JUDGMENT : Ramesh Sinha, C.J. Heard Mr. Nitansh Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Shreyansh Agrawal, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondent/State. 2. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.04.2023, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge F.T.S.C (POCSO), Manendragarh, District Korea (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. 54/2021, by which the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376, 376(a), 302 & 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, ‘POCSO Act’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 02 years and fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine additional rigorous imprisonment for 01 month (separately), sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 05 years and fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine additional rigorous imprisonment for 01 month (separately), sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine additional rigorous imprisonment for 01 year (separately), sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine additional rigorous imprisonment for 01 year (separately), sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine additional rigorous imprisonment for 01 year (separately), sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 07 years and fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine additional rigorous imprisonment for 01 month (separately) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine additional rigorous imprisonment for 01 year (separately) (all sentences run concurrently). 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 24.03.2018 at about 3-4 O’clock the victim had gone along with her elder sister to Mahamaya Temple to visit Mela (fair) and at 6.30 p.m., the victim had again gone to Mela and Mandir without giving any information to her parents. Then, all the members of the house inquired at the Mela and their relatives, but no trace was found. Then, all the members of the house inquired at the Mela and their relatives, but no trace was found. On 25.03.2018, they also inquired in the nearby village and in the evening, they went towards Jhurandi Gadda towards the Nakabadi behind the temple and found the dead body of the victim in Jhurandi Gadda. The dead body was lying there, there was no clothes on her body, her head was crushed, the stalk of a plant was inserted in her private part, the victim's frock, panty, slippers and leggings were lying at some distance and there was a splash of blood on the ground nearby. During the investigation, it was found that the accused had bought chocolates and given chocolates to other small girls in the Navratri Mela. After summoning the accused and interrogating him, the accused accepted that he gave the chocolate to the victim, took her to the Nakabadi Jhurandi Gadda and raped her by pressing her mouth and rendering her unconscious. Thereafter, the victim was said to have been murdered by pelting a stone on her head. In this case, based on the complaint of the victim's father, Police Center - Khadganwan registered the Merg Information No. 19/18 vide Ex.P/4 and on the same date First Information Report (Ex.P/5) under Crime No. 44/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 364, 376(a) & 201 of the IPC and Sections 4, 6 of the POCSO Act was registered against the unknown person and completed the investigation. The charge-sheet was prepared and presented to the concerned Court for the crime under Sections 302, 376, 376(a) & 201 of the IPC and Sections 4, 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 3(2-5) of the Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. In relation to the death of the victim, notice was given to the witnesses for the proceedings of the body panchnama vide Ex.P/1. The proceedings of the body panchnama were conducted in front of the witnesses, which is Ex.P/2. 4. Investigating Officer went to the place of occurrence and prepared the Crime Details Form vide Ex.P/3. A memo was prepared and sent to the Community Health Center, Khadgawan for postmortem of the dead body of the victim vide Ex.P/12. The accused was arrested and interrogated. His memorandum statement was recorded, which is Ex.P/7. 4. Investigating Officer went to the place of occurrence and prepared the Crime Details Form vide Ex.P/3. A memo was prepared and sent to the Community Health Center, Khadgawan for postmortem of the dead body of the victim vide Ex.P/12. The accused was arrested and interrogated. His memorandum statement was recorded, which is Ex.P/7. After usual investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused before the learned Additional Sessions Judge F.T.S.C. (POCSO), Manendragarh, District Korea (C.G.), who conducted the trial. 5. On 26.03.2018 at 10.30 a.m., a panel of three Doctors, namely, Dr. Aniruddh Rai (PW-6), Dr. Ayushri Rai (PW-10) and Dr. S. Kujur conducted the postmortem on the body of the deceased. In the postmortem report (Ex.P/13), the following injuries were found: Body was cold, lying in supine position. Both the upper limbs flexed from elbow joint. Both the lower limbs also flexed from hip join laterally and knee joint with genital area wide open. Perineal area – with swelling and multiple contusions with a wooden stick – “one end broken and inserted in vagina.” Multiple abrasions & vaginal tear present, vaginal orifice – permitting 02 fingers, multiple and uncounted blood clots. Vaginal mucosa – Blue coloured/cyanosis and multiple laceration. Rigor mortis present all over the body (body was naked with no cloth piece or covering). 7 x 4 cm with 5 cm deep gap wound present on lateral surface left side of face. 1 x 1 cm punctured wound which was on the left cheek, 5 x 3 cm with 5 cm deep lacerated wound present on right side of face upto the depth of the skin. There was fracture on the frontal lobe of the head and brain tissue had come out. There was left clavicle fracture. The ribs on both sides from numbers 1 to 7 were fractured. There was blood around the nose and mouth and teeth were broken. Pressure marks on neck. The Doctors opined that all the injuries were ante mortem in nature caused by hard, blunt and heavy object. On examining the internal and external genitals of the deceased, the vagina was found open, hymen ruptured with multiple abrasions over perineal region. 6. The cause of death was opined due to shock and excessive blood loss. Pressure marks on neck. The Doctors opined that all the injuries were ante mortem in nature caused by hard, blunt and heavy object. On examining the internal and external genitals of the deceased, the vagina was found open, hymen ruptured with multiple abrasions over perineal region. 