JUDGMENT : 1. Vide this order, above mentioned death reference as well as the appeal filed by the convict against the judgment/order dated 7.12.2019 passed by the trial court, whereby, convict was convicted and sentenced for offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(f), 302, 450 and 380 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC"). 2. Prosecution case was set in motion on the basis of statement of Bhanwarlal-complainant. As per Exhibit-P.27, complainant alleged that on 21.5.2011 at about 9.00/10.00 AM he and his wife had gone to do labour work. His daughter aged about 7 years was alone at home. When complainant returned home at about 3.30 PM, he could not find his daughter or his goat and he inquired from the neighbourhood. At about 4.00-5.00 PM his wife returned home. Thereafter, Ramdayal contractor also came there and he (complainant) informed him (Ramdayal) that his (complainant) daughter was not traceable. He (Ramdayal) asked the complainant to bring a photograph of his daughter. While he (complainant) had gone to got the photograph of his daughter from the shop, Ramdayal and his wife found the dead body of his (complainant) daughter after opening the door of the room of the house. Then, Ramdayal contractor informed him on phone that dead body of his (complainant) daughter had been found. Complainant rushed home and saw the dead body of his daughter and found that his daughter was bleeding from her private parts and a jute string had been tied around her neck. Police reached the spot. 3. On the basis of complaint (Exhibit-P.27), First Information Report No.155 dated 21.5.2011 (Exhibit-P.28) was registered at Police Station Phagi, District Jaipur Rural under Sections 376, 302, 379 IPC. 4. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the convict. 5. Charges were framed against the convict under Sections 376(2)(f), 302, 450 and 380 IPC. 6. Convict did not plead guilty to the charges framed against him and claimed trial. 7. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 32 witnesses, during trial. After the close of prosecution evidence, convict when examined under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.), prayed that mobile and Subscriber Identity Module (SIM) did not belong to him. Articles 24 to 27 also did not belong to him, nor were taken in possession at his instance. After the close of prosecution evidence, convict when examined under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.), prayed that mobile and Subscriber Identity Module (SIM) did not belong to him. Articles 24 to 27 also did not belong to him, nor were taken in possession at his instance. His signatures were taken on 10-15 blank papers while he was in police custody. He had not given any information to the police regarding the place of incident. Steel Can had been recovered from the shop of Mukesh Saini (PW.22). Goat or steel Can had not been recovered from his possession. He was shown to Ramdayal and Ramotar in the police station before conducting identification parade. He had not sold the goat to anybody. He had no concern with the incident in question. He was innocent. 8. Trial court vide impugned judgment/order, ordered the conviction and sentence of the convict as under:- U/s. 380 IPC: Seven years rigorous imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default thereof to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 450 IPC: Ten years rigorous imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default thereof to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 376(2)(f) IPC: Life imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- and in default thereof to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 302 IPC: Death penalty, to pay a fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- each and in default thereof to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment. 9. Hence, the death reference by the trial court and the appeal filed by the convict. 10. Learned State counsel has submitted that the death sentence awarded to the convict was liable to be upheld as the offence committed by the convict was grave in nature. The victim in the present case is aged about 7 years. Convict, after committing the offence of rape, had murdered her. Prosecution witnesses have duly supported the prosecution case and reports submitted by the experts also establish the guilt of the convict. 11. Learned counsel for the convict, on the other hand, has submitted that the prosecution has been unsuccessful in establishing its case. Prosecution witnesses had falsely involved the convict in this case. As per the complaint (Exhibit-P.27), no suspicion was raised on the convict. Thereafter, convict had been falsely involved in this case. 11. Learned counsel for the convict, on the other hand, has submitted that the prosecution has been unsuccessful in establishing its case. Prosecution witnesses had falsely involved the convict in this case. As per the complaint (Exhibit-P.27), no suspicion was raised on the convict. Thereafter, convict had been falsely involved in this case. Learned counsel has further submitted that in case conviction of the convict was upheld, then the sentence of death was liable to be converted to imprisonment for life as the present case could not be described as 'rarest of rare' case inviting death penalty. