JUDGMENT : Ratnaker Bhengra, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 21.9.2007 and order of sentence dated 25.9.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.- II), Seraikela-Knarsawan in connection with Sessions Tricil Case No. 93 of 2004, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 293 of 2004 arising out of Nimdili P.S. Case No. 32 of 2004, whereby the sole appellant Kokil Singh Sardar has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, convicted for the offence punishable under Section 366, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, with a conviction under Section 201, IPC rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. All the sentences were to run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution as it appears from the Jardbeyan of one Rewti Singh, wife of Govind Singh of village Nim-dih. P.S. Nimdih, District Saraikella-Kharsawan, recorded by S.I.B.B. Prasad Yadav of Nimdih PS, is that she is a widow, and due to pain in her legs she had difficulty in walking about. Her only support is her daughter, Aloka Singh. For the last three months one Kokil Singh, s/o Haldhar Singh Sardar, village Bhagath, PS Nimdih, District Saraikella Kharsawan used to come and forcibly have sexual relation with her daughter. When I used to object then Kokil Singh replied, that he would be marrying Aloka and he is collecting money. On 22.4.2004. at 7 p.m. Kokil Singh came to her residence and announced that I have come to take Aloka for marriage. When she attempted to prevent Kokil Singh from taking her daughter, then he gripped her neck and pushed her away. When he was taking Aloka away, both she and her daughter screamed and raised alarm, but then it was raining and winds were blowing due to which, no body heard them and thus, no one came to save them and Kokil Singh dragged away her daughter forcibly. On 23.4.2004, around 12:00 noon alarm was raised that Aloka Singh’s dead body is lying at Purnopani, Plashtand, and that some one has strangulated and assaulted her with stones and killed her. The villagers informed this to the Police Station. 3. On 23.4.2004, around 12:00 noon alarm was raised that Aloka Singh’s dead body is lying at Purnopani, Plashtand, and that some one has strangulated and assaulted her with stones and killed her. The villagers informed this to the Police Station. 3. She has alleged that Kokil Singh was for the last three months coming to their house and under the promise of marriage raping Aloka and then on the pretext of marriage took her away to open field at Purnapani Plashtand and strangulated her as well as hit her with stones and murdered her. 4. The Police alter noting the fard-beyan of Rewti Singh, informant registered case as P.S. Case No. 32 of 2004. The police after due investigation submitted charge-sheet and accordingly, cognizance was taken. Since, the offence for which the accused person was charge sheeted was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and registered as Sessions Trial No. 93 of 2004. 5. The charge under Sections 302, 366 and 201, IPC were framed, but the accused person pleading not guilty sought to be tried. The prosecution has examined altogether seven witnesses to substantiate the charges. The learned Sessions Judge, at the conclusion of the trial held the accused guilty for the offences under Sections 302, 366 and 201, IPC and accordingly, sentenced him to undergo rigorous life imprisonment with fine. Hence, this appeal. 6. The prosecution examined altogether seven witnesses. PW 1 Rewati Singh, PW 2 Birbal Chandry Gorai, PW 3 Diwakar Das, PW 4 Shrawan Singh @ Rawan Singh, PW 5 Sharad Gorai, PW 6 Yadav Chandra Das. PW 7 Dr. Lalan Choudhary. 7. Rewati Singh, PW 1, informant has stated in her witness that Aloka Singh was her only daughter and she was dependent on her. On the last "Baisakh" on a Friday, around 7 p.m., the accused Kokil Singh forcibly took Aloka away from the house. He said he was going to marry her. The girl did not want to go, and she t old him to desist but he forcibly took her away. When she told him not to take Aloka away, he grabbed her neck and pushed her away, or a result she fell down. She raised alarm, but since, it was raining no body came. The girl did not want to go, and she t old him to desist but he forcibly took her away. When she told him not to take Aloka away, he grabbed her neck and pushed her away, or a result she fell down. She raised alarm, but since, it was raining no body came. The next clay, she received information that the dead body of her daughter was lying in the jungle of Purnapani, Plashtand. Due to being ill and incapable, she could not go to see the body. She sent information about this through villagers to the Police Station and then, the police came to the village at 12:00 noon, saw the dead body and thereafter, her fardbayan was recorded, they read it out to her, which she heard and then, put her thumb impression on it. Before the incident the accused used to talk about marrying her daughter and he used to come to the house. She has recognised the accused on the dock. She said she had told what she had informed the police. In her cross-examination she has said she knew the accused from before and he has a hotel in the village. Apart from her daughter she has no one. Her daughter in her estimation was around 40 years of age. The villagers had informed her that the dead body was at Purnapani, but she can't recall their names. Police in her estimation came at 10 a.m. the next day. She did not see the accused kill her daughter, but she heard about this. 8. PW 2 Birbal Chandra Gorai has stated that on the morning of the 23.7.2004, around 8 a.m. He was going to Bamni village via Purnapani. When he reached the Purnapani Plash Jungle, then he saw the dead body of a girl. He recognised the body as that of Aloka Singh, the daughter of Rewati Singh of Nimdih. There was an injury on the mouth and forehead of the deceased, and blood had come out from the mouth. He informed people at Nimdih, Purnapani village and also Rewati Singh. When Rewati Singh was informed, then she told that last evening around 7 p.m. the accused Kokil Singh had come to her house, pushed her, and telling he is going to impose himself on her daughter, took her away. He informed people at Nimdih, Purnapani village and also Rewati Singh. When Rewati Singh was informed, then she told that last evening around 7 p.m. the accused Kokil Singh had come to her house, pushed her, and telling he is going to impose himself on her daughter, took her away. 