6. The cause of death was opined due to shock and excessive blood loss. It was further opined that the deceased was assaulted with forced sexual intercourse which damaged her genitals and the approximate time elapsed since death was 36 to 42 hours from the time of conducting autopsy and the death of the deceased is homicidal in nature. 7. The convict/appellant was physically examined for which a memo (Ex.P/30) was sent by the Station House Officer, Police Station Khadganwan, District Korea (C.G.), on 27.03.2018 upon which Dr. Aniruddh Rai, Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Khadganwan, District Korea (C.G.) gave his report that the convict/appellant was both physically and mentally fit. On the same day, another request was made by the Station House Officer for examination of the genitals of the convict/accused to ascertain as to whether he was capable of performing sexual intercourse or not. Dr. Aniruddh Rai (PW-6) gave his report stating that the person was fully developed male capable of performing sexual act. 8. The appellant was arrested on 26.03.2018 at 16:10 hours (Ex.P/32) by the Investigating Officer, Mr. Shashikant Tandon (PW-13). The memorandum statement (Ex.P/7) of the convict/appellant was recorded where he narrated the entire story and at his instance, the weapon used for commission of the crime, i.e. the stone having blood stains weighing about 2.42 kg was recovered from the place of incident and from the possession of the convict/appellant blood stained full sleeves t-shirt and jeans pant were recovered. One blue coloured underwear worn by the convict/appellant and his pubic hair were seized by the Investigating Officer (PW-13). The query was made with regard to the seized stone as to whether it could be used for commission of the offence. The said query was replied by Dr. Aniruddh Rai (PW-6) stating that the injuries sustained by the deceased on her face could have been caused by the said stone and the tshirt and jeans were sent to the FSL, Raipur for chemical analysis. 9. The said query was replied by Dr. Aniruddh Rai (PW-6) stating that the injuries sustained by the deceased on her face could have been caused by the said stone and the tshirt and jeans were sent to the FSL, Raipur for chemical analysis. 9. On 01.06.2018 at 11:20 hours, certified copy of the admission register (Ex.P/10) in respect of the deceased was seized from the possession of the Head Master of Government Primary School, Chanwaridand, District Korea (C.G.), wherein, the date of birth of the deceased was mentioned as 01.01.2010. 10. The police investigated the case and submitted its report under Section 173(2) of the CrPC before the learned Additional Sessions Judge F.T.S.C. (POCSO), Manendragarh, District Korea (C.G.), along with charge-sheet under Sections 302, 376, 376(a) & 201 of the IPC and Sections 4, 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 3(2-5) of the Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 11. Learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 363, 366, 376, 376(a), 302 & 201 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act; read over and explained to the accused, who abjured his guilt. 12. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined following witnesses :- 1. PW-1 Father of the Victim 2. PW-2 Shri Ram 3. PW-3 Devnath Singh 4. PW-4 Mohd. Istyak Iraki 5. PW-5 Smt. Anita 6. PW-6 Dr. Aniruddh Rai 7. PW-7 Dr. Dahnendra Kumar Chikanjuri 8. PW-8 Sukhnandan Kewat 9. PW-9 Sachin Khursel 10. PW-10 Dr. Ayushri Roy 11. PW-11 Premlal Sahu 12. PW-12 Suresh Prasad Bhagat 13. PW-13 Shashikant Tandon 14. PW-14 Jan Singh 13. Besides aforesaid ocular evidence, prosecution also exhibited following documents :- 1. Ex.P/1 Summons u/s 175 Cr.P.C. 2. Ex.P/2 Naksha Panchyatnama 3. Ex.P/3 Crime Details Form 4. Ex.P/4 Merg Intimation 5. Ex.P/5 First Information Report 6. Ex.P/6 Property Seizure Memo 7. Ex.P/7 Memorandum Statement of Sachin Kesharwani 8. Ex.P/8 to P/10 Property seizure memo 9. Ex.P/10C Copy of the admission register 10. Ex.P/11 Caste certificate 11. Ex.P/12 & P/13 Application for P.M. and P.M. report. 12. Ex.P/14 Medical examination report of accused 13. Ex.P/15 Examination report of weapon (stone) 14. Ex.P/16 Reply by Medical Officer of query made vide Ex.P/25 15. Ex.P/17 Reply by Medical Officer of query made vide Ex.P/24 16. Ex.P/18 Reply by Medical Officer of query made vide Ex.P/25 17. Ex.P/12 & P/13 Application for P.M. and P.M. report. 12. Ex.P/14 Medical examination report of accused 13. Ex.P/15 Examination report of weapon (stone) 14. Ex.P/16 Reply by Medical Officer of query made vide Ex.P/25 15. Ex.P/17 Reply by Medical Officer of query made vide Ex.P/24 16. Ex.P/18 Reply by Medical Officer of query made vide Ex.P/25 17. Ex.P/19 to P/23 Property seizure memos 18. Ex.P/24 Application for medical examination of the accused 19. Ex.P/25 Memo seeking clear opinion on P.M. report 20. Ex.P/26 Memo to Medical Officer regarding P.M. report 21. Ex.P/27 Memo to FSL for chemical examination of the seized articles 22. Ex.P/28 Acknowledgment of exhibits 23. Ex.P/29 FSL report 24. Ex.P/30 Application for medical examination of the accused and report of Medical Officer 25. Ex.P/31 Query on seized cloths and weapon (stone) 26. Ex.P/32 Arrest/Court surrender memo 27. Ex.P/33 Memo to FSL for DNA examination of the seized articles 28. Ex.P/34 DNA report 29. D/1 Statement of Smt. Anita Bai. 14. Statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied all the circumstances appearing against him and stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. The defence has neither examined any witness nor has exhibited any document. 15. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record and considering that it is the appellant who has committed aforesaid offence, convicted and sentenced him in the aforementioned manner, against which the appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellant. 16. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the accused/appellant that the judgment of conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, but the chain of circumstantial evidence was incomplete and the circumstances are not connected with each other. Even the last seen theory could not be proved substantially and there is a big gap between last seen and the recovery of the body. The witnesses are also not independent witnesses being the relatives and neighbour of the deceased. The contents of memorandum recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act are confined only to seizure of articles at the instance of the person giving memorandum statement. Culpable statement recorded in the memorandum is not admissible as per provisions of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The contents of memorandum recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act are confined only to seizure of articles at the instance of the person giving memorandum statement. Culpable statement recorded in the memorandum is not admissible as per provisions of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Further more, the dead body of the deceased was discovered by the relatives and villagers and not at the instance of the convict/appellant. Further, no questions were put to the accused in his examination under Section 313 of the CrPC with regard to findings of the FSL report, DNA report. Lastly, the alleged crime was not a premeditated one. The sentence awarded to the convict/appellant is disproportionate. Accordingly, he would pray that the appeal filed by the appellant may be allowed. 17. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and would submit that there is ample evidence on record and the prosecution has been successful in proving its case beyond all reasonable doubts. The convict/appellant was last seen with the deceased and he has no explanation to offer with regard to the same. Even the FSL and MLC report clearly indicates involvement of the convict/appellant in the crime in question. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court needs no interference and looking to the heinous nature of crime committed by the convict/appellant, the punishment awarded needs no interference and accordingly, the appeal of the convict/appellant may be dismissed. 18. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the original records of the learned trial Court with utmost circumspection and carefully as well. 19. There is no eyewitness to the incident and the conviction is mainly based on circumstantial evidence and the last seen theory. 20. The deceased was a minor girl aged about 08 years on the date of incident which is well established by the admission register (Ex.P/10C) seized from the then Head Master, namely, Devnath Singh (PW-3) and he has stated that the date of birth of the deceased was 01.01.2010. Hence, there is no dispute that the deceased was a minor on the date of incident. 21. PW-1, victim’s father, has stated in his examination that he recognizes the accused, who present in the Court. Hence, there is no dispute that the deceased was a minor on the date of incident. 21. PW-1, victim’s father, has stated in his examination that he recognizes the accused, who present in the Court. The victim was her daughter, who was studying in Class 8th, her age was about 08 years. He could not remember her date of birth, however, he took the mother-child card prepared by the ‘Aaganbadi’ and got the date of birth entered on that basis. They belong to Gond caste, which comes under the tribal category. The accused belongs to Kesarwani caste, but he does not know which category the appellant belongs to. It was about a year ago there was a Mela at Mahamaya temple in village Chanwaridand, the victim had gone there with his another daughter, they came back to his uncle Jagbandhan's place at around 04.00 in the evening, from there the victim again went alone to see the fair. His another daughter followed the victim with her child and at around 06.00 in the evening, she saw that the victim was under the Peepal tree near the fair. At that time, the accused came there and held the victim's throat and pressed it, due to which the victim became unconscious. At the same time, there was some interruption in the electricity supply at the fair venue and it became dark. The electricity supply was resumed after about an hour and by that time, his another daughter returned home and told him about the said incident. Then, he immediately went to the fair venue with Santram and searched for the victim, but could not find her. He had gone to Khadganwan Police Station at 10.00 p.m with his uncle's son Ramgulab to file a report. The Policemen asked him to first search the girl nearby places and they did not register the report. Again, he went to the fair venue and its surroundings to search for the victim, but there was no trace of the victim. Next day morning, he went again with his uncle Shivbandhan to search for the victim. After searching the whole day, when they both reached near the Nakabadi at around 05.00 in the evening, they saw that the victim's leggings, underwear and slippers were lying scattered. There were splatters of blood. Next day morning, he went again with his uncle Shivbandhan to search for the victim. After searching the whole day, when they both reached near the Nakabadi at around 05.00 in the evening, they saw that the victim's leggings, underwear and slippers were lying scattered. There were splatters of blood. There was a stone lying at some distance, which had blood on it, a small piece of wood was also lying, which had blood on it, and chocolate was also lying on it. The dead body of the victim was lying at some distance, she was naked, three pieces of wood were stuck in her private part. The victim's cheeks and mouth were seen to be torn with wood. He stayed there and his uncle went to inform about the same to the villagers. The villagers and his other relatives also came there and witnessed the same. Ramgulab immediately went to Khadganwan Police Station and informed the Police. The police came immediately to the spot and they also brought a dog. Thereafter, they prepared the map of the place of incident and prepared a Panchnama of the dead body. Notices were given to him, which is Ex.P/1. Panchnama of the dead body was prepared vide Ex.P/2. The dead body was sent for postmortem on the next day. The police prepared the map of the place of incident, which is Ex.P/3. The Merg intimation is Ex.P/4. The Police had written a report at the spot of the incident itself, which is Ex.P/5. Till the time of writing the report, he did not know who had killed his daughter. The dead body was handedover to him after postmorten through supurdnama. One day thereafter, the police arrested the accused and also took him to the incident site. They informed him that the accused had killed and raped his daughter. He had taken papers relating to education of her daughter from the school and given it to the Police, which was seized by the Police vide Ex.P/6. Patwari also came and prepared a map of the incident site. They informed him that the accused had killed and raped his daughter. He had taken papers relating to education of her daughter from the school and given it to the Police, which was seized by the Police vide Ex.P/6. Patwari also came and prepared a map of the