Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 253 (RAJ)

Sanwra S/o Shankar Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2022-01-27

SAMEER JAIN, SANDEEP MEHTA

body2022
JUDGMENT : SANDEEP MEHTA, J. 1. The appellants herein have been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 07.11.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bhilwara in Sessions Case No. 6/2013: Accused Sanwra: Offences Under Section Sentences Fine Fine Default sentences 302 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs. 3,000/- 1 year's further Rigorous Imprisonment 365 read with Section 120B IPC 4 Years' R.I. Rs. 1,000/- 6 months' further Rigorous Imprisonment Accused Govind Ram: Offences Under Section Sentences Fine Fine Default sentences 365 read with Section 120B IPC 4 Years' R.I. Rs. 1,000/- 6 months' further Rigorous Imprisonment All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Being aggrieved of their conviction and sentences, the appellants have preferred these appeals under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. Since both these appeals arise out of a common Judgment, they have been heard and are being decided together. 3. Briefly stated facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeals are noted herein-below: The complainant Prem Lal (PW-1), submitted a complaint (Ex.P/23) at the Police Station Mandal on 09.11.2012 alleging inter alia that two days earlier, at about 8 o'clock, his nephew Shyamlal aged about 12 years, hereinafter referred to as the victim, had gone to the colony of Jats for singing Gudaliya, (a kind of folklore). At 9 o'clock, Shyamlal's companion Devi Lal and a few more boys came and informed the complainant that the boy had been forcibly taken away by the accused Sanwra, resident of Mandal. A search was made for the victim and the suspect but they could not be traced out. In the morning of 9.11.2012, someone provided information that the dead body of a child was lying on the embankment of Mandal Talaab on which, the informant proceeded there and identified the dead body to be that of the victim. It was further mentioned in the report that alongwith Sanwra, his maternal nephew Nandlal had also been seen. 4. On the basis of this report, an FIR No. 264/2012 (Ex.P/25) came to be registered at the Police Station Mandal for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and the investigation was assigned to Shri Rajmal (PW-15), SHO Police Station Mandal. The Panchnama-Lash was prepared. The spot investigation memo etc. were prepared. Blood stained soil and control soil were lifted from the place of incident. The blood stained shirt and trousers of the victim were also seized. The Panchnama-Lash was prepared. The spot investigation memo etc. were prepared. Blood stained soil and control soil were lifted from the place of incident. The blood stained shirt and trousers of the victim were also seized. The dead body was subjected to postmortem at the Community Health Centre, Mandal and the postmortem report (Ex.P/11) was issued opining that the cause of death of the child victim was shock as a result of excessive bleeding from the neck injury. An incised wound was noticed on front of the neck extending from one side to the other. The neck muscles, carotid vessels and the trachea were severed. A few abrasions were noticeable on the body of the victim. All the injuries were antemortem in nature. The accused appellant Sanwra was apprehended on 10.11.2012 vide memo Ex.P/26 and the accused appellant Govind Ram Meena was arrested on 12.11.2012 vide memo Ex.P/27. 5. Acting upon the voluntary information (Ex.P/32) supplied by the accused Sanwra under Section 27 of the Evidence Act to the Investigating Officer regarding concealment of the weapon of offence, a knife was recovered from his house vide seizure memo Ex.P/9. Acting in furtherance of the information (Ex.P/29) provided by the accused appellant Sanwra under Section 27 of the Evidence Act to the Investigating Officer, his clothes which were concealed in a well, were recovered vide seizure memo (Ex.P/2). Some more confessional information of both the accused appellants were recorded by the Investigating Officer. The blood stained shirt and trouser of the victim seized vide memo Ex.P/6, the blood stained soil and control soil lifted from the spot vide memo Ex.P/7 and the knife (Ex.P/9) recovered at the instance of the accused Sanwra were forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory for comparison and serological examination from where, a report (Ex.C/1) was received affirming the fact that the clothes of the victim, the blood stained soil collected from the spot and the knife recovered at the instance of the accused appellant Sanwra, all tested positive for presence of ‘B’ group human blood. 6. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused appellant Sanwra for the offences punishable under Sections 365, 302, 377/511 and 120B IPC and against the accused Govind Ram for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 365 read with Section 120B IPC and Section 377 read with Section 120B IPC. 6. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused appellant Sanwra for the offences punishable under Sections 365, 302, 377/511 and 120B IPC and against the accused Govind Ram for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 365 read with Section 120B IPC and Section 377 read with Section 120B IPC. As the offence under Section 302 IPC was exclusively Sessions triable, the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Bhilwara from where, it was transferred to the court of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bhilwara for trial. Charges were framed against the accused appellants in the above terms. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses and exhibited 38 documents to prove its case. The Forensic Science Laboratory report was exhibited and marked as Ex.C/1. The accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and were confronted with the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, which they denied and claimed to have been falsely implicated. The accused appellant Sanwra took a plea of alibi. The defence examined two witnesses and exhibited 5 documents. 7. After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned defence counsel and learned Public Prosecutor and upon appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned trial court proceeded to convict and sentence the appellants as above. Hence these appeals. 8. Learned counsel Ms. Yogita Mohanani representing the accused appellant Sanwra vehemently and fervently urged that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. The appellant Sanwra has been convicted on the basis of totally flimsy evidence of last seen and the cooked up recovery of knife. As per Ms. Mohanani, the witnesses of last seen have not given convincing evidence. The circumstance of recovery of knife has wrongly been relied upon by the learned trial court because the recovery is totally concocted. Her alternative submission was that even if the allegations levelled by the prosecution that the appellant Sanwra slit the neck of Shyamlal with a knife is accepted to be true on the face of record, then too, as per the evidence of the medical jurist, the injury was not directly responsible for the death of the boy. She urged that as per the evidence of the medical jurist who prepared the post mortem report, the cause of death of the victim was excessive bleeding. She urged that as per the evidence of the medical jurist who prepared the post mortem report, the cause of death of the victim was excessive bleeding. She placed reliance on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Vijay Singh and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2014 Cri. L.J. 2158 and urged that at best, conviction of the accused appellant Sanwra can be recorded for the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC. She thus, implored the Court to accept the appeal of the accused appellant Sanwra and to either acquit him or to suitably alter his conviction and reduce the sentences. 9. Shri B.L. Choudhary, learned counsel representing the appellant Govind Ram, vehemently and fervently urged that the findings, which have been recorded by the trial court for convicting the appellant Govind Ram in this case, are totally conjectural. Not a single prosecution witness uttered a word against the said accused. The learned trial court placed reliance on the interrogational notes of the accused Govind Ram for holding him guilty as above and as such, the findings recorded by the trial court for convicting the accused appellant Govind Ram are perverse on the face of the record. He thus, implored the Court to accept the appeal of the accused Govind Ram and to acquit him of the charges. 10. Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellants' counsel and contended that the appellants herein, kidnapped the child with the intention of sodomizing him but when they attempted to do so, the child resisted upon which, he was killed by slitting his neck. He urged that the circumstances of last seen and recoveries which were well established by cogent evidence, form an un-breached chain of incriminating circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused beyond all manner of doubt and hence as per the learned Public Prosecutor, the learned trial court committed no error in convicting and sentencing the appellants in the manner stated above. On these submissions, learned Public Prosecutor sought dismissal of the appeals and affirmation of the conviction of the appellants as recorded by the trial court. 11. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have carefully perused the impugned judgment and thoroughly re-analyzed the evidence available on record. 12. On these submissions, learned Public Prosecutor sought dismissal of the appeals and affirmation of the conviction of the appellants as recorded by the trial court. 11. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have carefully perused the impugned judgment and thoroughly re-analyzed the evidence available on record. 12. From the admitted prosecution case, the allegation of taking away the child is specifically attributed to the accused Sanwra whereas, the allegation as against the accused Govind Ram is that of conspiracy. There is no direct evidence against Govind Ram and primarily, the prosecution has relied upon the interrogation notes/information of the two accused persons recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 27 of the Evidence Act for seeking his conviction. 13. Now, we propose to discuss the evidence of the witnesses examined by the prosecution to bring home the charges. 