'Hie village people had informed the police and the police had come and see the dead body. The police prepared the Inquest Report and he and one Ashok Singh pul their signature on the report. The witness recognised his signature and that of Ashok Singh, and were marked as Ext. 1 and Ext. 1 /A respectively. He has also said at the time the accused took Aloka Singh away, it was raining heavily. He has also identified the accused in Court. 9. In his cross-examination he has stated that he regularly come to Nimdih, back and forth. The deceased was from the adjacent village and he knew her. Police made the Inquest Report which Ashok Singh read out and then both of us signed it. 10. PW 7 Dr. Lalan Choudhary has stated in his evidence that he conducted the post-mortem examination of the body of Aloka Singh, aged about 30 years, female, daughter of late Govind Singh resident of Nimdih. PS Nimdih and found the following : 11. 1. Contusion over upper lips, abrasions on frontal region, right side of neck and middle part, over left phalanx of abdomen, over left thigh outer aspect, over left knee outer aspect. He has attributed cause of death to pressure over neck and mouth. He has also ruled out abrasions to be result of falling and also except for injuries No. 4 and 5. also not possible by vehicular accident. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that there was comfortable relations between the mother, daughter and Kokil Singh, the appellant. The mother in fact was comfortable with the relation that her daughter had with the appellant and they were hoping that sooner or later Kokil Singh would marry the daughter. Hence, nothing adverse should be drawn from the fact that the daughter and Kokil Singh were last seen by the mother, since, they were comfortable with the relationship. 13. Further, there has been considerable delay in the lodging of the FIR. In fact the mother. Hence, nothing adverse should be drawn from the fact that the daughter and Kokil Singh were last seen by the mother, since, they were comfortable with the relationship. 13. Further, there has been considerable delay in the lodging of the FIR. In fact the mother. Rewati Singh, PW 1 has informed that Aloka Singh was taken away by the appellant at 7 p.m. on Friday, but her fardbeyan has been lodged on the next day only at 13:00 hours, a delay of almost 17 hour. The mother could have lodged her complaint even in the morning or even on the first night itself. She only lodged a complaint when some villagers informed her about the dead body lying in the jungle of Purnapani and then only she raises the matter via some villagers and she reports the matter to the police. 14. Moreover, the body was found in an area which is not' in the normal route to the village and jungles. Learned counsel for the appellant further says that there is no eye-witness to the killing and the entire case against him is one of presumption, hence, he cannot be held guilty for the murder of Aloka Singh. 15. Learned A.P.P. has countered the arguments of counsel for the appellant and said that the fact that he was last seen by the mother of the girl, when he had come to take her away would be a strong factor to point the fingers of suspicion on him. That too when he was last seen it was in violent circumstances in that, the mother and daughter were both resisting the daughter being taken away and they raised alarm too, but the appellant dragged her away. Holding out the pretext of marriage would only add to his crime. So the fact that the appellant was last seen in a 17 hours span when the FIR was lodged would arose strong suspicions. The argument that they were in a comfortable relationship is not borne out by the testimony of the mother. 16. Learned APP has replied that the delay in lodging of the FIR is simply because it was not known to the mother, as to what had happened to the girl. She may have expected her to return so she rightly lodged FIR, when she came to know of her fate and the police came to her house. 16. Learned APP has replied that the delay in lodging of the FIR is simply because it was not known to the mother, as to what had happened to the girl. She may have expected her to return so she rightly lodged FIR, when she came to know of her fate and the police came to her house. So the delay is easily explained. Regarding the dead body being found in the jungles, or not normal route, PW 2 has said he was going to Bamni village via Purnapani so some people at least used that route. 17. Regarding presumption, the learned APP has stated that the fact the case is based on circumstantial evidence does not weaken the case, because there are strong circumstances against appellant. He was last seen by the mother of the girl, in a hostile situation. He dragged her away and was found within 17 hours so all the circumstances point to the guilt of the appellant. 