incident site. In his cross-examination, he stated that his statement was recorded by the police and while writing the report, he did not inform that his another daughter followed the victim with her child; at around 06.00 in the evening, she saw that the victim was under the Peepal tree near the fair; at that time the accused came there and held the victim's throat and pressed it, due to which the victim became unconscious and at the same time, there was interruption in the electricity supply at the fair venue and it became dark; and after about an hour the electricity supply was resumed. It is correct to say that he did not go to the Police Station again to file the report. He states that Ramgulab had gone and the report was written at the place of incident. It is correct to say that by the time Ramgulab went to lodge the report, the dead body of the victim was already found. It is incorrect to say that the place where the dead body was found was a rocky place and very small stones were lying there. He himself says that there were big stones. It is incorrect to say that after seeing the dead body he was very upset. On a query that on how many papers the T.I. has taken signatures at home, he stated that the T.I. got many papers signed. It is correct to say that he does not know what was written in the papers. It is correct to say that his another daughter informed him on the day of the fair itself that the accused was pressing the throat of the victim. It is correct to say that while taking the statement, the police personnel threatening, abusing and asking them to give reply quickly. It is wrong to say that he has not given any statement to the Police. 22. Shri Ram (PW-2) has stated that he knows the accused present in the Court. The accused is a resident of village Khadgawan. It is correct to say that while taking the statement, the police personnel threatening, abusing and asking them to give reply quickly. It is wrong to say that he has not given any statement to the Police. 22. Shri Ram (PW-2) has stated that he knows the accused present in the Court. The accused is a resident of village Khadgawan. The Police has neither interrogated the accused nor taken his statement in front of him. Further, he has stated that neither any goods were seized in front of him at the behest of the accused nor any item was recovered from the house of the accused. About 01 year ago, from the place of incident Chanwaridand, blood stained clothes, rubber hair clips, slippers, blood stained stones, underwear etc. and other things which were found, were confiscated by the Police. He saw victim’s dead body lying in the pit. Victim was assaulted by stone on her head, her mouth was torn, the body was naked and wooden pieces were also found inside her private parts. The Policemen had prepared Panchnama of the dead body, the notice of which is Ex.P/1. It is incorrect to say that on 26.03.2018 at 4:20 p.m., the Police had caught the accused in front of him and Jaan Singh in Kolpara Khadgawan. It is incorrect to say that the accused had told the Police in his statement that he slammed the stone on victim’s head and the splatter of her blood was on his clothes i.e. jeans and t-shirt. It is incorrect to say that the accused had also told that he has hidden the jeans and t-shirt at home and the stone in the bush and thereafter, the Police had recorded the statement of the accused as Ex.P/7. It is correct to say that when the Police presented the accused before him, blood stained jeans and t-shirt were recovered from his house. It is correct to say that the Police had prepared the document of seizure in Kolpara, Khadgawan. It is correct to say that on the information of the accused, the Police had recovered a stone stained with blood at some distance from where the dead body was found in Nakabadi, village Chanwaridand. It is correct to say that the Police had prepared the documents regarding the seizure of the stone recovered from the incident site. It is correct to say that on the information of the accused, the Police had recovered a stone stained with blood at some distance from where the dead body was found in Nakabadi, village Chanwaridand. It is correct to say that the Police had prepared the documents regarding the seizure of the stone recovered from the incident site. It is incorrect to say that he deliberately not informing about the statement of the accused before the Police. 23. Devnath Singh (PW-3), has stated that he is working on the post of Head Master in Government Primary School, Chanwaridand from 15.12.2008. The Police had asked him for the file of the victim's admission register and he had provided a photocopy of the admission register to the Police. Further, he has stated that he brought the original admission register before the Court, which is Ex.P/10 and its copy is Ex.P/10C, in which at Sl. No. 352, the date of birth of the victim is mentioned as 01.01.2010. The victim had taken admission in class-1 on 04.04.2016. In his cross-examination, he stated that he himself entered the date of birth based on what was written by the Anganwadi worker. It is correct to say that the paper is not attached to the register or there is any reference to it. 24. Mohd. Istyak Iraki (PW-4) has stated that he was working on the post of Naib Tehsildar, Khadgawan in the year 2018. He stated in his examination that an online application was made by the applicant- Rambachan Singh, resident of village Khadgawan, District-Korea (Chhattisgarh) regarding the issue of caste certificate of the victim. The registration number of the application is 2018-03-004731. After reviewing the online application of the applicant and the documents attached with it, he had issued the caste certificate in the name of the victim online on 12.04.2018, which is Ex.P/11. In the caste certificate issued by him, the caste of the victim is mentioned as Gond Scheduled Tribe, which is listed at Sl.No.-16 in the list of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Amendment) Act 1976 of Chhattisgarh State. The victim is a member of the Scheduled Tribe. In his cross-examination, he stated that it is correct to say that he did the entire process in one day. Panchnama, certificate of the father, Patwari report were attached with the application form. The victim is a member of the Scheduled Tribe. In his cross-examination, he stated that it is correct to say that he did the entire process in one day. Panchnama, certificate of the father, Patwari report were attached with the application form. It is correct to say that he has not brought the said document before the Court. It is correct to say that on the basis of the said documents, the caste certificate (Ex.P/11) has been issued, which is not mentioned in the certificate. It is correct to say that before issuing the certificate he has done any investigation in the village. It is incorrect to say that Station-in-charge, Khadgawan had requested to issue the caste certificate of the victim and on his request he has issued the caste certificate. It is correct to say that the caste certificate is scrutinized by the Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee. It is correct to say that if the caste certificate is already issued, then the scrutiny committee can examine it and cancel it, if it is found correct. It is incorrect to say that he has prepared the caste certificate without investigation. 