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the convict has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramnaresh & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2012 (4) SCC 257 , wherein, it was held as under:- "48. There are certain circumstances, which if taken collectively, would indicate that it is not a case where the Court would inevitably arrive at only one conclusion, and no other, that imposition of death penalty is the only punishment that would serve the ends of justice. Firstly, the age of all the appellants is one of the relevant considerations before the Court. Secondly, according to PW1, Indrajeet, the deceased Rajkumari was his mistress and he had not married her, though he had two children with her. According to him, she was earlier married to one Bhupendra and he was not maintaining good relations with the said Bhupendra on account of his living with the deceased. This may have been a matter of some concern for the family, including Ranjeet, the brother of PW1. Thirdly, it has come in evidence that during investigation, the Investigating Officer recovered a piece of saree from the place of occurrence, which was blood-stained. According to the statement of the PW7, Dr. Shila Saha, there were external injuries on the body of the deceased. Petechial hemorrhage was present in the left and right lungs. Blood mixed with froth was flowing out from the mouth of the deceased which was indicative of the possibility of the accused persons having gagged her mouth with the piece of the saree while committing rape upon her. Thus, the possibility of death of the deceased occurring co-accidentally as a result of this act committed on her by the accused cannot be ruled out. Thus, the possibility of death of the deceased occurring co-accidentally as a result of this act committed on her by the accused cannot be ruled out. In similar circumstances, in the case of Bantu @ Naresh Giri (supra), this Court took the view that it was not a death caused intentionally, despite the fact that it was a case of rape being committed on a minor girl. Lastly, there is no attempt made by the prosecution to prove on record that these accused are criminals or are incapable of being reformed even if given a chance to improve themselves. While relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Goraksha Ambaji Adsul (supra), the contention raised on behalf of the accused is that, it is not a case where no other alternative is available with the Court except to award death sentence to the accused and that they are likely to prove a menace to the society. It is further stated that the statement of the sole witness is not credible as he himself fell within the range of suspicion and a number of other witnesses had turned hostile. There are contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses. The accused are neither previous convicts nor involved in any other crime. Thus, given a chance, they are capable of being reformed and be law-abiding citizens. 49. Having dealt with these contentions at some length in the earlier part of the judgment, we do not consider it necessary to again deliberate on these questions. Suffices it to note that the accused are guilty of the offences for which they were charged. It is correct that the possibility of their being reformed cannot be ruled out. The Court has to consider various parameters afore-stated and balance the mitigating circumstances against the need for imposition of capital punishment. The factors to be considered could be different than the mitigating circumstances. While we cumulatively examine the various principles and apply them to the facts of the present case, it appears to us that the age of the accused, possibility of the death of the deceased occurring accidently and the possibility of the accused reforming themselves, they cannot be termed as 'social menace'. While we cumulatively examine the various principles and apply them to the facts of the present case, it appears to us that the age of the accused, possibility of the death of the deceased occurring accidently and the possibility of the accused reforming themselves, they cannot be termed as 'social menace'. It is unfortunate but a hard fact that all these accused have committed a heinous and inhumane crime for satisfaction of their lust, but it cannot be held with certainty that this case falls in the 'rarest of rare' cases. On appreciation of the evidence on record and keeping the facts and circumstances of the case in mind, we are unable to hold that any other sentence but death would be inadequate. 