Judgment :- M.Chockalingam,J. 1. This Appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Fast Track Court-I, Erode made in S.C. No.18/2007 whereby the Appellant/A1 was stood charged along with A2. A1 was charged for the offence under Sections 376(2) (f) and 302, I.P.C. and A2 was charged for the offence under Section 213, IPC and on trial, A1 was found guilty of both the charges and awarded life imprisonment for both the charges whereas A2 was acquitted of the said charge. 2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this Appeal can be stated as follows: (i) P.W.1 and P.W.6 are the brothers. The deceased child Sandhiya is the daughter of P.W.6 and she was under the care and maintenance of P.W.1 during the relevant time. The victim child was 8 years on the date of occurrence, i.e., 20.11.2005. On the date of occurrence, the victim was playing along with another child/P.W.4 in front of the house of P.W.2. Since the child did not come back home till 5O’clock, P.W.1 me P.W.2. and asked about the child. He replied that at about 3.30 P.m., he saw the child Sandhiya and P.W.4/child Hema playing with the First Accused in front of P.W.1’s house. Then, both P.Ws.1 and 2 went in search of the child. When they met P.W.3, he told that he saw the child in the Company of the First Accused in front of the house of P.W.12 at about 3.45 p.m. Immediately both of them went and searched in front of P.W.12’s house but they could not find the First Accused or the child Sandhiya. So they went to the house of P.W.4 and asked the child. She replied hat when she along with Sandhya were playing, the First Accused came there and was also playing with them and since she did not like the behavior of First Accused, she returned home leaving Sandhiya along with the First Accused/Appellant. Thereafter, P.W.1 along with other went in search of the child. Information was given to P.W.6, the father of the child. All of them were making search and at that time P.W.5 informed that at about 4.30 p.m., she saw the First Accused washing his face and hands in the Public tap near one Muthusamy’s house. Then P.W.9 informed that at about 4.30 p.m., she saw the First Accused coming from the house of P.W.12. All of them were making search and at that time P.W.5 informed that at about 4.30 p.m., she saw the First Accused washing his face and hands in the Public tap near one Muthusamy’s house. Then P.W.9 informed that at about 4.30 p.m., she saw the First Accused coming from the house of P.W.12. Immediately, when all of them went inside the house of P.W.12, they found the dead body of the child, Sandhiya. On 20.11.2005 at about 3 O’ Clock the Accused had parked the cycle in front of P.W.10’s house and took the cycle at 6.00 p.m. (ii) P.W.1, after ascertaining the above fact, proceeded to the Vellode Police Station and gave Ex.P1-report at 7.00 p.m. P.W.21-Sub-Inspector of Police on receipt of Ex.P1-Complaint registered a case in Crime No.186/2005 under Section 376 and 302, IPC. The First Information Report-Ex.P17 was dispatched to Court. (iii) On receipt of a copy of the F.I.R., P.W.22 Inspector of Police took up investigation. He proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared the Observation Mahazar-Ex.P2 and also drew a Rough Sketch-Ex.P.18. The photographs were also taken and M.Os.3 and 4 the series of photographs and negatives. P.W.17 is the photographer. The Investigating Officer conducted inquest on the dead body of the child Sandhiya in the presence of witnesses and prepared Ex.P19-inquest and he also called for finger print expert and on 21.11.2005, the finger print expert took the finger prints. An empty bottle was also recovered from the place of occurrence. (iv) The dead body of the child Sandhiya was subjected to post mortem. P.W.15-Doctor attached to Government Hospital, Erode gave opinion in Exs.P4 and P5 wherein he has opined that the child would have died of neurogeric shock due to vaginal and uterus cervix injury, due to sexual assault. Pending investigation, the First Accused was arrested on 23.11.2005. He came forward to give confessional statement which was recorded in the presence of witnesses. The admissible part of the same was marked as Ex.P8 pursuant to which he produced M.O.5-pant M.O.7-shirt and M.O.6-jatti and they were recovered under a cover of mahazar. M.O.1-cycle was also recovered. Thereafter, the First Accused was sent for Potency test. P.W.16-doctor conducted Potency test and declared that the First Accused was potent. Pending investigation, Second Accused was also arrested. He was identified by the First Accused. M.O.1-cycle was also recovered. Thereafter, the First Accused was sent for Potency test. P.W.16-doctor conducted Potency test and declared that the First Accused was potent. Pending investigation, Second Accused was also arrested. He was identified by the First Accused. He also gave confessional statement and a sum of Rs.50/- was recovered from him under a cover of mahazar. Thereafter, the Accused were sent for judicial remand. All the materials objects were sent for analysis and the reports, Exs.P.23 and 24 Chemical Reports and Exs.P.25 to 30 Serologists Reports were received and placed before the Court. On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a final report. (v) The case was committed to the Court of sessions. Necessary charges were framed. In order to substantiate the charges leveled against the Accused, the prosecution examined 25 Witnesses and relied on 31 Exhibits and 11 Material Objects. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the Accused were questioned under Section 313, Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the prosecution witness and they denied them as false. No defence witness was examined and no diocument was marked on their side. On hearing the arguments advanced on either side, the Trial Court took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and found the Appellant guilty under Section 376(2)(f) and 302, IPC and awarded the punishment of life imprisonment for both the charges and found A2 not guilty under Section 213, IPC and acquitted A2. Hence, this Appeal at the instant of the Appellant/First Accused. 3. Advancing the arguments on behalf of the Appellant/A1, the learned Counsel, with vigor and vehement would contend that according to the prosecution the occurrence has taken place between 4.00 and 4.30 p.m. on 20.11.2005 and that the First Accused has raped and caused the death of the child Sandhiya, aged 8 years. But the prosecution had no direct evidence to offer but raised on circumstantial evidence through P.Ws. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 9. The witnesses P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 have given evidence that they saw the Appellant playing with the deceased child before the time of occurrence which by itself cannot be reason to implicate the Appellant with Criminal liability or it cannot be taken as the incriminating circumstances. 4. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 9. The witnesses P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 have given evidence that they saw the Appellant playing with the deceased child before the time of occurrence which by itself cannot be reason to implicate the Appellant with Criminal liability or it cannot be taken as the incriminating circumstances. 4. Learned Counsel would further submit that according to P.W.1, Ex.P1 was given to P.W.21-Sub-Inspector of Police at 7.00 p.m. P.w.1 has categorically stated that he did not know who wrote Ex.P1-Complaint. Further, the FIR that had reached the Court is highly doubtful. According to P.W.1 at 7.00 p.m. on 20.11.2005, he gave the Complaint to the Police. If to be so, the FIR should have reached earlier but it has reached the Court only at 11.45 a.m. on 21.11.2005. It is also an admitted position that the Court only the Judicial Magistrate is situate within 7 kms from the Police Station. Under such circumstances, there was inordinate delay in the FIR reaching the Court but the prosecution has no explanation to offer how such a delay was caused. It would clearly indicate the fact that FIR has come into existence belatedly and thus, the delay has caused. 5. Learned Counsel would further submit that insofar as the evidence of P.W.6 is concerned, he has categorically stated that the child was playing in front of the house with the Accused at about 5.00 p.m. but according to the prosecution, the occurrence has taken place between 4.00 and 4.30 p.m. Hence, the entire incident could not have taken place at all. Much comment was made by the learned Counsel for the Appellant on the evidence of P.W.9. Learned Counsel would submit that P.W.9 has stated when she was standing infront of her house, she saw the Accused coming from the house of P.W.12 and went in the opposite direction but she did not whisper it to any body the very day. The entire village people came to know about the incident but P.W.9 has kept silent throughout the day. Further, the investigating Officer would claim that P.W.9’s statement was recorded on 21.11.2005 but the same has reached the Court only on 24.11.2005. The entire village people came to know about the incident but P.W.9 has kept silent throughout the day. Further, the investigating Officer would claim that P.W.9’s statement was recorded on 21.11.2005 but the same has reached the Court only on 24.11.2005. Hence, it is clear that in order to fill up the lacuna in the prosecution case, the statement of P.W.9 was recorded stating as if he saw the Accused coming out from the house of P.W.12 where the occurrence had taken place. Hence, P.W.9 is a planted witness. 