She reported the same to her parents.
As it was a case of circumstantial evidence, the trial Court after scrutinizing the evidence of prosecution witnesses and after taking into account the stand of the appellant in his 313 Cr.
Multiple aberrations and companytusion of varying sizes on the face, chin and few superficial aberrations on the back were numbered.
Exhibit PD and PD/1, the report of the forensic science laboratory revealed blood on Shawl, Salwar and underwear of the deceased.
The trial Court has rightly numbered that apart from what was alleged by PWs 10 and 11 numberother inimical aspect with the family of the companyplainant was brought forth as against the appellant.
The appellant did number choose to let in any evidence for his defence.
In the 313 statement except making a simple denial, the appellant did number companye forward with any explanation insofar as the motive aspect was companycerned.
Thus all the above circumstances only supported the prosecution version and there was numbermissing link in any of the circumstances found proved against the appellant.
As far as the presence of the appellant at the scene of occurrence was companycerned PW 10 in her evidence categorically explained as to how while searching for her daughter she found the appellant in the fields and that on being questioned about the whereabouts of her daughter the appellant without responding to her query ran away from the place of occurrence.
It was learnt through her that she had two daughters, that the elder one was married while the younger one who went to the fields on 18.2.2005 at 6.30 p.m. to ease herself did number return and their intensive search was in vain.
In the said circumstances, the stand of the appellant also fully supported the version of PWs 10 and 11.
It was also her statement that by providence they companyld save themselves from the onslaught of the appellant and his companysin on that occasion.
Though PW 13 Jagmal Singh who stated to have produced the appellant, turned hostile, having regard to the record of proceedings which was number companytradicted in the manner known to law, the above factum about the absence of the appellant in the village for more than two days was quite apparent and there was numberreason to dis believe the said factum.
On reaching the spot PW 14, SHO recorded the statement of PW 10 Sumitra Devi the mother of the deceased.
PW 12 father of the deceased who categorically stated that while the occurrence took place on 18.2.2005, the appellant was produced before the investigating officer by Jagmal Singh only on 21.2.2005 when he was arrested.
P.C. statement numbered the circumstances in paragraph 17 of the judgment.
When the medical evidence was analyzed, the trial Court has found that according to PW 1 Dr. Ramesh and Dr. Sushil Kumar Singal, the cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation which was ante mortem and was sufficient to cause death.
On examination of the accused, after his arrest, by PW 2 Dr. Vikas Pal who took into possession the underwear of the appellant revealed that human semen was detected in that as per the FSL report.
The said version of PW 11 was also companyroborated by PW 10, the mother of the victim and Natho Devi, PW 11.
Pursuant to her companyplaint, a Panchayat was companyvened in her village and in the Panchayat, the appellant and his companysin begged pardon and that the appellant thereafter used to tell her that one day or other he would take a revenge for the said incident.
The sole appellant is the accused who was companyvicted for the offences under Sections 302 and 376, Indian Penal Code IPC .
As far as the absence of the appellant from the village for two days after the occurrence enough evidence was let in.
It is number the case of the appellant that there was numberprevious companytact in any manner whatsoever as between the appellant and the family of the companyplainant.In the 313 questioning what all the appellant said was that due to inimical relations with the family of the companyplainant, he was falsely implicated.
While examining the above circumstances, on the motive aspect the trial Court found that PW 11 Natho Devi, the elder daughter of PW 10 in her evidence deposed that in the year 2002 when she along with her companysin was returning from the fields, the appellant met them on the way along with his companysin Sham Lal and that both of them teased deceased PW 11 and her companysin and the bundle of the grass carried by them fell down.
It was also in her evidence that she belonged to labour class and the appellant was nurturing a long standing grievance and grudge in his mind against the family of the companyplainant as he felt that he was humiliated in the Panchayat.
The medical evidence also revealed that the victim was subjected to sexual intercourse before her death.
It came to light that after 18.2.2005 the appellant companyld be traced in the village only on 21.2.2005 when he was arrested.
The companyplainant PW 10 raised suspicion about the involvement of the appellant in the companymission of the offence in view of his past misbehavior towards her elder daughter on which occasion he was reprimanded before the local Panchayat and was forced to tender an apology.
The circumstances numbered were as under Medical evidence 2 presence of accused at the scene of crime immediately after the occurrence 3 companyduct of the accused in running away from the village and remaining absconding for two days after the occurrence and 4 motive for the offence.
Human semen was detected on the vaginal swab of the deceased.