12. Present case relates to rape and murder of a minor girl, aged about 7 years. Case rests on circumstantial evidence. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Padala Veera Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., AIR 1990 SC 79 , as under:- "10. .. This Court in a series of decisions has consistently held that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence such evidence must satisfy the following tests: (1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) 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 (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. (See Gambhir v. State of Maharashtra)." 13. It has also been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Brajendrasingh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2012 SC 1552 , as under:- "There is no doubt that it is not a case of direct evidence but the conviction of the accused is founded on circumstantial evidence. It is a settled principle of law that the prosecution has to satisfy certain conditions before a conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be sustained. It is a settled principle of law that the prosecution has to satisfy certain conditions before a conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be sustained. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established and should also be consistent with only one hypothesis, i.e. the guilt of the accused. The circumstances should be conclusive and proved by the prosecution. There must be a chain of events so complete so as not to leave any substantial doubt in the mind of the Court. Irresistibly, the evidence should lead to the conclusion inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and the only possibility that the accused has committed the crime. To put it simply, the circumstances forming the chain of events should be proved and they should cumulatively point towards the guilt of the accused alone. In such circumstances, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. Furthermore, the rule which needs to be observed by the Court while dealing with the cases of circumstantial evidence is that the best evidence must be adduced which the nature of the case admits. The circumstances have to be examined cumulatively. The Court has to examine the complete chain of events and then see whether all the material facts sought to be established by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused, have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. It has to be kept in mind that all these principles are based upon one basic canon of our criminal jurisprudence that the accused is innocent till proven guilty and that the accused is entitled to a just and fair trial." 14. Let us examine the circumstances brought on record by the prosecution to come to a conclusion as to whether the prosecution had been successful in establishing its case. 15. Star witness of the prosecution is PW.3 Ramdayal. The said witness while appearing in witness box deposed that he was working as a contractor. On 21.5.2011 he had come home for lunch at about 1.00/1.15 PM. House of Bhanwarlal falls before his house and he saw one boy entering the house of Bhanwarlal and he was talking to the girl. Star witness of the prosecution is PW.3 Ramdayal. The said witness while appearing in witness box deposed that he was working as a contractor. On 21.5.2011 he had come home for lunch at about 1.00/1.15 PM. House of Bhanwarlal falls before his house and he saw one boy entering the house of Bhanwarlal and he was talking to the girl. The boy was aged about 20 years and was wearing black jeans and a sky-blue coloured T-shirt having green stripes on it. Face of the boy was towards the girl. The girl was aged about 7/8 years. He (witness) entered his house. At about 3.00 PM when he returned he saw the boy, whom he had seen in the house of Bhanwarlal, walking with a kettle in one hand and had caught hold of the goat from its ear with the other hand. He (witness) thought that Bhanwarlal might have sold the goat to the said person. In the evening at about 4.00/5.00 PM while he (witness) was returning home, he met Bhanwarlal on the way and Bhanwarlal informed him (witness) that his (Bhanwarlal) daughter and goat were not present in the house. Then he told Bhanwarlal that he (witness) could not say anything about the girl, but he had seen one boy walking away with the goat towards Phagi. Bhanwarlal left for the search and he (witness) went to the house of Bhanwarlal. When he (witness) entered the house, he was informed by the wife of Bhanwarlal that her daughter and goat were not present in the house. He asked her to open the room in the front which was lying bolted. When they unbolted the room, they saw that the girl