6. Learned Counsel would further submit that in the instant case, the finger print expert was called for and the finger print found in the material object M.O.2 viz., empty bottle was actually compared and a report was received by the Court. It is pertinent to point out that the Investigating Officer has well admitted that he went to the spot immediately after the case was registered and conducted investigation during night hours on 20.11.2005. If to be so, the bottle found in the place of occurrence should have been recovered but till the finger print expert came there, the bottle was kept in the place and it has reached the Court only on 24.11.2005. All would clearly indicate the fact that the finger print of the Accused was forcibly taken by the Police Official in the empty bottle and sent for analysis. Hence, this part of the evidence should have been rejected by the Trial Court. Added further learned Counsel, it is true that the Accused was taken for Potency test and that he was potent was also proved by medical evidence, Ex.P7-Certificate issued in that regard. At the same time, the medical opinion canvassed in respect of rape and proved through he Post-mortem Doctor would show that the vagina did not contain any semen which would indicate that there was no rape. Learned Counsel would further submit that the Appellant was a stranger to the village and as the culprit could not be found, erroneous view and found the Appellant guilty. The prosecution has neither placed or proved any of the circumstances pointing to the guilty of the Appellant. Under such circumstances, the judgment of the Trial Court has got to be set aside. 7. The court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. 8. The prosecution has neither placed or proved any of the circumstances pointing to the guilty of the Appellant. Under such circumstances, the judgment of the Trial Court has got to be set aside. 7. The court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. 8. It is not in controversy that the child Sandhiya, aged 8 years was found dead and after preparation of the Inquest Report by the Investigating Officer, the dead body of the child Sandhiya was subjected to Post-mortem and P.W.15-Doctor conducted Autopsy on their child Sandhiya and gave his opinion as a witness before the Court and also through the contacts of the Post-mortem Certificate-Exs.P4 and final opinion in Ex.P5 which reads as follows. “Appear to have died of neurogeric shock due to vaginal and uterus cervix injury due to sexual assault”. From the above, it is clear that the prosecution has iota of proof that the child was raped and death has actually been caused due to rape. Therefore, the contention put forth by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the prosecution has not prove the commission of rape, cannot be countenanced. 9. It is true, in order to substantiate the commission of rape and also murder, the prosecution had no direct evidence to offer. But in the instant case, the following circumstances are noticed by the Court against the Appellant. The child Sandhiya aged 8 years was the daughter of P.W.6 and during the relevant time, the child was under the care and custody of P.W.1. P.W.4 is the another child of that Village. According to P.W.4, on date of occurrence, during the evening hours, age was playing with the Sandhiya in the street and the Accused was also playing with them. Thereafter, P.W.4 left to house leaving Sandhiya along with Accused/Appellant. It is true that the child P.W.4 was of tender age but the Court is unable to see any reason to discard her testimony with any doubt. The evidence of P.W.4, though of tender age, was rightly accepted by the Trial Court. Apart from that, the victim was playing with the Accused was spoken to be P.W.3 also. Thus, there is clear evidence that just before the occurrence, the Accused was playing with the deceased child Sandhiya in the Public Street. 10. The evidence of P.W.4, though of tender age, was rightly accepted by the Trial Court. Apart from that, the victim was playing with the Accused was spoken to be P.W.3 also. Thus, there is clear evidence that just before the occurrence, the Accused was playing with the deceased child Sandhiya in the Public Street. 