggestion, in the cross- examination. 10. When PW-3 reached the house of his brother, he noticed PWs.4 and 5, chitchatting there. He too joined them and shortly thereafter, all of them heard shouting and cries from the house of PW-1. When all the three went towards the house of PW-1, they found the respondent coming out of the house, with bloodstained clothes. He is also said to have pushed the three witnesses aside and ran away. When they went inside, they found Lalitha in a pool of blood. She narrated to them that the respondent attempted to rape her, and when she gave a slap on his cheek, he became furious, took the chutney grinder, hit her and thereafter stabbed her, with a knife. The further steps that have been taken by these witnesses have already been indicated, in the preceding paragraphs. PW-7 stated that he saw the respondent running in panic with bloodstained clothes in the morning of 04-12-1998. 11. The further steps that have been taken by these witnesses have already been indicated, in the preceding paragraphs. PW-7 stated that he saw the respondent running in panic with bloodstained clothes in the morning of 04-12-1998. 11. An important aspect, which arises for consideration, at this stage, is about the presence of the respondent at the scene of offence. The fact that PW-2 instructed the respondent, to go to his house, to deliver tiffin, and that PWs.3, 4 and 5 have seen the respondent, running out of the house with bloodstains, hardly leaves any doubt, in this regard. Even assuming that what is presented before this court by this witness, is only their version, an important piece of evidence is in the form of questions put by the respondent himself to PW-3 in the cross-examination. The questions read as under: Q.No.1: It is myself first informed to you that Lalitha is in a pool of blood. Q.No.2: It is myself on noticing Lalitha in a pool of blood picked up her, so my clothes are stained with blood and then none others were present and it is not known who committed that act and informed this aspect to you and then you removed her to the hospital and by that time Lalitha is no more." Little doubt that may persist, even after the evidence of PWs-3, 4 and 5, stands removed with these suggestions. To sum up, the presence of the respondent at the scene of occurrence stands established through factors such as, a) his being a domestic servant, b) his having been instructed by PW-2, to deliver the tiffin at the residence, c) his having been seen by PWs-3, 4 and 5 coming out of the house of PW-1, soon after the occurrence, d) the evidence of PW-7 that he saw the respondent running out with bloodstains on his clothes, and e) his admission that he saw the deceased first in a pool of blood; his presence there stands proved beyond any pale of doubt. The next important question, however, is about his involvement in the crime. 12. The next important question, however, is about his involvement in the crime. 12. If, in fact, the respondent has just seen the daughter of his master in a pool of blood, he would have been shocked and surprised, at once, and his efforts would have been to rescue her, either by shifting her to hospital, or by informing the incident to the immediately available neighbours, if not to PW-2, in the shop. The evidence, on the other hand, discloses that he ran away from that place. What is stated by the deceased to PWs-3, 4 and 5 is, almost in the form of a dying declaration. One cannot expect a girl, gasping for life, to falsely implicate a person, who served their family for about 10 years. Further, there is no reason for the three witnesses referred to above, to speak anything against the respondent, much less to implicate the respondent. The very fact that the respondent was found running away from the scene of occurrence, with bloodstained clothes, brings about a strong suspicion about his complicity. Though the respondent is said to have admitted in the confessional statement that he wanted to enjoy the deceased, inasmuch as her marriage is going to be settled, we are not inclined to be guided by that statement. 13. None of the witnesses have seen the respondent committing the offence on the deceased. It has already been pointed out that the presence of the respondent at the scene of occurrence is established, beyond any pale of doubt, and there is a strong suspicion against him for the commission of offence. The adage that persons may lie, but the circumstances do not gets attracted to this case. During the course of investigation, the following items, which do not include the material objects marked in the case, were sent for medical examination: 1) A multi coloured flowers designed bed sheet with dark brown stains. 2) A piece of polythene paper with dark brown stains. 3) A Wooden pickle pestle with dark brown stains. 4) A torn black cotton petty coat with dark brown stains. 5) A torn nightee with dark brown stains. 6) Pieces of white colour bra with dark brown stains. 7) A multi coloured checks designed full hands shirt with dark brown stains. 8) A snuff coloured pant. 9) A knife with red coloured handle with dark brown stains. 10) Two cotton swabs. 5) A torn nightee with dark brown stains. 6) Pieces of white colour bra with dark brown stains. 7) A multi coloured checks designed full hands shirt with dark brown stains. 8) A snuff coloured pant. 9) A knife with red coloured handle with dark brown stains. 10) Two cotton swabs. 11) Two cotton swabs. 12) Two glass slides each with dried smear. 13) Hair clippings." In Ex.P-9, the following opinion was given by the Government Forensic Science Laboratory: "Blood on item Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 16; and Semen on item Nos.8, 10 and 15 is of Human Origin, but the blood group could not be determined." It is important to note that blood was found on the clothes recovered from the body of the respondent, marked as Item Nos.7 and 8, i.e. shirt and pant. In addition to that, semen was found on Item No.8, the pant of the respondent, as well as Item No.10, viz., two cotton swabs, extracted from the deceased. This clinchingly proves that the respondent had committed rape on the deceased. The manner, in which the trial court sought to ignore this important evidence, would be dealt with, a bit later. The respondent, himself admitted that he has seen the deceased struggling for life, and lifted her for shifting to the hospital, as is evident from the questions put by him to PW-3. He failed to offer any explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C., when specific questions were put to him. 14. The trial court had ignored the evidence of PW-3, and thereby that of PWs.4 and 5, on the ground that PW-1 did not state in his evidence that he asked PW-3 to take care of his family, in his absence. With this reasoning, the trial court doubted the very presence of PW-3, through out the process, commencing from noticing the deceased, till the conducting of post-mortem. We are of the view that such a reasoning is perverse, on the face of it. With this reasoning, the trial court doubted the very presence of PW-3, through out the process, commencing from noticing the deceased, till the conducting of post-mortem. We are of the view that such a reasoning is perverse, on the face of it. When none other than the respondent gave a clear suggestion that soon after noticing the deceased in a pool of blood, he had informed PW-3 about the incident, there was absolutely no basis for the trial court, in doubting the very presence of PW-3, much less, the role played by him, be it in shifting the deceased to PW-8, or thereafter to the hospital at Rajahmundry. 