25. Smt. Anita (PW-5) has stated that she did not know the accused present through video conferencing. The victim was her younger sister. It was about two years ago she had come to her maternal home in Chanwaridand to attend the Annaprashan programme of my younger brother. On that day at around 3.00 p.m., she along with the victim had gone to see the temple and fair with two small children. From there, they all returned home at around 6.30 p.m. Thereafter, when the victim again went to see the fair, she also followed her to see the fair. She further stated that at around 7.00 p.m., when she was coming back from the fair with her two children along with the victim, who was going ahead of us, on the way, near a tamarind tree, a man caught hold of the victim and started pressing her neck. She saw him from the back, as such she could not recognize him. Straight-away she came home and informed her father Ramvachan, thereupon, when her father had gone there and did not find anyone. The victim did not come home that night. She saw him from the back, as such she could not recognize him. Straight-away she came home and informed her father Ramvachan, thereupon, when her father had gone there and did not find anyone. The victim did not come home that night. Her dead body was found on the next day in the evening and she did not know who killed her sister. In her cross-examination, she stated that it is incorrect to say that the police did not take her statement. She had told the police in her statement that "after this, the victim again went to see the fair, so she also followed her to see the fair. At around 7.00 p.m. in the evening, she was coming back from the fair with her two children, the victim was with us. On the way, near a tamarind tree, a man caught hold of the victim and started pressing her neck. She had seen the man from the back so she could not recognize him. She takes care of her children or saves her sister, therefore, she straight away came home from there and told her father Ramvachan.” If the above thing is not written in my Police statement (Ex.D/1), then she cannot tell the reason for it. It is incorrect to say that she is telling lies in the Court. 26. Dr. Aniruddh Rai (PW-6) is the Doctor who was posted as Medical Officer at Community Health Center, Khadgawan since February 2017 to February 2019. He deposed that on 26.03.2018, he was on his duty when the Constable, Sukhnandan Kewat, No. 571 brought the dead body of the victim/deceased. Postmortem was conducted by him and two other associates, namely, Dr. Ayushri Roy (PW-10) and Dr. S. Kujur. On examination of the body, they found above stated injuries (paragraph 5) on the person of the victim/deceased and opined that cause of death was due to shock and excessive blood loss. It was further opined that the deceased was assaulted with forced sexual intercourse which damaged her genitals and the approximate time elapsed since death was 36 to 42 hours from the time of conducting autopsy and the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. He further deposed that on 27.03.2018, the accused Sachin Kesharwani, S/o Mahendra Kesharwani, aged about 20 years, was brought for examination by the Police of Khadgawan Police Station along with a letter. He further deposed that on 27.03.2018, the accused Sachin Kesharwani, S/o Mahendra Kesharwani, aged about 20 years, was brought for examination by the Police of Khadgawan Police Station along with a letter. He also deposed that during the physical examination of the accused he found that a scratch mark was present on the left side below the stomach in a diagonal direction, size of which was 3.3 cm length and 0.2 cm wide. There was a scratch mark on the left scapula whose size was 4 x 0.1 cm. There were many small scratch marks on the back between the two scapula, the peeling mark was on the right thigh whose size was 0.5 x 2 cm. There were small scratch marks on the right ear and on the dorsal surface of the right elbow also scratch marks whose size was 7 x 0.1 cm. There was a peeling mark below the knee on the left leg whose size was 1 x 0.2 cm, there was a peeling mark below the knee on the right leg, the size of which was 3 x 0.5 cm. All the wounds were old and dry, the duration of the said injuries was more than 54 to 60 hours. On genital examination, it was revealed that all secondary sexual characteristics were present, both testicles were outside the abdominal cavity, pubic hair was of male pattern. The prepuce of the accused was broken and there was no smegma accumulation in the penis. It has also been stated by the Doctor that in his opinion the accused was capable of sexual intercourse. The semen sample of the accused was collected, the quantity of semen was about 1.5 cc and during the test, the accused was tested by removing his underwear. The color of the underwear was blue and it was 80 cm long. The mark which was of Hotman Company and when seen with naked eyes, two small colourless spots were present which were on the inner part of the front of the tights. 27. Shashikant Tandon (PW-13), who was posted as Station In-charge in Khadgawan Police Station in the year 2018, has stated in his examination in chief that regarding the death of the victim, based on the information of her father, a Merg Intimation No. 19/18 was registered vide Ex.P/4. 