10. The second strong circumstance which was against the Appellant is the evidence of P.W.9, she found the Accused/Appellant coming out of house which was situated just opposite to her house at about 4.30. p.m. on the date of occurrence. At that time, when the Accused/Appellant came out side, she looked at him. Immediately, as if dashing against her, the Accused/Appellant went toward the northern side. On the same day evening, she left the village and came to the village on the next day she came to know about the incident. Despite cross-examination, the evidence of P.W.9 remains unshaky. From the evidence of P.W.9, it is quite clear that at about 4.30 p.m. just immediately at or about the time of occurrence, the Accused came from the house where the dead body of the child was found and P.W.9 has no reason to speak any falsity or give false evidence against the Appellant/Accused and there is no reason found why P.w.9 should give any such a statement against the Appellant. Therefore, the Court is unable to see any circumstances to look into the evidence of P.W.9 with any suspicion. Further, insofar as the contention of the learned Counsel that the statement of P.W.9 has reached the Court on 24.11.2005 is concerned, according to P.W.9, she left the place in the evening hours on the same day of occurrence and on the next day when she came to her house, the Investigating Officer enquired and her statement was recorded the next day. It is true that her statement has reached the Court on 24.11.2005 and there was delay of few days. It is to be noted that P.W.9 is not an eye witness but only a chance witness and she has no reason to act or depose any statement against the Accused/Appellant. Her evidence was natural and it inspires the confidence of the Court. 11. It is to be noted that P.W.9 is not an eye witness but only a chance witness and she has no reason to act or depose any statement against the Accused/Appellant. Her evidence was natural and it inspires the confidence of the Court. 11. It is quit clear that at the time of occurrence, the child was actually playing in the street along with the Appellant/used and it was witnessed by few witnesses and the occurrence has taken place inside the house situated opposite to the house of P.W.9 and P.W.9 also saw the Accused coming out of the house immediately after the occurrence was over. All would clearly indicate that it was the Accused who has committed the offence. When the Investigating Officer has made investigation and made observation where the occurrence has taken place, he should have recovered the empty bottle found there but that part, as to the recovery of the bottle, the finger prints of the Accused found in the bottle and the finger print ex-part opinion against the Accused are concerned, the Court cannot attach any evidentiary value to that regard. Apart from that, the Accused was arrested and subsequently, he gave confessional statement and the witnesses were examined and the cycle-M.O.1 which was used by him was recovered. P.W.10 who is the friend of the Accused/Appellant was examined in whose house the cycle was parked between 3.00 p.m. and 6 p.m. 0n 20.11.2005. Apart from that, the other material objects were also recovered. In the instant case, the prosecution had only two main circumstances as narrated above that the chile was playing in the street and the Accused was also found in her Company just before the occurrence and that the Accused came out of the house in which the occurrence has taken place just after the occurrence. The contention put forth by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the Accused was a stranger and he came to the village and played with the child and he did not know anything more, in the considered opinion of the Court, cannot be accepted. The contention put forth by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the Accused was a stranger and he came to the village and played with the child and he did not know anything more, in the considered opinion of the Court, cannot be accepted. If he was a stranger and came to another village, there is no occasion for him to play with the child belonging to that village, apart from that, P.Ws.1,2 and 4 have witnessed the child and the Accused playing just before the occurrence and all these witnesses have also stated that they knew the Accused already which would indicate that the Accused was not a stranger. Further, the earliest document in this case is Ex.P.1. A reading of Ex.P1 would clearly speak about P.Ws3 and 4 and there is clear narration of the incident and a case came to be registered. At this juncture, it pertinent to be pointed out that it is not the case which rests upon the direct evidence but only on circumstantial evidence. All the circumstances which were to be proved before the Court were actually found place in the earliest document Ex.P1. Further, P.Ws.1,4,5,6 or 9 were not inimical to the Appellant/Accused to speak against him. Under such circumstance, the Court is of the considered opinion that the evidence placed before the Court was sufficed. The Accused, who played with the child has taken the child inside the house and caused rape and committed murder of the child and left the place. Hence the Trial Judge has considered the evidence proper and has found the Appellant/Accused guilty of the above said offences, which in the opinion of this Court, does not require any interference, either factually or legally. 12. In the result, the Criminal Appeal fails and the same is dismissed, confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court.