14. Prem Lal (PW-1) stated in his evidence that he saw Narayan with Sanwra in Lord Mahadev's Fair which took place in the village Mandal in the Shrawan month. However, the witness admitted in his cross-examination that the fair sustains for 15 days and he could not state the particular day on which he saw these two persons together. Therefore, no convincing inference can be drawn from the evidence of Prabhu Lal regarding the victim having been lastly seen in the company of the accused Sanwra soon before he was murdered. 15. Devilal (PW-2) is a child witness. He alleged in his testimony that about nine months ago, he and his friends including Suresh, Rahul and Sanwar had gone to sing folklores and reached the Bada Mandir after the program was over. Sanwra came there in an intoxicated state and asked Shyamlal to accompany him for singing. Shyamlal resisted but Sanwra took him away forcibly. The witness went to the Shyamlal's home and informed his father about this incident. The witness stated that he did not see Shyamlal alive thereafter and 2-3 days later, he received information that Shyamlal had been murdered. The incident of Shyamlal being taken away by accused Sanwra took place on the day after Deepawali. The witness identified the accused appellant Sanwra as the one who took the deceased away with himself. No significant cross-examination was made by the defence counsel from this witness for disputing the identity of the accused Sanwra. 16. The incident of Shyamlal being taken away by accused Sanwra took place on the day after Deepawali. The witness identified the accused appellant Sanwra as the one who took the deceased away with himself. No significant cross-examination was made by the defence counsel from this witness for disputing the identity of the accused Sanwra. 16. Gopal (PW-3) was associated as a motbir in the recoveries effected from the place where the dead-body of the victim was found. His evidence is formal in nature. 17. Narayan (PW-4) stated in his evidence that he worked in the tent and light decoration establishment of one, Premji. In the month of Shrawan, he had done light decoration at the Shanker Bhagwan Temple. The time was about 8-9 in the night. Sanwra came there and asked him for a sum of Rs. 200/- and upon being denied, he forcibly snatched away the memory card from the witness's mobile phone and also beat him up. The witness admitted in his cross-examination that he was not accompanying the deceased Shyamlal when he went to sing the folklores. Apparently, thus, the evidence of this witness does not give any indication that he saw the accused and the deceased together anytime before the murder. 18. Ashutosh (PW-5) was associated as panch witness in the proceedings which were undertaken by the Investigating Officer after recovery of the dead body of the victim from near the Mandal talaab. His evidence is also more or less formal in nature. 19. Santosh (PW-6) was associated as motbir in the recovery memo Ex.P/9 whereby, the accused Sanwra got a knife recovered which was concealed under a heap of cow dung in his field. Nothing significant was elicited in the cross-examination of the witness. He stayed firm on the procedure whereby, the knife was recovered and seized. Thus, from the evidence of this witness, the factum of recovery of knife at the instance of the accused is fortified. 20. Rahul (PW-7) is a child witness. Upon being examined on oath, he stated that he, Devu, Shyamu and Sanwra are friends. They had gone to the temple and were singing folklores. The accused Sanwra forcibly took away Shyamlal. They went and informed Shyamlal's uncle that the accused Sanwra had taken him away. Two days later, the dead body of Shyamlal was recovered from near the talaab. Upon being examined on oath, he stated that he, Devu, Shyamu and Sanwra are friends. They had gone to the temple and were singing folklores. The accused Sanwra forcibly took away Shyamlal. They went and informed Shyamlal's uncle that the accused Sanwra had taken him away. Two days later, the dead body of Shyamlal was recovered from near the talaab. In cross-examination, a suggestion was given to the witness regarding enmity between him and Sanwra, which he flatly denied. He admitted that Shyamlal was a friend of Sanwra but on the fateful day, he was not agreeable to go with the accused on which, he was kicked and forcibly taken away. A pertinent suggestion was given by the defence to the witness on which, he agreed that Sanwra took away Shyamlal with himself saying that they had to go for singing Lodi Lores. On further cross-examination, the witness admitted that Sanwra offered money and took Shyamlal with him. Thus, slight contradictions do appear in the evidence of the witness regarding the precise sequence in which, the accused took away Shyamlal but such minor variations are bound to appear in the testimony of a truthful witness and do not affect evidentiary worth of his testimony. 