PW4 gave the custody of the child to the accused appellant upon the assurance of the accused appellant that he would take the child to school safely.
5 of 2015 and in Criminal Appeal No.
The child went along with the accused appellant towards her school in the vehicle, but did number return home that day.
The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 23.02.2015, PW4 the elder brother of the victims father came over from his village to drop the victim child to school in a vehicle bearing Registration No.
P7 and took the signatures of the witnesses.
PW4, on the assurance of the accused appellant that he would go along with the victim child to her school, as he had to pay his own daughters fees, alighted from the vehicle near the Sabzi Mandi.
Though certain suggestions were made to PW2, the same were denied.
The accused appellant was the registered owner of the vehicle in which he was last seen with the victim, and was driving the vehicle on the day of the incident.
P7 and Ext.
The father of the deceased suspected that the accused appellant had left his daughter somewhere else, however, the first information report Ext.
The recovery memo of the school bag Ext.
2203 of 2015, except in respect of the offence under Section 363 IPC which means the accused was acquitted under Section 363 IPC by the High Court.
These appeals are presented by the companyvicted accused.
Despite a frantic search by her parents, relatives and the villagers, the victim child companyld number be traced.
The dead body was found in a well situated alongside Paraswara Canal.
The school bag and the dead body of the deceased were recovered at the instance of the accused appellant pursuant to the disclosure statement.
The deceased was last seen with the accused appellant by PW4 and PW5.
After the trial, as mentioned supra, the accused appellant was companyvicted by the Trial Court and the order of companyviction was companyfirmed by the High Court.
The judgment of the Trial Court was companyfirmed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur vide its judgment and order dated 03.03.2016 in Criminal Reference No.
The evidence of PW2, in our companysidered opinion, has remained unshaken.
In the alternative, he submits that the case on hand does number fall under the definition of the rarest of rare cases and, therefore, the accused appellant may number be punished with death.
P8, which are the recovery memos duly signed by the witnesses.
He also submits that the evidence that led to the recovery of the dead body based on the companyfession of the accused appellant is liable to be rejected on the ground that the panchnama was drawn at the police station and number on the spot of recovery of the dead body and that the Investigating Officer deliberately tried to companyceal the main offender and framed the accused appellant, and such lapse in the companyrse of investigation would tilt the balance of justice in favour of the accused appellant.
P8 were prepared on the spot and the signatures of the witnesses were taken.
The police took out the dead body of the deceased from the well, and after such recovery, recorded the recovery memo Ext.
P1 came to be lodged against an unknown offender and the accused appellant was apprehended after two days.
Thereafter, the accused appellant led the police and the witnesses to the school at Dubehi, on the rooftop of which he had hidden the victims school bag.
At this time, only an underwear was present on the dead body.
In his crossexamination, PW3 has deposed that the police had prepared the police papers at several places, such as village Paraswara, and at the police station.
The evidence of PW3 is almost similar to the evidence of PW2.
His daughter was also a student of the same school as the deceased.
The deceased was studying at New Horizon Public School, Maihar in L.K.G. and was aged about five years and two months at the time of occurrence of the offence.
This is because grave suspicion arises against PW4 also, having regard to the evidence of PW5 Ramji Shukla.
P8 was prepared at the spot and the signatures of the witnesses were taken.
However, these admissions of PW3 will number take away the effect of Ext.
It is clear from the evidence of PW2 and PW3 that immediately after the dead body was taken out from the well and after the recovery of the school bag from the rooftop of the school at Dubehi, the recovery memos Ext.
P7 and Ext.
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J. Leave granted.
MP 19 T 2374, owned and driven by the accused appellant.
On the said basis, he submits that the evidence of PW4 cannot be believed, since his statement before the Court was only meant to shield himself.
It is also admitted by PW3 that the inquest panchnama was prepared at the police station.
The First Additional Sessions Judge, Maihar, District Satna, Madhya Pradesh in Special Sessions Trial No.
41 of 2015 vide judgment dated 06.08.2015 companyvicted the accused appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376 A , 302 and 201 II of the Indian Penal Code in short the IPC and Section 5 i m read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND Date 2019.03.12 164710 IST Reason Sexual Offences Act, 2012 in short the POCSO Act and sentenced him to death.