27. Shashikant Tandon (PW-13), who was posted as Station In-charge in Khadgawan Police Station in the year 2018, has stated in his examination in chief that regarding the death of the victim, based on the information of her father, a Merg Intimation No. 19/18 was registered vide Ex.P/4. On the same date, FIR under Crime No. 44/17 was filed against an unknown person under Sections 302, 364, 376-A & 201 of the IPC and a case was registered for the crime of Sections 4, 6 of the POCSO Act vide Ex.P/5. The information regarding the crime was sent to the concerned Court. In connection with the death of the victim, notice was given to the witnesses for the proceedings of dead body panchnama, which is Ex.P/1. The proceedings of the dead body Panchnama were conducted in the presence of witnesses, which is Ex.P/2. The spot map of the place of incident was prepared by him as per the information given by the witnesses, which is Ex.P/3. For the postmortem of the deceased, an application was prepared and sent to Community Health Center, Khadgawan vide Ex.P/12. After taking the accused in custody and interrogating him in front of witnesses, his memorandum statement was recorded, which is Ex.P/7. On being produced by the accused, at his instance, a stone with blood on it and a full sleeve t-shirt and jeans pant, which had blood stains on them, which were circled with red ink, were seized in front of the witnesses, which were Exs. P/8 and P/9. A blood-stained clay, plain clay, a frock, a pair of underwear, thongs, leggings and a hair rubber were seized from the spot of the incident and a seizure sheet was prepared in front of the witnesses, which is Ex.P/10. He prepared seizure memo Ex.P/20 of the vaginal slide of the victim, two pieces of wood which were preserved by the doctor and the seizure sheet of two pieces of hair of the accused in front of the witnesses and on the production of Constable No. 571 Sukhnandan Kewat. An application was sent to Community Health Centre, Khadgawan for gender test of the accused vide Ex.P/30. On the production of Constable Sachin, semen slides and underwear of the accused were seized and seizure sheet vide Ex.P/22 was prepared. An application was sent to Community Health Centre, Khadgawan for gender test of the accused vide Ex.P/30. On the production of Constable Sachin, semen slides and underwear of the accused were seized and seizure sheet vide Ex.P/22 was prepared. An application was sent to Community Health Center, Khadgawan regarding the possibility of death due to the seized stone and the blood on the seized jeans and t-shirt, which is Ex.P/31. After arresting the accused, the arrest-sheet Ex.P/32 was prepared. The application was sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur through Superintendent of Police Korea for DNA testing of the vaginal slide of the victim and the blood sample of the accused, which is Ex.P/33. In his cross-examination, he stated that it is correct to say that the report was filed against an unknown person. It is correct to say that at the time of the report he was posted as Station In-charge in Khadgawan. It is correct to say that he has arrested the accused on the basis of the memorandum. It is correct to say that in the final report it is mentioned that the accused was distributing chocolates to other girls besides the victim. It is true to say that he did not investigate with regard to other girls who were present. He himself stated that there was a lot of crowd because of fair. It is incorrect to say that the above fact was not mentioned by him during the investigation. It is correct to say that there is a local market in Khadgawan. It is incorrect to say that the shopkeeper from where the chocolate was purchased was not interrogated. It is correct to say that the shopkeeper has not been made a witness in the case. It is incorrect to say that the memorandum statement was not written before the witnesses. It is incorrect to say that the seizure proceedings were not conducted in the presence of witnesses. It is incorrect to say that the caste certificate has not been provided by the family of the deceased. He also stated before the Court that a week after the filing of the report, the case diary of the case was given to the Deputy Superintendent of Police for further investigation. He himself said that he can tell only after seeing the case diary. He also stated before the Court that a week after the filing of the report, the case diary of the case was given to the Deputy Superintendent of Police for further investigation. He himself said that he can tell only after seeing the case diary. It is incorrect to say that he has not seized the clothes and hair of the accused when he produced before him. It is correct to say that the statements of the witnesses have not been recorded by him. It is incorrect to say that the memorandum statement is written according to his wish. It is incorrect to say that he has prepared the map of the place of incident while sitting in the Police Station. It is correct to say that the DNA test report was not received during the investigation. It is incorrect to say that seizure process from the place of incident was not done as per Ex.P/10. It is incorrect to say that the victim's vaginal slide and two pieces of wood were not confiscated and seizure process was not done as per Ex.P/21. It is incorrect to say that the entire investigation of this matter has been done by him sitting in the Police Station. It is incorrect to say that he has conducted the investigation in this matter on the basis of false facts. 28. Suresh Prasad Bhagat (PW-12) was posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police in Ajak Police Station Baikunthpur in the year 2018. He stated in his examination-in-chief that he had received the case diary of Crime No. 44/18 for further action by adding Section of SC/ST Act. During the investigation, an application regarding the method by which the semen slide of the accused was prepared, was sent to Community Health Center, Khadgawan, for opinion, which is Ex.P/24. An application was sent to Community Health Center, Khadgawan vide Ex.P/25 regarding clear opinion of the incident of rape with the victim. An application was sent to Community Health Center, Khadgawan vide Ex.P/26 regarding clear opinion of the place where the dead body should be preserved when it was found. On the presentation of Dr. Dhanendra Kumar Chikanjuri (PW-7), one blood sample of the accused in a sealed E.D.T.A. vial was seized in front of the witnesses and seizure-sheet vide Ex.P/19 was prepared. On the presentation of Dr. Dhanendra Kumar Chikanjuri (PW-7), one blood sample of the accused in a sealed E.D.T.A. vial was seized in front of the witnesses and seizure-sheet vide Ex.P/19 was prepared. On the production of Constable Premlal Sahu, one piece of vaginal slide of the deceased/victim in a sealed packet was seized from R.F.S.L. Ambikapur in un-examined condition. The seizure-sheet is Ex.P/23. On the presentation of the victim's father, a certified copy of the Dakhil Kharij register was seized and seizure-sheet vide Ex.P/6 was prepared. The statements of the witnesses were recorded by him as per their instructions. An application was sent to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Ambikapur through the Superintendent of Police, for chemical