15. Another aspect, which weighed with the trial court, was the non-revelation of the allegation as to rape, by the deceased herself. On the ground that even according to PW-3, the deceased did not state that she was raped by the respondent, the trial court refused to entertain the very allegation as to that crime. Here again, we are of the view that the reason assigned by the trial court is not correct. The condition of a girl, who was struggling for life, is not difficult to imagine. It must not be forgotten that her marriage was on anvil, and any revelation by her that she was raped, would have virtually shattered her life, in case she survived the deadly attack. It becomes necessary to make a reference to the FSL report, marked as Ex.P-9. It clearly establishes that the rape of the deceased was committed, and semen was found in the swabs, taken from the dead body, as well as on the trouser of the respondent. Therefore, there was no basis for the trial court, in coming to the conclusion that the charge of rape cannot be believed. The inescapable conclusion is that the respondent committed the crime of rape and murder, on the deceased. 16. We are conscious of the fact that the statement that is to be recorded from an accused, under Section 313 Cr.P.C., or the absence thereof, cannot constitute by itself, the basis for conviction. Depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, it can constitute one of the important circumstances, particularly, where the presence of the accused with the deceased, or at the scene of occurrence, is natural or proved. Depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, it can constitute one of the important circumstances, particularly, where the presence of the accused with the deceased, or at the scene of occurrence, is natural or proved. It is apt to refer to the judgment of this court in F.A.C. III ADITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, R.R.DISTRICT v. CHANDRA BUSHAN UPADHYAY, to which one of us (Justice B. Prakash Rao) is a party. After referring to the law on the subject, it was held that in case, the presence of an accused can be inferred at the scene of occurrence, if his affinity with the victim is not doubted, and the absence of any explanation in the questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C., would enable the court to draw an inference. In STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. SURESH, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in such cases, the absence of proper explanation would provide a link to connect the accused, to the crime. 17. Reverting to the facts of the case, the respondent did not deny his presence, and in fact, proclaimed to be the first person to have seen the deceased, in a pool of blood. He stated, may be in the process of cross-examining the PW-3, that he lifted the dead body, with an attempt to get her treatment, and in the process, his clothes got stained. It was certainly expected of him, to reveal what had happened thereafter. He maintained silence. The evidence, on the other hand, discloses that he was found running away from the scene of occurrence and his clothes contained not only the stains of blood, but also semen. Failure to explain these circumstances would naturally provide a strong circumstance against him. 18. It is no doubt true that there are discrepancies, as to the time, at which the police arrived at the scene of occurrence and the manner in which Ex.P-1 was submitted. This, however, is mostly on account of the fact that being the sensational event, the incident naturally got spread like a wildfire, and since the police station is in the same village, certain steps may have been taken, even before any formal complaint is lodged. We are satisfied that the alleged discrepancies do not have the effect of falsifying the case of the prosecution. 19. We are satisfied that the alleged discrepancies do not have the effect of falsifying the case of the prosecution. 19. We are aware that it is only in exceptional circumstances, that an appellate court can interfere with the finding of innocence, against the accused. When a heinous crime of rape on a girl, whose marriage was on the unveil, followed by her murder, is proved by the evidence on record, the court cannot remain oblivious. Minor discrepancies on unimportant aspects, cannot be the basis to let off an accused, who has otherwise been proved to have committed the offence. In our view, such an approach would result in failure of justice. The society would not at all be safe, if persons, who are otherwise proved to be guilty, are let off on hyper-technical grounds. We, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court, and record a finding to the effect that the charges against the respondent are proved. 20. We heard the learned counsel for the respondent about the sentence. Whatever be the liberty of a court to frame the sentence, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case, once an offence under Section 302 IPC is proved, hardly any scope is left, in this regard. 21. In the result, the appeal is allowed, reversing the judgment of the trial court. The respondent is found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 302 IPC. We sentence him to undergo imprisonment for life, and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Sentencing rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.100/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month is imposed for the offence under Section 376 IPC. We direct that both the sentences shall run concurrently. The respondent shall be forthwith take into custody. ?1 2007(2) ALD (Crl.) 135 (AP) 2 2000(1) ALD (Crl.) 606 SC