21. Dr. H.S. Sahwal (PW-8) was a member of the Medical Board which conducted autopsy of the dead body of the victim on 09.11.2012 and issued the postmortem report (Ex.P/11) wherein, the Medical Board took note of an incised wound admeasuring 6.5 inches long and 1 inch wide on the front side of the neck of the victim. The underlying muscles and blood vessels were all severed. In addition thereto, two abrasions were noticeable on the right arm of the victim. The Medical Board opined that the cause of death of the victim was excessive haemorrhage leading to shock. The absurd defence suggestion that the cause of death of the victim was asphyxia or that he could have received such injury by falling into a well or by a sharp stone, were emphatically refuted by the Jurist. Thus, it is well established from the evidence of Dr. Sahwal that the death of the child was homicidal in nature. The sharp weapon wound was struck on the neck of the child with great force severing the muscles and the vessels and thus, intention as well as knowledge to cause death can be attributed to the offender. 22. Thus, it is well established from the evidence of Dr. Sahwal that the death of the child was homicidal in nature. The sharp weapon wound was struck on the neck of the child with great force severing the muscles and the vessels and thus, intention as well as knowledge to cause death can be attributed to the offender. 22. Dr. Pankaj Purohit (PW-9) was a member of the Mobile Forensic Science Unit and assisted the police team in conducting the spot inspection. His evidence is also more or less formal in nature. 23. Girdhari (PW-10) stated that he was a crane operator and worked in Gujarat. On 09.11.2012, Babu and Bholu Ram used to work with him. Sanwra used to work with him prior thereto. Most of the staff returned home on the festivals of Holi and Deepawali and headed back to Gujarat together after the festival period was over. Significant cross-examination was made from the witness but he stuck to his version that Sanwra was not working with him on 09.11.2012. 24. Mukesh (PW-12) stated that on 07.11.2012, he was watching TV in his house. At that time, Prem Mali came and informed him that Shyamlal had been taken away by Sanwra and he required assistance to trace out the boy. Both went in search of Shyamlal and Sanwra but could not locate them. Two days later, he came to know that Shyamlal's dead body was lying on the embankment of the Mandal talaab. The witness was associated in the steps of investigation undertaken by the Investigating Officer at the place from where, the dead body was recovered. The evidence of this witness was only relevant to the extent that he got information from Prem regarding the child having been taken away on 07.11.2012 itself and that he and Prem made an effort to search for the child. 25. Prem Lal (PW-12) is the first informant. In his evidence, he categorically stated that on 07.11.2012, Devilal, Suresh, Rahul and Sanwra went to the Bada Mandir for singing folklores. In the night at about 8 P.M. Sanwra took Shyamlal away forcibly. Devilal, Sanwarlal and Suresh came to him and informed him of this incident. On hearing this, the witness alongwith his neighbour Mukesh went to the village and looked out for the child at numerous places but could not succeed. In the night at about 8 P.M. Sanwra took Shyamlal away forcibly. Devilal, Sanwarlal and Suresh came to him and informed him of this incident. On hearing this, the witness alongwith his neighbour Mukesh went to the village and looked out for the child at numerous places but could not succeed. They continued their efforts on the next day also, but to no avail. Information was given to the relatives. They called Sanwra on telephone who replied that he had left Shyamlal besides the village pond in the night and that he himself had proceeded towards Maharashtra. They again called Sanwra during night time, he replied that he would bring Shyamlal back by evening. However, despite waiting for whole of the night, Sanwra did not turn up with the child. On the next morning they came to know that Shyamlal had been killed by Sanwra by severing his neck and the dead body was lying near the village pond. The witness lodged the written report (Ex.P/23) and participated in various steps of investigation viz. Preparation of panchnama lash, spot investigation memo, seizure of the apparel of the victim, etc. In cross-examination, vague suggestion of enmity with Sanwra was given to the witness which he denied. The witness admitted that there was no previous dispute whatsoever between the victim and Sanwra who took Shyamlal with him on the very same evening on which, the child had gone to sing the folklores with his friends. Just 10 minutes later, the other boys accompanying Shyamlal informed the witness about the incident on which, he made whole hearted efforts to search for the boy. From the evidence of this witness, it clearly comes to light that he got information from Shyamlal's friends that he had been taken away by the accused Sanwra. Immediately thereafter, the witness called Sanwra on mobile but he gave elusive replies. However, in one conversation, Sanwra admitted that he had left Shyamlal besides the village pond. In another conversation, Sanwra told that he would bring the child back by evening. The witness was confronted with certain parts of his police statement (Ex.D/1). However, contradictions/omissions so elicited, are trivial and inconsequential and do not effect the merits of his testimony. However, in one conversation, Sanwra admitted that he had left Shyamlal besides the village pond. In another conversation, Sanwra told that he would bring the child back by evening. The witness was confronted with certain parts of his police statement (Ex.D/1). However, contradictions/omissions so elicited, are trivial and inconsequential and do not effect the merits of his testimony. Thus, from the evidence of this witness, it can be culled out that he was told that the child was taken away by the accused and a little later, the accused himself answered the mobile call made by the witness and confirmed the fact that he had taken the child. This admission of the accused made during a telephonic conversation is a material fact having a significant bearing on the conduct of the accused. 26. Hari Shankar (PW-13), was associated as panch witness in the memos (Ex.P/20) and (Ex.P/21) whereby, the accused Sanwra pointed out the place of incident to the Investigating Officer. However, since this place was already known to the Investigating Officer from before, the fact of accused pointing out the same place, becomes irrelevant. 27. Bhanwar Lal (PW-14) gave evidence which is more or less in the nature of hearsay and hence, his testimony does not lead to any inference against the accused Sanwra. 28. Rajmal (PW-15) was posted as SHO Police Station Mandal on the date of the incident. He testified that he received a telephonic information regarding dead body of a child lying on the embankment of the Mandal Talaab at about 9.45 A.M. upon which, he alongwith the other members of the police team reached the taalab and saw the dead body which was identified to be that of Shyamlal by his uncle Premlal and others. Premlal gave the written report (Ex.P/23) on the basis whereof, FIR No. 264/2012 was registered. Investigation was undertaken by Shri Rajmal. The forensic team was summoned at the spot. Spot documents were prepared. Blood stained soil and control soil, etc. were collected from the place of incident. The dead body of the child was subjected to postmortem at the CHC, Mandal from where the report (Ex.P/11) was received. His apparel were seized. The accused Sanwra was arrested on 10.11.2012 whereas, the accused Govind Ram was arrested on 12.11.2012 vide memos Ex.P/26 and Ex.P/27 respectively. 29. were collected from the place of incident. The dead body of the child was subjected to postmortem at the CHC, Mandal from where the report (Ex.P/11) was received. His apparel were seized. The accused Sanwra was arrested on 10.11.2012 whereas, the accused Govind Ram was arrested on 12.11.2012 vide memos Ex.P/26 and Ex.P/27 respectively. 29. The accused Sanwra gave following information to the Investigating Officer and got recovered the following articles and identified the places in the following terms: “During investigation, on 11-11-2012, Accused Sawarlal, who was in custody, called out the investigating officer and provided information pertaining to the place where he murdered Shyamlal, which is recorded in memo Ex.P/28. During the same investigation, on 11-11-2012, Accused Sanwra provided information pertaining to clothes he had worn at the time of the incident. These clothes had been tied with a rock and thrown in the well, which was situated near his house on the farm. The same information was recorded in memo Ex.P/29. On 12-11-2012 at 02:00 P.M. Accused Sanwra provided information pertaining to the incident which took place. He narrated that Govind Ram had proposed to him that if he brought along a boy at night then in return he would provide liquor for him and they would indulge in sodomy together. Upon this, he coaxed a boy named Shyamlal S/o Bhanwarlal into coming with him to the bank of the pond. There, Accused Sanwra kept waiting for Govind Ram, but he did not turn up. Thus in the meantime, he started forcing himself on the boy Shyamlal. To this the boy started screaming and therefore he gagged the boy and slit his neck from the front with a knife. He left thereafter. Subsequently he met Govind Ram Meena in Chopa and informed him that he had been waiting for him but he did not arrive so he killed the boy Shyamlal with a knife. Upon hearing this Govind Ram gave him Rs. 200/- and told him that he will take care of the situation by hiding the body. He further told accused Sanwra to take Rs. 200/- and to cut and run. The accused further added that he thus escaped. This information was recorded in memo Ex.P/30. On 12-11-2012 at 10:00 P.M. provided information to the Investigating Officer pertaining to the knife with which he murdered the boy Shyamlal had been hidden in a room in his house. He further told accused Sanwra to take Rs. 200/- and to cut and run. The accused further added that he thus escaped. This information was recorded in memo Ex.P/30. On 12-11-2012 at 10:00 P.M. provided information to the Investigating Officer pertaining to the knife with which he murdered the boy Shyamlal had been hidden in a room in his house. The Accused further stated that he was willing to show the same to the Investigating Officer. This information was recorded in memo Ex.P/32. On 13-11-2012, Accused Sanwra gave information u/s. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, that after committing the murder he went to Chopa and met with Govind Ram Meena. There he informed Govind Ram that he killed Shyamlal by first throttling him and then slitting his throat with a knife. This information was recorded in memo Ex.P/33. As per the information received from accused Sanwra, the clothes worn by him at the time of the incident, had been recovered from the well which has been recorded in Recovery Memo Ex.P/2.” 30. Acting in furtherance of the information provided to the Investigating Officer, the accused appellant Sanwra took him to his house and got a knife recovered concealed under a cow dung heap vide memo Ex.P/9. In cross-examination, the Investigating Officer admitted that he received telephonic information that the dead body of the child was lying near the village pond upon which, he reached the place at about 10 A.M. About 15-20 villagers had collected there. The body was seen lying on the embankment. Vague suggestions were given to the Investigating Officer regarding the incongruence in the submission of the report. However, on going through the entire cross-examination as undertaken from the witness, we are of the firm view that nothing significant was elicited by the defence which can discredit the testimony of the Investigating Officer. 31. Harish Kumar (PW-16), was posted as the head Constable at the police station Mandal on the date of the incident. He gave evidence regarding deposition of the muddamaal articles of this case by SHO Shri Rajmal and transit thereof to the FSL, Udaipur, with Constable Ganpatlal. 31. Harish Kumar (PW-16), was posted as the head Constable at the police station Mandal on the date of the incident. He gave evidence regarding deposition of the muddamaal articles of this case by SHO Shri Rajmal and transit thereof to the FSL, Udaipur, with Constable Ganpatlal. Upon careful perusal of the statement of the witness, we are duly satisfied that the evidence which he has given is apposite on the aspect that the muddamaal articles which were recovered by the Investigating Officer, remained in the sealed condition till they were forwarded to the FSL for medical/serological examination. 32. Lalu Ram (PW-17) was posted as a head Constable at the Superintendent of Police office, Bhilwara. He gave evidence to the effect that Ganpat Lal, Constable from Police Station Mandal, brought muddamaal articles of this case to the office of Superintendent of Police with the forwarding letter and associated documents. The witness prepared the S.P. Office's forwarding letter and thereafter, articles were handed back to the Constable for onward carriage to the FSL. Shri Ganpatlal brought back the receipt (Ex.P/37). This witness also gave unimpeachable testimony on the aspect that the samples which were in a sealed condition remained intact right from the time they were presented to him till they were forwarded to the FSL for comparison. 33. Ganpatlal (PW-18), was the Constable who took the muddamaal articles of this case from Shri Harish Kumar Constable on 21.11.2012 and carried the same to the Superintendent of Police Office and then onwards to the FSL. Evidence of this witness is also unimpeachable and it is thoroughly established thereafter that the muddamaal articles were carried to the FSL in an intact condition. 34. Shankarlal Mali (DW-1), father of the accused appellant Sanwra appeared as an evidence witness No. 1 in an endeavor to prove that his son Sanwra was a minor on the date of the incident. However, the enquiry regarding the age of the accused appellant Sanwra was culminated against him by the trial court vide order dated 22.07.2013 which was never challenged and thus, the same has attained finality. Otherwise, also, we are duly satisfied that the attempt of the accused Sanwra to prove that he was a minor on the date of incident is not established from the material/evidence available on record. 35. Otherwise, also, we are duly satisfied that the attempt of the accused Sanwra to prove that he was a minor on the date of incident is not established from the material/evidence available on record. 35. When the accused Sanwra was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and upon being confronted with the circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence, the accused made a bald denial. However, he did not offer any explanation for the incriminating circumstances. 36. From an overall appreciation of evidence available on record, we are duly satisfied that the prosecution has presented plausible and convincing evidence to prove that the accused appellant Sanwra lured the victim Shyamlal away in the late hours of 08.11.2012 and he was not found alive thereafter. The dead body of the child, with his throat slit, was found lying besides the village pond on 09.11.2012. The victim was lastly seen in the company of the accused Sanwra before being found murdered with a slit throat. By virtue of Section 106 IPC, the burden is shifted on to the accused to explain as to how the child received the fatal injury on his neck while being in his company. As per the FSL report (Ex.C/1), the shirt and pant of the deceased, the blood smeared soil collected from the place of incident, and the chaku (knife) recovered at the instance of the accused appellant Sanwra, all tested positive for presence of ‘B’ group blood. Manifestly, thus, circumstance of last seen together coupled with the circumstance of the recovery of the blood stained knife bearing the human blood group same as that of the deceased i.e. ‘B’ positive, establishes beyond all manner of doubt that the accused appellant Sanwra was unquestionably responsible for inflicting the fatal knife blow to the child victim Shyamlal. 37. The fervent contention of learned counsel Ms. Mohnani that the accused appellant Sanwra has been acquitted from the charge for the offence punishable under Section 377/511 IPC and thus, it has to be inferred that there was no motive for him to have committed the offence, is totally untenable for the reason simply because injuries were not found on the Anal Orifice of the victim and that by itself does not establish that the accused appellant Sanwra had no motive to kill the victim. It appears that while the accused was trying to force himself upon the child to satisfy his lust for unnatural intercourse, the child must have shouted/resisted upon which, the accused panicked and slit his neck with the knife. Thus, the absence of motive does not weaken the prosecution case in any manner. The last argument of Ms. Mohnani, was based on hon'ble Supreme Court's Judgment in the case of Vijay Singh (Supra). She urged that conviction of the accused appellant Sanwra has to be toned down from the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-II IPC or to Section 326 IPC. 38. In this regard, we have carefully perused the hon'ble Supreme Court's Judgment in the Vijay Singh (Supra) and find in the said case that Hon'ble the Supreme Court toned down the offence from Section 302 IPC observing that the prosecution could not prove that injuries attributable to the appellant therein or any of them, was the cause of death. In the case at hand, situation is totally different because it is a case of the accused assaulting and inflicting the fatal knife blow on the neck of the child. 39. The Medical Jurist Dr. H.S. Sahwal (PW-8), who was one of the members of the Medical Board, which conducted postmortem upon the dead body of the child clearly opined that the neck of the child was slit. The cut wound was admeasuring 6.5 inches in length and 1 inch wide. All the underlying muscles and vessels were cut. 40. On a perusal of the postmortem report (Ex.P/11), it becomes evident that even the blood vessels and the trachea were severed. Thus, the injury on neck, which is pertinently attributed to the accused appellant Sanwra, was unquestionably the cause of death of child victim. The reasoning given in the judgment of Vijay Singh (Supra) relied upon by the learned defence counsel does not apply to the case at hand and thus, the said Judgment is clearly distinguishable on facts. The case of the appellant is not covered by any of the exceptions to Section 300 IPC. Hence, we are of the firm view that appreciation of the evidence as undertaken by the trial court, while convicting the accused appellant Sanwra for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC sentencing him to Life Imprisonment, is unimpeachable. 41. The case of the appellant is not covered by any of the exceptions to Section 300 IPC. Hence, we are of the firm view that appreciation of the evidence as undertaken by the trial court, while convicting the accused appellant Sanwra for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC sentencing him to Life Imprisonment, is unimpeachable. 41. On an appreciation of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, we are of the firm view that so far as the accused Govind Ram is concerned, none of the prosecution witnesses has given evidence of last seen against him. Primarily, the prosecution case as against the accused Govind Ram, is based on confessional statements of the accused recorded by the Investigating Officer which did not result into discovery of any incriminating fact. Thus, conviction of the said accused as recorded by the trial court is totally unsustainable. 42. In wake of the discussion made hereinabove, this Court is of the firm view that the impugned judgment, so far as it records the conviction of the accused appellant Sanwra for the offence under Section 302 IPC and the sentence of Life Imprisonment awarded to him, does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever warranting any interference therein. However, so far as the accused Govind Ram is concerned, his conviction and sentences as recorded by the trial court vide the very impugned judgment for the offence under Section 365 read with Section 120B IPC cannot be sustained. 43. Accordingly, the appeal (D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1222/2015) preferred by the accused appellant Sanwra is dismissed as being devoid of any merit. The appeal (D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1165/2015) preferred by the accused appellant Govind Ram is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 07.11.2015 passed by the learned Additional and Sessions Judge No. 2, Bhilwara in Sessions Case No. 6/2013 so far as it records the conviction of the accused appellant Govind Ram, is quashed and set aside. The accused appellant Govind Ram is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged. 44. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. the appellant Govind Ram is directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. The accused appellant Govind Ram is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged. 44. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. the appellant Govind Ram is directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 40,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount before the learned trial court, which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of a Special Leave Petition against the present judgment on receipt of notice thereof, the appellants shall appear before the Supreme Court. 45. Record be sent back to the trial court forthwith.