examination of the seized items, which is Ex.P/27 and the acknowledgment of which is Ex.P/28. The chemical examination report is Ex.P/29, in which the fact of finding semen stains and human sperm is mentioned in Exhibits F, L, M. After investigation in the case, a charge-sheet was prepared and presented to the Court. In his cross-examination, he stated that it is correct to say that the case diary of this case was received one month after the report was filed. It is incorrect to say that caste certificate is not attached in relation to SC/ST Act. It is correct to say that the process of confiscation of caste certificate was not done by him and it was done by the former Investigation Officer. It is correct to say that when he received the diary, the fact was not mentioned in the diary as to the method by which the semen slide was prepared and that is why he had sent an application in this regard. It is correct to say that the acknowledgment of the application was not attached with the diary. It is incorrect to say that the application was not sent by him. It is incorrect to say that when he received the diary, he was not sure about the fact that the victim was raped, that is why he had sent an application in that regard. It is incorrect to say that the application vide Ex.P/26 was not sent by him. It is correct to say that the acknowledgment of the application of Ex.P/26 is not attached in the case diary. It is incorrect to say that the application vide Ex.P/26 was not sent by him. It is correct to say that the acknowledgment of the application of Ex.P/26 is not attached in the case diary. It is incorrect to say this that the seizure process of Exs.P/19 and P/23 was not done by him. It is correct to say that no application was sent to the school for checking the Dakhil Kahrij register. It is correct to say that no document was provided by the school in connection with the investigation of the Dakhil Kahrij register. It is correct to say that the statements of the witnesses had already been recorded before the case diary was received. He further stated that the said statement was recorded by the previous Investigating Officer. It is incorrect to say that the application of Ex.P/27 was not sent by him. It is incorrect to say that this matter has not been investigated by him. It is incorrect to say that the investigation proceedings have been prepared by him sitting in the Police Station. 29. Jaan Singh (PW-14), has stated in examination-in-chief that he knows the accused Sachin Kesharwani. The accused Sachin was not interrogated before him. The Police had not taken any action for seizure at the instance of accused Sachin Kesharwani before him. The Police had seized a stone, a chocolate wrapper, a liquor bottle and the victim's clothes in front of him and the said items were seized by the Police from the spot of the incident. In his cross-examination, he stated that it is correct to say that the Police seized blood-soaked soil from the place of incident. It is incorrect to say that the Police also seized plain soil from the place of incident. It is correct to say that the Police had seized the victim's frock, underwear and slippers from the place of incident. He is not aware whether the Police had seized rubber from the place of incident or not. It is incorrect to say that the accused narrated before him during the memorandum statement regarding hiding of the stone used in the incident in the bush and his jeans pant and t-shirt which had blood on it, in his house. It is incorrect to say that the Police took action to confiscate the stone and his clothes after the accused was produced. It is incorrect to say that the Police took action to confiscate the stone and his clothes after the accused was produced. It is correct to say that he had signed the papers after reading them. It is incorrect to say that the accused was also present at the spot during the preparation. It is correct to say that the accused is a resident of his nearby village that is why he know him. It is correct to say that the Police did not give him any notice. It is correct to say that the Police had got the documents signed in the Police Station. It is incorrect to say that the Police did not tell him about the action regarding which signatures had been taken. It is incorrect to say that he is not telling the right things in the Court. 30. From perusal of the entire records and the deposition made by the witnesses before the trial Court, it is apparent that the convict/appellant was the perpetrator of instant crime. In the statement made by the convict/appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., in response to almost all the questions, either he has answered it to be incorrect or that he does not know. He has not even tried to clarify the situation as to on that date, whether he was at some other place or with some one else. 31. The cross-examination conducted by the counsel for the convict/appellant before the trial Court is also of no help as the statement of the witnesses have remained unshaken. Even the memorandum statement of the convict/appellant speaks volumes regarding commission of the crime by him. The statement made in the memorandum is corroborated by the seizure of various articles at his instance. 32. The law with regard to circumstantial evidence is well settled. In a case where the prosecution relies upon the circumstantial evidence, it must not only prove the circumstances, but should link them in such a fashion so as to form an unending chain i.e. the guilt of the accused. But if there is any chance of the accused being innocent or the crime has been committed by some other person, then the accused has to be given the benefit of doubt and on the basis of circumstantial evidence, he cannot be convicted. 33. But if there is any chance of the accused being innocent or the crime has been committed by some other person, then the accused has to be given the benefit of doubt and on the basis of circumstantial evidence, he cannot be convicted. 33. The law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116 , is that the conditions which must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established on circumstantial evidence are as under:- “(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must or should be and not merely ‘may be’ fully established. (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except he one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” 34. The Supreme Court in the matter of Shivu & Another vs. R.G., High Court of Karnataka & Another, reported in 2007 Cr.L.J. 1806, has reiterated that the condition precedent necessary before conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence must be established as laid down in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra). 