was lying on one side and she was bleeding from her private parts. A jute string had been tied around the neck of the girl. The girl had died. He informed the Sarpanch and made a phone call to the police. Sarpanch as well as police had reached at the spot. Bhanwarlal also returned home. He had identified the boy Mahendra in the identification parade. The said witness was again called for cross-examination and his cross-examination was recorded on 7.11.2017 as the same could not be conducted on 8.7.2013 due to the fact that the convict was not present in the court on that day. Bhanwarlal also returned home. He had identified the boy Mahendra in the identification parade. The said witness was again called for cross-examination and his cross-examination was recorded on 7.11.2017 as the same could not be conducted on 8.7.2013 due to the fact that the convict was not present in the court on that day. PW.3 has been again numbered as PW.19 at the time of his cross-examination. A perusal of cross-examination of PW.3 Ramdayal (re-numbered as PW.19) reveals that his testimony with regard to the fact that convict had been seen in the house of the victim before the incident and had also been seen while leaving with goat from the house of victim, could not be shattered. Although in Exhibit-P.27, name of Ramdayal Thekedar has been mentioned, but no specific allegation has been leveled against the convict, but the fact remains that during trial testimony of PW.3/PW.19 Ramdayal could not be shattered with regard to involvement of convict in the crime. Statement of PW.3 Ramdayal was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 22.5.2011 without any delay. 16. PW.4 Sita Devi, mother of the victim, has deposed that on the day of incident she had gone to do labour work. When she returned home in the evening, she found that her daughter and goat were missing. Their neighbour Ramdayal told her that the girl was playing outside during the day and one boy had taken away the goat with him. The said boy was wearing a black pant and blue T-shirt. Ramdayal told her that they would inform the police and photograph of the girl be made available. When she opened the door of Kachhi Kothari (temporary room), they found that her daughter was lying on one side. A jute string had been tied around the neck of her daughter and she was bleeding from her private parts. The person who had taken the goat had murdered her daughter after committing the offence of rape. Then she called her husband and police also reached the spot. 17. PW.11 Bhanwarlal, father of the deceased, has deposed as per the contents of the complaint (Ex. P.27). The witness further deposed that his goat was handed over to him on Supurdagi vide Exhibit-P.2. 18. PW.12 Ramavtar deposed that about 4-5 years ago he was sitting at the meat shop of his brother. 17. PW.11 Bhanwarlal, father of the deceased, has deposed as per the contents of the complaint (Ex. P.27). The witness further deposed that his goat was handed over to him on Supurdagi vide Exhibit-P.2. 18. PW.12 Ramavtar deposed that about 4-5 years ago he was sitting at the meat shop of his brother. At about 5.00/6.00 PM one boy brought a red coloured goat to the shop. The boy was wearing a pant and T-shirt. The boy was aged about 20-22 years. The boy was strong built and was having wheatish complexion. He could identify the boy. The boy gave price of the goat as Rs. 6,000/-. He was also carrying one Barni (pot) having ghee. At that time Mannaram also came to the shop. He purchased two kilogram ghee from the boy @ Rs. 400/- per kilogram. Goat was purchased by Munnalal. He (witness) had participated in the identification parade and had identified the convict present in the court. The said witness was also cross-examined by defence counsel, but testimony of the said witness could not be shattered. 19. PW.13 Mannaram deposed that about five years ago at about 5.00 PM he was present at the shop of Ramavtar. One boy wearing pant and T-shirt was present there. The said boy was aged about 20-21 years and was also carrying a kettle having ghee. The boy was also selling a red coloured goat and had demanded Rs. 6,000/- However, he (witness) purchased the goat from the boy for Rs. 4,400/-. He (witness) had identified the boy in an identification parade. However, in his cross-examination the witness did not support the prosecution case. 20. PW.17 Gopal Saini deposed that about five and a half years ago one steel Can had been taken in possession from his shop. At that time, convict was also present there. 