JUDGMENT : (K. Surender, J.) : 1. The case is one of rape and murder of three year old child. The appellant was convicted for the offence under Sections 376(f) and 302 of IPC and sentenced to ten years and imprisonment for life respectively vide judgment in S.C.No.278 of 2013 dated 20.03.2014 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Karimnagar. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed. 2. Sri K.Vasanth Rao was appointed as legal aid counsel. Heard the legal aid counsel and the Additional Public Prosecutor. 3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the victim girl was aged around 3 years. Victim girl and the brother were with P.W.1. On 22.01.2013, at about 1.30 p.m, the brother of victim girl went to P.W.1 and informed that the victim girl was not seen. Immediately, P.W.1 went near the Railway Station and searched for the victim girl and found dead body of the victim girl in the cotton fields. There were several other persons also. At the place, the appellant was seen running from the scene. The persons present therein near the railway station including P.W.1 caught hold of the appellant and beat him up and enquired as to who he was. Appellant revealed his name as Bore Rajesh from Kommududem village of Laxettipeta Mandal, Adilabad District. However, he escaped from the clutches of the public who had gathered there and fled. Immediately, police complaint was lodged by P.W.1. The police searched for appellant and found him around 7.00 p.m nearby the railway track and arrested him. The postmortem of the body was conducted at the scene by P.W.13. MO6 underwear of appellant was seized. MO4 pant of appellant was seized from scene. 4. After completing investigation, charge sheet was filed. Charges under Section 376(f) and 302 IPC were framed. 5. During the course of trial, P.W.1, who is the aunt of the victim girl stated that when she and her husband P.W.2 went to cooli work, the victim girl/deceased and her brother were left in the house. Both the children left the house to go to her grandparents’ house. However, after some time, the brother of the deceased Deva Raj (not examined in Court due to witness being six years old) informed that the girl was not seen. Both the children left the house to go to her grandparents’ house. However, after some time, the brother of the deceased Deva Raj (not examined in Court due to witness being six years old) informed that the girl was not seen. When they went in search of the girl, they found victim girl without clothes, and injuries on body, in the cotton field adjacent to railway station. The appellant was found running from the scene, as such, he was caught. P.W.2 is the mother of the victim girl, who deposed that death of the victim girl was informed to her. P.W.3 is the maternal grandfather of the victim girl. According to him, around 1.00 p.m on 22.01.2013, he along with some other villagers found the dead body of the victim girl and the appellant was beaten. 6. P.W.5 is another witness who stated about her presence in the railway station on 22.01.2013 at 12.00 pm. She found the victim girl and her brother. She deposed that the appellant purchased chocolates and gave it to the children, who are deceased and her brother. He took the children with him. Around 1.30 p.m she heard noise from the cotton fields and when she went there, she found that the appellant was there and he was beaten up by the villagers. She also found dead body of the victim girl and it was apparent that the child was subjected to rape. 7. On similar lines, P.Ws.6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 deposed, who are the villagers, who caught hold of the appellant at the scene and beat him up. 8. The evidence of P.Ws.5 to 10 independent witnesses is clear that the appellant was caught at the scene and thereafter, escaped from them. All P.Ws.5 to 10 have identified the appellant in the District Jail, Karimnagar during test identification proceedings conducted by P.W.15. 9. P.W.13 is the Doctor, who conducted postmortem examination of the victim girl at the scene. According to her, the cause of death was due to mechanical asphyxia. Death was about six hours prior to the postmortem examination. According to Ex.P7 report, semen and spermatozoa were detected on the vaginal swabs collected from the deceased and also on the underwear MO6 of the appellant. 10. According to her, the cause of death was due to mechanical asphyxia. Death was about six hours prior to the postmortem examination. According to Ex.P7 report, semen and spermatozoa were detected on the vaginal swabs collected from the deceased and also on the underwear MO6 of the appellant. 10. Having considered the evidence on record, learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 376(f) of IPC and 302 of IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. 11. Learned legal aid counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that there is discrepancy in the timings given by the witnesses. If at all the group of persons, P.W.1 and P.Ws.5 to 10 had attacked the appellant, there would have been injuries on the body of the appellant, but, when appellant was examined, no such injuries were found. That itself shows that the witnesses are speaking false about the incident. Further, the test of semen and spermatozoa did not reveal that it belongs to the appellant and DNA testing was not done. Since, none of the witnesses had seen either raping or committing the murder of the child by appellant and only for the reason of finding appellant near the fields, it cannot be said that appellant committed the offence and benefit of doubt has to be extended to the appellant. 12. On the other hand, Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the case is one of the rape and murder of three year old child. In fact, the prosecution was able to prove beyond doubt that the appellant had murdered the child after committing rape on her. 13. Having gone through the evidence of witnesses and the supporting documentary evidence, on the date of incident, the appellant was found at 12.00 pm in the railway station by P.W.5 when he had purchased chocolates for the victim girl. Thereafter, he took the girl. One and half an hour later, while searching for the child, the witnesses P.Ws.1, 3 and 5 to 10, who are independent witnesses, found that the victim girl was dead in the fields. In fact, the pant MO4 of the appellant was found underneath the body of the deceased. Since he was running from the scene, all of them caught hold of the appellant and have beaten him up. However, he managed to escape. In fact, the pant MO4 of the appellant was found underneath the body of the deceased. Since he was running from the scene, all of them caught hold of the appellant and have beaten him up. However, he managed to escape. Immediately, complaint was lodged and he was apprehended on the very same day at 7.00 p.m near the railway tracks by the police and he was not wearing pant. His wearing apparel was seized which is MO6. MO6 contained semen and also the vaginal swabs of the victim girl collected were analysed by FSL and found to be containing semen and spermatozoa. The argument of the learned legal aid counsel that DNA testing was not done on the semen and spermatozoa found on MO6 and vaginal swabs of the victim, is of no consequence. The appellant did not belong to the village and in fact, he had taken the girl from the railway station as witnessed by P.W.5 to the nearby fields. There he was caught hold by PWs.1, 3 and 5 to 10 while fleeing from the scene. The appellant was also identified by the witnesses during test identification parade. 14. The five golden principles constituting panchsheel to prove a case based on circumstantial evidence were summed up in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra : (1984) 4 SCC 116 , which reads as follows: “153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned “must or should” and not “may be” established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between “may be proved” and “must be or should be proved” as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [ (1973) 2 SCC 793 : 1973 SCC (Cri)1033 : 1973 Crl LJ 1783] where the observations were made: [SCC para 19, p. 807: SCC (Cri) p. 1047]. “Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.” (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 the 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.” 15. The said circumstances as discussed above projected by the prosecution form a complete chain and proved beyond reasonable doubt that it was the appellant who had committed rape and murder of the deceased. There are no grounds to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. 16. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is dismissed.