35. Similarly, in the matter of Sanjiv Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, reported in (1999) SCC Online SC 65, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: - “The next circumstance which can be said to have been established by the prosecution is the alleged search of the house of accused Kamlesh and recovery of blood stained clothes of the accused Sanjiv Kumar from the bathroom which were being washed. This circumstance is established from the evidence of Sapna-PW2, R.L. Chauhan - PW7 and Vipan Sharma - PW 11. The relevant seizure list is Exhibit PG. The report of the Chemical Examiner and that of the Serologist is Exhibit PX/2. This circumstance is established from the evidence of Sapna-PW2, R.L. Chauhan - PW7 and Vipan Sharma - PW 11. The relevant seizure list is Exhibit PG. The report of the Chemical Examiner and that of the Serologist is Exhibit PX/2. PW1, PW34, and PW 2 categorically deposed that these were clothes which had been used by accused Sanjiv Kumar on the relevant date at the relevant point of time. The report of Chemical Examiner and report of the Serologist indicate the presence of human blood on the wearing apparels of Sanjiv Kumar which were seized from the house of accused Kamlesh and the accused has not offered any explanation for the same in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. From the evidence of PWs 16 and 17 it has been established that accused Sanjiv Kumar while in custody, made a statement in relation to the weapon of offence Exhibit P-4 and pursuant to such statement the knife was recovered under Exhibit PV. The said knife also on chemical examination and serologically tested was found to be stained with human blood. The two Courts of fact have believed the evidence of PWs 15 and 17 and nothing has been pointed out as to why the said evidence should not be relied upon. The aforesaid circumstance also is another clinching piece of evidence as against accused Sanjiv Kumar. On the aforesaid circumstances, being established by the prosecution the conclusion is irresistible that the chain of circumstances so proved is complete and the charge of murder against accused Sanjiv Kumar is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Said accused Sanjiv Kumar, therefore, has to be convicted under Section 302 IPC and for said conviction he is sentenced to imprisonment for life.” 36. The postmortem report clearly states that the victim/deceased was subjected to forceful sexual intercourse. The MLC of the convict/appellant also shows that he was physically and mentally of sound health and was also capable of performing sexual activities. Even in his memorandum statement, he has stated that he after giving chocolate to the deceased, he took her to the bush of Jhurandi near Nakabadi and took off the clothes of the victim/deceased and committed sexual intercourse with her; thereafter, the victim/ deceased told that she will narrate about the incident in her house, upon which, he killed the victim/deceased. 37. 37. The report of the stone recovered from the accused was obtained by the doctor and it has been stated by Dr. Aniruddh Rai (PW-6) in his examination-in-chief that the weapon brought for examination was a stone, which weighed 2.41 kg and was half-moon shaped, which had one surface smooth and one surface curb, had many sharp edges, which were 10 to 12cm long; there were sharp ends, there was a black stain on the smooth surface of the stone, the stone was sealed and sent to the forensic lab to clarify whether it had blood stains on it or not. During his Court statement, the Doctor stated that according to his opinion, the injury caused during postmortem could have been caused by this stone. 38. During the investigation, the soil seized from the place of incident, the blood stains on the clothes t-shirt and jeans pant worn by the accused at the time of the incident, the blood stains on the stone seized at the behest of the accused, were sent for chemical examination. After the chemical examination, the report of the said items, which is Ex.P/29, has been submitted in which it is mentioned that soil (A), T-shirt (1) of the accused, jeans (J) of the accused and stone (K) were seized from the spot of the incident and on the said items human blood was found of the same group i.e. ‘O’ group. In this case, the DNA test report presented by the prosecution, Ex.P/34 as Ex.-(F), mentions the fact that male (Y) DNA profile was not found in the vaginal slide of the victim/deceased, but the blood recovered from the place of incident, human blood was found on the soil, clothes of the accused and the stone used in the incident and the said human blood being of the same group, which reflects the presence of the accused at the incident site. No explanation has been given by the accused regarding the human blood found on his clothes. It was the responsibility of the accused to explain how human blood came on his clothes, but the accused has neither given any explanation in this regard nor any evidence has been presented which can refute the chemical examination report and the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution. 39. The deceased was a minor girl who was below the age of 12 years. 39. The deceased was a minor girl who was below the age of 12 years. She was taken away by the convict/appellant forcefully without the wishes of the minor girl from the lawful guardianship of her parents. She was subjected to most heinous crime of sexual intercourse and thereafter, she was murdered in a brutal way by smashing her face with a heavy stone. Thus, after appreciating the entire ocular and medical evidence on record, we do not find any illegality in appreciation of oral, medical and circumstantial evidence or arriving at a conclusion as to the guilt of the convict/appellant by the learned trial Court warranting interference by this Court and we accordingly hereby confirm the conviction of the convict/appellant. Therefore, we hereby affirm that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court as there is sufficient evidence available on record. 40. The charges framed under Sections 363, 366, 376, 376(a), 302 and 201 of the IPC as well as Section 6 of the POCSO Act are well founded and needs no interference by this Court. The appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. 41. The appellant is stated to be in jail since 26.03.2018 being the date of arrest. He is directed to serve out the sentence as awarded to him by the learned trial Court. 42. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance.