Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. P.W.-8 Ramdeo Saw is the informant of the case and the grandfather of the deceased. This witness has stated that the occurrence had taken place less than two years ago. He had gone to graze his cattle at about 7:00 A.M., in the morning, and at about 10:45 A.M., his granddaughter came there, asking him to pluck mango for her. She was aged about seven years. Mathura Yadav was sitting nearby and asked her to come with him, assuring that he would pluck the mango for her, and he took her away along with him by holding her hand. This witness returned back to his house. When the father of the girl asked him about her, he told him that she was with Mathura Yadav for taking mango. Thereafter, she was searched and both of them were not found. On the next day again they were searched along with the villagers, and the dead body of his granddaughter was found in the putus bushes near the boring of the accused Mathura Yadav. There was cut injury in her neck and she was bleeding from other parts of the body also. There was mobil oil also on her body. This witness has stated that upon Death Reference (D.B) No.01 of 2016 With Criminal Appeal (D.B) No.429 of 2016 seeing them, Bhikhari Mahto and Mathura Yadav, were fleeing away after throwing her dead body. Bhikhari Mahto was apprehended there, but Mathura Yadav managed to flee away. The police reached there and inspected the place of occurrence, and upon search in the boring house, blood was found on the bed. It was apparent that the deceased girl was murdered after committing rape upon her, and the dead body was attempted to be concealed with the help of Bhikhari Mahto. He gave the fardbeyan before the police, which was read over to him, and finding the same to be true, he had put his signature on the fardbeyan, which on his identification was marked Exhibit-3. This witness had identified both the accused persons in the Court. He was put to extensive cross-examination wherein he has admitted that Bhikari Mahto had lodged a case against him, in which, he had been acquitted. He has stated that there was no proceeding under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C., between them in which he was the first party. He has admitted that he had not seen the accused committing the rape and murder of the deceased, but he has stated that the accused Mathura Yadav had taken away his granddaughter, which he had seen. His attention was drawn towards his statement before the police, and he has admitted to have given the statement before the police that Mathura Yadav and Bhikari Mahto were fleeing away when the dead body was found, and Bhikhari Mahto was apprehended, but Mathura Yadav managed to flee away. He has stated that there is no habitat near the boring house and he has denied the suggestion to have falsely implicated the accused.

6. P.W.-5 Munna Mandal is the father of the deceased and P.W.- 14 Rukmani Devi is the mother of the deceased. Both these witnesses have also supported the prosecution case in more or less the same manner, as stated by the informant P.W.-8 Ramdeo Saw. They have stated that the occurrence took place on 06.05.2011, on which date they were informed by their father that the accused Mathura Yadav had taken their daughter on the pretext of plucking mango for her. They have also stated that thereafter, they were searching their daughter along with villagers, but she could not be found on that day. The dead body was found on 07.05.2011 in the morning, behind the boring house of the accused between the bushes. Her neck was cut and there was bleeding below her waist. They have stated that the police Death Reference (D.B) No.01 of 2016 With Criminal Appeal (D.B) No.429 of 2016 had arrived there and had searched inside the boring house of the accused Mathura Yadav, where the bloodstained bed was found. There was a stick also which was bloodstained. P.W.-5 Munna Mandal has also stated that the bloodstained cloth and kulhari were also seized by the police. He has also stated that he had seen the accused, Mathura Yadav and Bhikari Mahto, fleeing away from the boring house. Both these witnesses have stated that upon seeing the dead body, it was apparent that she was murdered after committing rape upon her, and thereafter the dead body was concealed in the bushes. Both these witnesses have identified the accused persons in the Court. In his cross-examination, P.W.-5 Munna Mandal has admitted that he had given the statement before the police that the bloodstained khulari was seized from the boring house and both the accused persons were fleeing away. He has denied the suggestion of any enmity from before, and he has stated that he had no knowledge about the case, lodged by Bhikhari Mahto against his father, or of any proceeding under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. P.W.-14 Rukmani Devi has also denied any knowledge about the same.

20. The dead body of the deceased was found, thrown in the putus bushes, which clearly shows that after committing rape and murder in the boring house, the dead body was thrown away in order to conceal the dead body, in an attempt to cause the disappearance of the evidence. The evidences of P.W.-1 Sudhir Saw, P.W.-2 Pramod Mandal, P.W.-5 Munna Mandal, P.W.-8 Ramdeo Saw and P.W.-11 Srawan Mandal, clearly show that Bhikhari Mahto was also seen with the accused, Mathura Yadav near the boring house in the morning. This fact also finds mentioned in the Death Reference (D.B) No.01 of 2016 With Criminal Appeal (D.B) No.429 of 2016 FIR itself. As such, there is no illegality in the findings of the Trial Court below, in convicting the appellants, Mathura Yadav and Bhikhari Mahto also for the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

26. On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that simply because the case relates to rape and murder of a child, it does not come under the category of rarest of rare cases. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Sebastian Vs. State of Kerela, reported in (2010) 1 SCC 58, Ram Deo Prasad Vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2013) 7 SCC 725, Tattu Lodhi Vs. State of M.P., reported in (2016) 9 SCC 675, and in all these cases, the child aged between 2 to 7 years were murdered after committing rape upon them. The Supreme Court, in the facts of these cases, held that they do not come within the category of rarest of rare cases, and the death sentence awarded by the Trial Court below, and confirmed by the High Court, were commuted to life imprisonment. Learned counsel also placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in Ramnaresh and Ors. Vs. State of Chattisgarh, reported in (2012) 4 SCC 257, which related to the gang rape and murder of a married lady, and in that case also, the Supreme Court held that it did not come within the category of rarest of rare cases, and the death sentence was converted into the life sentence. Learned counsel has also placed reliance upon the decision of Rameshbhai Chandubhai Rathod (2) Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2011) 2 SCC 764, which also related to rape and murder of a child by the guard of the building. The Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the law that it was obligatory upon the Trial Court to have given the finding as to a possible rehabilitation and reformation and the possibility that the accused could still be a useful member of the society, in case, he was given a chance to do so, and in absence of such finding, the death sentence awarded by the Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court, was commuted to the sentence for whole life, but subject to any remission or commutation of sentence by the State Government for good and social reasons. Similar view was taken by the Apex Court in Amit Vs. State of U.P, reported in (2012) 4 SCC 107, which also related to rape and murder of Death Reference (D.B) No.01 of 2016 With Criminal Appeal (D.B) No.429 of 2016 a three years old child. In the said case also, the ratio of Rameshbhai Chandhubhai Rathod's case (supra), was applied by the Supreme Court and the death sentence was commuted to the sentence of life in the same terms.