18. Having heard the arguments of both counsels and having seen the documents and records of the case, in the facts and circumstances the following observations can be made. 19. No doubt, it was a case of last seen. As already seen, the daughter was last seen on the night of 22.4.2004 at 7 p.m., when Kokil Singh, the appellant in a violent manner dragged the only daughter and bread winner of the sick and incapable mother. Both the mother and daughter desisted and raised alarm but all these fell on the deaf ears of the appellant who was bent on having his way. He even assaulted the old, sick and incapable lady, when she tried resisting him, and he pushed her back by grabbing her neck and she fell down. It seems that he had already been using her for his sexual pleasure on the pretext of marriage and even on that he said that he is taking her away for marrying her. It is argued that daughter and mother were comfortable regarding their relationship with the appellant. This may only be because they were two poor ladies, one old, sick and incapable, the other younger and the sole support of her mother. It is argued that daughter and mother were comfortable regarding their relationship with the appellant. This may only be because they were two poor ladies, one old, sick and incapable, the other younger and the sole support of her mother. The mother and daughter may have seen a way out of their miserable existence via this man who owned a restaurant in the village, but on the contrary seems most vile and scheming and only bent on his getting his pleasure. And in any way it has already been held by the Apex Court, that even a woman of easy virtue is entitled to her dignity. Just because the poor woman had earlier said yes, does not mean she cannot say no. Hence, the daughter was not only last seen with the appellant but also last seen in circumstances that was violent and not at all consensual. 20. Regarding the delay aspect, it has also some what been explained by the counsel for the prosecution, the APP and it is rightly pointed out that the delay was simply explained. If it can be really called a delay that is. The mother has stated that when Kokil Singh, the appellant dragged her away it was 7 p.m. and raining heavily, and being old, sick, incapable, and having been pushed and probable hurt from the fall she had, and because of the exertions she had made in resisting Kokil Singh, she simply may not have been in a position to go out and tell others at 7 p m. when it was heavily raining. So it, is only when she informed of the gruesome murder by the villagers and the villagers again inform the police, and the police then come to her residence, that she is able to lodge her fardbayan with the police so given her circumstances this delay is perfectly explained and made within 24 hours cannot also be considered a delay. 21. Regarding the arguments about the body not being found in a normal route or way to the deceased persons village. This is a very weak argument, because, what is normal here may be relative. For the appellant it was not normal, and because it was not normal for him and in the jungles, he may have thought that a good place to dump the dead body. This is a very weak argument, because, what is normal here may be relative. For the appellant it was not normal, and because it was not normal for him and in the jungles, he may have thought that a good place to dump the dead body. However, for PW 2 Birbal Chandra Gorai, who says he used to regularly come to Nimdih back and forth and on' that day was using the Purnapani Plashtand jungle route, so it seemed usual and normal to him. So what is normal is relative here, and for PW 2, it is the usual route, while for the appellant it may have seen a good place to dispose of the body. Moreover, it does not seen that the place was very far away and distant because PW 2 says the deceased was from the adjacent village and he knew her. 22. The final leg of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the case against the appellant is purely of presumption and circumstantial. This is a case in which the actual murder of the woman has not been witnessed by anyone, so it is one that has to rest on circumstantial evidence. The learned counsel for the Slate, the APP is correct when he says there are strong circumstances against the appellant. He was last seen by the mother of the girl, in a hostile situation and he dragged her away, against her will, and her dead body was found within 17 hours when the fardbayan was lodged. So one cannot but be in agreement with this, and the fingers of suspicion rather conclusively point to the appellant, Kokil Singh. Apart from the aforementioned arguments. PW 2 has deposed that he saw the dead body at 8 a.m. in the morning, so that is within 13 hours, between 7 p.m of the 22.4.2004 and 8 a.m. On 23.4.2004, Aloka Singh was killed. The defence counsel has not said as to where he had taken Aloka Singh away between these hours, but rather tried to raise the argument that there were in a comfortable relation and was taking her away for marriage. He does not at all deny taking her away. So he is most liable to what befalls her in such a short span of hour from evening till morning. He does not at all deny taking her away. So he is most liable to what befalls her in such a short span of hour from evening till morning. There is another thing that PW 2 has said which strengthens the case of the prosecution. PW 2 has deposed that when he went to inform Rewati Singh about the fate of the deceased whom he recognised ; she told him that Kokil Singh had come around 7 p.m. in the night, had pushed her so that she fell down and then taken her away telling that he is going to impose himself on her. So in this aspect the fardbayan of Rewati Singh her deposition and the deposition of PW 2 corroborate each other, so even if she may be the single witness to fortunately part of the incident, it is natural and consistent and reliable. 23. One other aspect that though small may be considered, is that in the house of Rewati, the appellant had applied pressure on the neck of Rewati Singh, PW 1 and pushed her back so that she fell. In the report of the doctor one of the causes of death indicated is pressure over neck and mouth and there has been no recovery of any weapon instrumental in the killing, hence, this may indicate his inclination to use his bare hands to inflict violence. 24. Having gone through the arguments, documents and records, in the facts and circumstances of the case this Court is conclusively led to conclude in upholding the conviction and sentences of the Sessions Court against the appellant. Hence, his conviction for offences under Sections 302, 366 and 201, IPC are upheld, and the sentences of R.I. for life with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, five years R.I. with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and three years R.I. with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, all to run concurrently are also upheld. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.