Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

20. No doubt, the girl Vaishali aged about 5 years was taken by the accused from the place of 'Devi Jagran' in the presence of her uncle PW 2 Naresh Kumar and her father. PW 6 Nand Kishore was also there. All the witnesses of face have stated that he (accused) had taken the girl on the pretext of giving her a balloon. So, the tacit consent of the father/uncle for the girl to be taken away was for the purpose of a balloon to be provided to her by the accused. As per his saying, he was their neighbour. The girl also knew him from before. He had been there for a while showing playful gestures with the girl. To say shortly, the consent for taking away the girl by the accused was for the purpose of giving a balloon to her, and not for how he dealt with her immediately thereafter. Actually, since he had taken the girl for giving her a balloon, PW 2 Naresh Kumar-uncle of the girl, PW 6 Nand Kishore and Vishal-father of the girl did not object to it. It has clearly been stated by PW 2 Naresh Kumar that he did not object to the taking of the girl by Bantu because he was taking her for giving balloon to her. PW 6 Nand Kishore even stated that he had questioned the accused as to where he was taking her and he had replied that he was taking her for giving a balloon. So, obviously, the said consent of the father/uncle of the girl was for specific purpose of balloon being given to her by the accused. He being their neighbour, there was hardly any reason of their sustaining any suspicion at that juncture. But the conduct of the accused immediately thereafter speaks volumes of the evil design conceived by him right from the beginning. It was a ruse or pretext to take away the girl from the spot for giving her a balloon, but actually he wanted to translate his evil design of doing carnal act with that teenaged girl of 5 years without even a grain of humanity, After committing rape on her, he murdered her in most merciless and diabolic manner by deep insertion of a stem/stick of Dhaincha plant into her vagina. To come to the point, he enticed away the girl by deceitful means to carry out his evil mission. It does not admit of slightest doubt that he committed the offence under Section 364 I.P.C., all the ingredients of which came to be established and cemented by the prosecution evidence. We, therefore, reject this first argument of the learned amicus curiae.

43. In our considered opinion, the present case falls in the rarest of rare category calling for death penalty for the murder of helpless and hapless girl aged about 5 years who was murdered by the accused appellant after committing rape on her. The murder was committed in extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting and dastardly manner, so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community. The accused took away his neighbour's daughter aged about 5 years from the site of 'Devi Jagran', where she was present with her father and relatives by deceitful means of giving her a balloon. He straightaway took her to a field, committed rape on her and then brutally murdered her by inserting a stem 13 inches inside her vagina causing extensive damage. It is shuddering that more than a ft. of stick had been inserted into her vagina causing extensive damage inside and the stick could be taken out only at the time of post mortem of the unfortunate girl. The victim was an innocent child aged about 5 years. The accused is totally depraved. He cannot be allowed to return back to the society at all. The offence has definitely generated a deep sense of abhorrence in the society.