21. PW.22 Mukesh Saini deposed that he was running a grocery store. On 21.5.2011 one boy had come to his shop to purchase Dilbagh Gutka and he had left the steel Can at his shop and said that he would take the same after sometime. The Can was carrying ghee. The boy did not return thereafter and he informed the said fact to his father. The boy had disclosed his name as Mahendra Kumar Tamadiya. On the next day police had taken the Can carrying about 2 kilogram Deshi ghee. 22. The Can was carrying ghee. The boy did not return thereafter and he informed the said fact to his father. The boy had disclosed his name as Mahendra Kumar Tamadiya. On the next day police had taken the Can carrying about 2 kilogram Deshi ghee. 22. PW.30 Anil Kumar Gupta deposed that on 8.6.2011 he was posted as Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sambhar Lake. Police had presented an application before him in connection with identification parade. He had conducted identification parade as per rules. Witnesses Ramdayal, Ramavtar and Mannalal had identified the convict Mahendra correctly. He proved the identification report Exhibit-P.4. 23. Exhibit-P.24 is the post-mortem examination report of the deceased. As per the said report, following injuries were found on the person of the deceased:- External Injuries seen during postmortem Examination:- I. Ligature mark :- Ligature mark of size 26 cm long 1/2 cm in width 1/2 cm-1 cm on left side neck present around the neck completely encircling it extending from right lateral neck 6 cm below right ear going forwards and medially on right side front of neck to mid front of neck 6 cm below the chin then going backwards and laterally on left side front of neck to left lateral neck 6.5 cm below left ear further going on back of neck on both sides at the same level to right lateral neck. The ligature mark is complete and partially grooved at places running at the level of thyroid cartilage on front of neck. On dissection underlying tissues are pale with ante mortem haematoma. On posterior aspect of tracheolaryngeal apparatus. The bony and cartilagenous structures of neck are intact. Cervical vertebrae are intact. The tracheal cavity contains froth and inner aspect of trachea is congested. The colour of ligature mark is brownish and is hard. The above ligature mark is antemortem in nature. Multiple linear abrasions 1/2 cm-1 cm present on front of neck above and below the mark red. II. External genitalia-Dry red clotted blood present over the external genital region on examination, third degree (vaginal) perineal tear present over vaginal region upto anal canal. It is 5 cm on vaginal wall posteriorly and 2.5 cm on anterior wall of anal canal. Anal sphincter is torn. Anterior vaginal wall is bruised with avulsion of urethral opening. Upper part of vaginals intact with dry red clotted blood and antemortem haematoma. III. It is 5 cm on vaginal wall posteriorly and 2.5 cm on anterior wall of anal canal. Anal sphincter is torn. Anterior vaginal wall is bruised with avulsion of urethral opening. Upper part of vaginals intact with dry red clotted blood and antemortem haematoma. III. Abrasion of size 2 cm x 1 cm on back of left shoulder laterally. Red in colour. IV. Abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm red on back of left shoulder medially. V. Abrasion 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm red on medial border of left scapula. VI. Abrasion 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm red on lateral border of left scapula. VII. Abrasion 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm red on lower part of left scapular region. VIII. Abrasion 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm red on left knee laterally in lower part. IX. Diffuse swelling on mid fronto parietal region. On dissection underlying sub scalp haematoma 2 cm x 1 1/2 cm dark red on mid fronto parietal region. All above injuries and ligature mark are antemortem in nature and fresh in duration prior to death. Opinion:- We the members of medical board are of the opinion that- 1. The cause of death is asphyxia brought about as a result of antemortem ligature strangulation sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. However, to rule out any poisoning, above mentioned sample (A) preserved sealed and handed over to the accompanying police person with forwarding letter. 2. The injury present over the external genital region is fresh in duration prior to death and caused with blunt object. However, for evidence of recent sexual intercourse, above mentioned sample (B) preserved, sealed and handed over to accompanying police person with the forwarding letter. 24. As per opinion of the Medical Board, the cause of death was asphyxia brought about as a result of ante-mortem ligature strangulation sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The injury present over the external genital region was fresh in duration prior to death and had been caused with blunt object. 25. In order to prove the said report Exhibit-P.24, prosecution examined PW.6 Dr. Deepali Pathak and PW.18 Dr. Neelam Bharadwaj. The said witnesses also deposed that as per report of Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), DNA profile were seen in vaginal swab and vaginal smears. 26. PW.16 Dr. 25. In order to prove the said report Exhibit-P.24, prosecution examined PW.6 Dr. Deepali Pathak and PW.18 Dr. Neelam Bharadwaj. The said witnesses also deposed that as per report of Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), DNA profile were seen in vaginal swab and vaginal smears. 26. PW.16 Dr. Ajay Gupta deposed that on 24.5.2011 he had conducted medical examination of the convict and proved the report Exhibit-P.47. As per the said report, there was nothing suggesting that the convict was incapable of doing sexual intercourse, although, convict had stated that he was married, but had not done intercourse with his wife. This witness further deposed that for FSL examination, samples of blood in EDTA, saliva swab, hairs, nails, blood swab, urethral swab, slide of urethral discharge, public hairs, were taken. 27. Exhibit-P.26 is the report of State Forensic Science Laboratory and the said report reads as under:- DESCRIPTION OF ARTICLES Following packets of the case were received in properly sealed condition, bearing seal impression which tallied with the seal sample forwarded. Sl.No. Packet marked Exhibit No. Exhibit name 1. A 1 Frock 2 Hair from Frock 2. D 3 Shawl 3. F 4 Piece of cloth 5 Hair from piece of cloth 4. Nil (sealed by M.O.) 6 Vaginal swab 7 Vaginal smear 5. Nil (sealed by M.O.) 8 Blood sample of suspect Mahendra Kumar DNA could be extracted from all the samples. Microsatellite loci of AmpFISTR® Minifiler® and AmpFISTR® y-filer® kit were used for DNA profiling of the samples. Exhibit No. 2 (Packet marked A-Hair from Frock) and 5 (Packet marked F-Hair from piece of cloth) were consumed during examination. The data was analyzed by GeneMapper ID-X® software. RESULT OF EXAMINATION A. The result of DNA test with AmpFISTR® identifiler® plus kit (TABLE-1) shows that: (i) Female DNA profile is present on exhibit No. 1 (Frock), 4 (Piece of cloth), 6 (Vaginal Swab) and 7 (Vaginal smear). (ii) Exhibit No. 2 (Hair from Frock), and 5 (Hair from piece of cloth), have mixed Male and Female DNA profile. RESULT OF EXAMINATION A. The result of DNA test with AmpFISTR® identifiler® plus kit (TABLE-1) shows that: (i) Female DNA profile is present on exhibit No. 1 (Frock), 4 (Piece of cloth), 6 (Vaginal Swab) and 7 (Vaginal smear). (ii) Exhibit No. 2 (Hair from Frock), and 5 (Hair from piece of cloth), have mixed Male and Female DNA profile. The Male profile of these Exhibits matches with DNA profile of exhibit No. 8 (Blood sample of Suspect Mahendra Kumar) (iii) Exhibit No. 3 (Shawl) shows partial Male DNA Profile which does not matches with Exhibit No. 8 (Blood sample of Suspect Mahendra Kumar) B. The result of DNA test with AmpFISTR® y-filer® kit (TABLE-2) shows that: (i) The Male DNA profile of exhibit No. 2 (Hair from Frock), and 5 (Hair from piece of cloth), is matching with the DNA profile of exhibit No. 8 (Blood sample of suspect Mahendra Kumar) (ii) The Male DNA profile of exhibit No. 5 (Shawl) is not matching with the DNA profile found on exhibit No. 8 (Blood sample of suspect Mahendra Kumar). CONCLUSION The DNA test performed on the exhibits provided is sufficient to conclude that: 1. The hair recovered from Exhibits No. 2 (Hair from Frock), and 5 (Hair from piece of cloth) belongs to the source of exhibit No. 8 (Blood sample of suspect Mahendra Kumar). 2. The DNA profile of the stains on exhibit No. 5 (Shawl) does not belongs to source of Exhibit No. 8 (Blood sample of suspect Mahendra Kumar). 28. PW.25 Dr. Rajesh Kumar and PW.26 Dr. G.K. Mathur have proved the report of Forensic Science Laboratory Exhibit-P.26. 29. PW.27 Vijay Sehara deposed that on 21.5.2011 he was posted as Station House Officer, Police Station Phagi. He recorded statement of complainant Bhanwarlal, Exhibit-P.27, and on the basis of the same, First Information Report Exhibit-P.28 was registered. The dead body was sent for post-mortem examination and was thereafter handed over to the complainant for last rites. Clothes of the deceased were taken in possession. FSL team had visited the spot and took photographs and prepared the report. Photographs of the victim were taken. Photographs of the goat submitted by the complainant, were also taken in possession. Blood stained earth was lifted from the spot where the victim had been raped and murdered. Plain earth was also lifted from the spot and was taken in possession. Photographs of the victim were taken. Photographs of the goat submitted by the complainant, were also taken in possession. Blood stained earth was lifted from the spot where the victim had been raped and murdered. Plain earth was also lifted from the spot and was taken in possession. From the spot, one blood stained green coloured cloth was taken in possession. Hair recovered from the said cloth were separately taken in possession. During investigation convict was arrested and his arrest memo was prepared. One black jeans pant, one stripped T-shirt light sky-blue colour, underwear, one vest black colour, one white hanky of the convict were taken in possession. Convict was got medically examined. During investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded. Call details of mobile phone No. 9785379734 of the convict were collected for ascertainment of his location. The witness also deposed that he had recovered one goat at the instance of the convict and a memo Exhibit-P.37 in this regard was prepared. Goat was handed over to the complainant Bhanwarlal on Supurdari vide Exhibit-P.2. 30. Thus, in the present case, from the statement of PW.3/PW.19 Ramdayal, presence of convict at the place of incident stands duly established. Testimony of this witness could not be shattered during his cross-examination with regard to involvement of convict in the crime. Moreover, there is nothing on record to suggest that the said witness had any enmity with the convict to have falsely involve him in this case. From the statement of this witness it is also evident that after the incident, convict was seen leaving the spot and was also taking the goat with him. As per medical opinion, victim who was aged about 7 years, had been raped and strangulated. As per DNA Test Report, Exhibit-P.26, hair recovered from the frock of the deceased matched with the blood sample of the convict. Piece of cloth recovered from the spot was also found to be having some hair on it. As per DNA Test Report, hair from the piece of cloth belong to the source of blood sample of the convict. As per DNA Test Report, Exhibit-P.26, hair recovered from the frock of the deceased matched with the blood sample of the convict. Piece of cloth recovered from the spot was also found to be having some hair on it. As per DNA Test Report, hair from the piece of cloth belong to the source of blood sample of the convict. Although, the convict had taken-up the plea at the time of his medical examination that he had not done sexual intercourse with his wife, but the fact remains that as per report, Exhibit-P.47, Doctor on medical examination of the convict had found that there was nothing to suggest that the convict was incapable of performing sexual intercourse. The above circumstances lead towards the guilt of the convict and negate the possibility of his innocence. The prosecution has, thus, been successful in completing the chain of circumstances leading towards the guilt of the convict. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the opinion that the learned trial court has, thus, rightly ordered conviction of the convict under Sections 376(2)(f), 302, 450 and 380 IPC. 31. The next question that requires consideration is as to whether the trial court was justified in awarding 'death' sentence to the accused. 32. It is a settled proposition of law that death sentence must be imposed only when imprisonment for life appears to be an altogether inadequate punishment having regard to the relevant circumstances of the crime. A just balance has to be struck between the aggravating and mitigating circumstances before option is exercised to award death penalty. Imprisonment for life in a murder case is the rule and death sentence is an exception. Death sentence is to be awarded in the 'rarest of the rare case' when the court comes to the conclusion that other then death sentence, no other sentence would be appropriate. 33. Learned trial court after considering the relevant facts and circumstances of the case has opted to award 'death' sentence to the accused. However, we are of the considered opinion, after going through the facts and circumstances of the case that the present case does not fall within the ambit of 'rarest of the rare case' inviting death penalty. 34. 33. Learned trial court after considering the relevant facts and circumstances of the case has opted to award 'death' sentence to the accused. However, we are of the considered opinion, after going through the facts and circumstances of the case that the present case does not fall within the ambit of 'rarest of the rare case' inviting death penalty. 34. Consequently, while upholding the conviction of the convict for offence under Section 302 IPC, we set aside the 'death' sentence awarded to the accused and convert the same to imprisonment for life' with fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default of payment of fine, accused shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. It is also ordered that accused would serve minimum period of 25 years sentence excluding remissions before his case can be considered for premature release. Sentence of the convict, as ordered by the trial court, under Sections 376(2) (f), 450 and 380 IPC are upheld. Appeal filed by convict Mahendra Kumar @ Narendra Kumar @ Dharmendra Kumar stands disposed of accordingly. 35. Consequently, death reference filed by the State stands declined.