1 2025:CGHC:40044-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1585 of 2021 Krishna Tirki @ Durga Tirki S/o Ramesh Tirki Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Kasra Nagdoli, P.S. Patna, District Korea Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Patna, District Korea Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent ________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. R.S. Patel, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer ________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 11.08.2025 1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the CrPC’) against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.11.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) – Cum – Special Undge (under POCSO Act, 2012), Korea, District – Baikunthpur (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case (under POCSO Act) No. 19/2018, whereby the appellant has been ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 convicted and sentenced in the following manner with a direction to run all the sentences concurrently:- CONVICTION SENTENCE U/s 366 of the IPC 7 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 06 months U/s 366A of the IPC Life imprisonment i.e. imprisonment for remainder of convict’s natural life U/s 302 of the IPC Life imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 06 months U/s 302/201of the IPC 5 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 06 months U/s 4(1) of the POCSO Act Life imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 06 months 2. Prosecution story in brief as per Morgue Intimation (Ex.P/28) lodged by informant Banwari Lal Rajwade is, that on 25.04.2018 he informed jurisdictional police about hanging of deceased on a tree at village: Kudeli, Kudakhupara. Based on such intimation, morgue intimation No. 28/2018 was recorded by Dineshwar Prasad Ravi (PW-20) and upon informing the matter to concerned SDM, Panchnama proceedings were carried out. Thereafter, ASI, Shiv Kumar Yadav (PW-22) carried out morgue inquiry when body panchnama (Ex.P/3) was got prepared in presence of witnesses. During such inquiry, PW-22 noticed that body of the deceased was hanging on the tree. He brought down the same. Upon examination by lady constable, bite marks were reported to be found present on 3 breast of the deceased. A mobile phone was got recovered from the deceased, inspection whereof disclosed last conversation with the appellant. Smelling foul, in consensus with panchayatnama witnesses present there, post-mortem was proposed. In short post- mortem report, rape and homicidal death having been indicated, FIR No. 89/2018 (Ex.P/77) under section 363, 366, 376-A, 376(2) (d), 302, 201 IPC r/w section 6 of the POCSO Act was got registered against unknown persons. Intimation thereof was sent to trial Court vide Ex.P/78. 3. Thereafter, further investigation was carried out by the then SHO P.S. Patna, SI, Anand Soni (PW-18). During investigation he seized marks sheet of the deceased from her father XXX (PW-2) vide seizure memo Ex.P/8 in presence of witnesses, according to which her date of birth was found to be 11.08.2000. He prepared Spot Map Ex.P/4 at the instance of PW-2. During further investigation statement of witnesses were recorded, whereby getting clues indicating towards involvement of accused persons, which got corroborated from the mobile records of deceased that she had conversed with the appellant during last hours, they were taken into custody. Appellant made Memorandum statement (Ex.P/21) inculpating himself and co-accused persons in commission of crime. He also disclosed manner of commission of crime. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet of the crime registered against the accused was presented in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge 4 (FTC)-cum-Special Judge (under POCSO Act, 2012), Korea at Baikunthpur (C.G.). 4. Charges were framed against the accused No. 2 and 3 under Sections 363/34, 366/34, 376(2)(n) read with Section 109 of IPC and Section 6/17 of the POCSO Act and against accused No.1 / appellant herein under Sections 363/34, 366/34, 376(2)(n), 376A, 302, 302/201 of IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, which the accused denied. 5. In order to bring home charges, prosecution has examined as many as 28 witnesses and exhibited 93 documents. Thereafter, circumstances appearing to be against the accused were put to them in compliance of mandate contained under section 313 CrPC. Accused persons in such examination have denied the circumstances appearing against them and have pleaded false implication. They chose not to examine any witness in defence, despite opportunity having been afforded. From the cross- examination of prosecution witnesses, defence of the accused persons appear to be of total denial of allegations and false implication. 6. The trial Court after completion of trial and after appreciating oral and documentary evidences available on record, by the impugned judgment dated 15.11.2021 while acquitting the accused Nos. 2 & 3 convicted and sentenced the accused No.1 / appellant herein in the manner mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, 5 against which this appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC has been preferred calling in question the impugned judgment. 7. Mr. R.S. Patel, learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned trial Court has erred in convicting and sentencing the appellant because he has been falsely implicated in the instant case. Admittedly, there is no eye witness in the instant case and the appellant has been convicted merely on circumstantial evidence. He further submits that a majority of independent witnesses (15 witnesses) have been turned hostile, they have not supported the case of prosecution in the slightest, hence, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the chain of circumstances. He also submits that the trial Court has given undue importance to the call detail records. The call records are not conclusive proof to hold the guilt of the appellant. The mere fact that the appellant and victim talked over phone does not establish the last seen theory. Moreover, if the appellant the deceased were together on the intervening night between 24.04.2018 and 25.04.2018, there is no reason for the accused to call the deceased if they were together. The call records do not disclose the location of the appellant which would establish that the deceased and the victim were on the same place on the date of incident at the time of her death. He contended that the DNA report which has been extensively relied by the prosecution has not passed the test of cross-examination, therefore, the conviction cannot be based on the basis the aforesaid DNA report. He 6 further contended that the testimonies of the witnesses who were not hostile are full of contradictions, interpolations, additions and omissions. Such inconsistencies are a direct consequence of the fact that the testimonies are vitiated by afterthoughts and conformation bias due to the information supplied by the Police Authorities at a later stage. The learned trial Court has also failed to consider that the prosecution witnesses have made contradictory statements, which clearly shows they are not supporting the prosecution story, in spite of that he has been inflicted for life imprisonment which is on higher side and his future will be ruined. Hence, the appellant is liable to be acquitted. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Saumya Rai, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent supports the impugned judgment and submits that prosecution has been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has proved age of the victim to be under 18 years by adducing evidence of PW-2 and PW-6. He would further submit that PW-2 and PW-22 have categorically stated that during body panchnama Ex.P/3 mobile phone of deceased was recovered from her possession, which revealed conversations with the appellant during her last hours and on the day of commission of offence. PW-25 has duly proved the call records of accused and deceased, depicting conversations amongst them during last hours of deceased. PW-27 and 28 have duly proved the seized mobile phones belonging to deceased and the appellant. PW-24 7 has confirmed sexual intercourse and grave injury marks over breast, internal and external vaginal walls, liver and back of the deceased. He has rendered specific opinion that deceased was hanged after having been killed, which was homicidal in nature. FSL report Ex.P/67and DNA report Ex.P/72 clearly depict that deceased was subjected to rape by appellant. Call details further establishes that appellant and deceased were together during last hours of deceased, which satisfies the theory of last seen together. Towel used for hanging the body has been recovered at the instance of appellant. As such, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant and the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 10. The first question for consideration before this Court would be, whether the trial Court has rightly held that on the date of incident, the victim was minor? 11. When a person is charged for the offence punishable under the POCSO Act, or for rape punishable in the Indian Penal Code, the age of the victim is significant and essential ingredient to prove such charge and the gravity of the offence gets changed when the child is below 18 years, 12 years and more than 18 years. Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act defines the “child” which means any person below the age of eighteen years. 8 12. In Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2013) 7 SCC 263, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the guiding principles for determining the age of a child, which read as follows : “22. On the issue of determination of age of a minor, one only needs to make a reference to Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the 2007 Rules). The aforestated 2007 Rules have been framed under Section 68(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. Rule 12 referred to hereinabove reads as under : “12. Procedure to be followed in determination of Age.? (1) In every case concerning a child or a juvenile in conflict with law, the court or the Board or as the case may be the Committee referred to in rule 19 of these rules shall determine the age of such juvenile or child or a juvenile in conflict with law within a period of thirty days from the date of making of the application for that purpose. (2) The court or the Board or as the case may be the Committee shall decide the juvenility or otherwise of the juvenile or the child or as the case may be the juvenile in conflict with law, prima facie on the basis of physical appearance or documents, if available, and send him to the observation home or in jail. (3) In every case concerning a child or juvenile in conflict with law, the age determination inquiry shall be conducted by the court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee by seeking evidence by obtaining – (a) (i) the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available; and in the absence whereof; (ii) the date of birth certificate from the school (other than a play school) first attended; and in the absence whereof; 9 (iii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat; (b) and only in the absence of either (i), (ii) or (iii) of clause (a) above, the medical opinion will be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board, which will declare the age of the juvenile or child. In case exact assessment of the age cannot be done, the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee, for the reasons to be recorded by them, may, if considered necessary, give benefit to the child or juvenile by considering his/her age on lower side within the margin of one year. and, while passing orders in such case shall, after taking into consideration such evidence as may be available, or the medical opinion, as the case may be, record a finding in respect of his age and either of the evidence specified in any of the clauses (a)(i), (ii), (iii) or in the absence whereof, clause (b) shall be the conclusive proof of the age as regards such child or the juvenile in conflict with law. (4) If the age of a juvenile or child or the juvenile in conflict with law is found to be below 18 years on the date of offence, on the basis of any of the conclusive proof specified in sub-rule (3), the court or the Board or as the case may be the Committee shall in writing pass an order stating the age and declaring the status of juvenility or otherwise, for the purpose of the Act and these rules and a copy of the order shall be given to such juvenile or the person concerned. (5) Save and except where, further inquiry or otherwise is required, inter alia, in terms of section 7A, section 64 of the Act and these rules, no further inquiry shall be conducted by the court or the Board after examining and obtaining the certificate or any other documentary proof referred to in sub-rule (3) of this rule. (6) The provisions contained in this rule shall also apply to those disposed off cases, where the status of juvenility has not been determined in accordance with the provisions contained in sub- rule(3) and the Act, requiring dispensation of the sentence under the Act for passing appropriate 10 order in the interest of the juvenile in conflict with law.” 23. Even though Rule 12 is strictly applicable only to determine the age of a child in conflict with law, we are of the view that the aforesaid statutory provision should be the basis for determining age, even for a child who is a victim of crime. For, in our view, there is hardly any difference in so far as the issue of minority is concerned, between a child in conflict with law, and a child who is a victim of crime. Therefore, in our considered opinion, it would be just and appropriate to apply Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules, to determine the age of the prosecutrix VW- PW6. The manner of determining age conclusively, has been expressed in sub-rule (3) of Rule 12 extracted above. Under the aforesaid provision, the age of a child is ascertained, by adopting the first available basis, out of a number of options postulated in Rule 12(3). If, in the scheme of options under Rule 12(3), an option is expressed in a preceding clause, it has overriding effect over an option expressed in a subsequent clause. The highest rated option available, would conclusively determine the age of a minor. In the scheme of Rule 12(3), matriculation (or equivalent) certificate of the concerned child, is the highest rated option. In case, the said certificate is available, no other evidence can be relied upon. Only in the absence of the said certificate, Rule 12(3), envisages consideration of the date of birth entered, in the school first attended by the child. In case such an entry of date of birth is available, the date of birth depicted therein is liable to be treated as final and conclusive, and no other material is to be relied upon. Only in the absence of such entry, Rule 12(3) postulates reliance on a birth certificate issued by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat. Yet again, if such a 11 certificate is available, then no other material whatsoever is to be taken into consideration, for determining the age of the child concerned, as the said certificate would conclusively determine the age of the child. It is only in the absence of any of the aforesaid, that Rule 12(3) postulates the determination of age of the concerned child, on the basis of medical opinion.” 13. In the present case, Vishnu Prasad (PW-6), who is the officiating Head Master of Girl's Primary School, Kudeli, has proved on record admission register and date of birth register pertaining to deceased as Ex/P/17 and P/19, according to which date of birth of deceased on the basis of information given by her father was recorded as 11.08.2000. During cross-examination, though this witness has admitted that any documentary basis for such recording in Ex.P/19 has not been mentioned therein, yet, volunteered that Ex.P/19 bears signature of father of deceased. Such statement clearly reflects that same was recorded on the basis of information having been given by her father. PW-2 (XXX) is father of the deceased. He in his deposition has stated that deceased was aged about 17 years. Although, he has not stated any specific date of her birth, however, his aforesaid statement has remained totally unchallenged. The defence has not presented any oral or documentary evidence to refuse the said date of birth, therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the date of birth of the victim, as 11.08.2000 hence, we are of the considered opinion that the trial Court has rightly held that the date of birth of the victim is 11.08.2000 and she was below 18 years of age on 12 the date of incident i.e. 24.04.2018. We hereby affirm the said finding. 14. Now, the next question arises for consideration would be whether the death of deceased was homicidal in nature ? 15. Case of prosecution is that death of the deceased had occurred on account of excessive bleeding due to injuries caused to her. In fact, her body was found hanging on a tree, when after receipt of information post mortem was conducted by a duly constituted team headed by lady doctor, Dr. Priyanka Pandey, of which Dr. Shresth Mishra (PW-24) was one of the member. PW-24 has deposed that during autopsy, he had examined the body of deceased when he had noticed that body was found to be partially putrefied. Ants seen coming from mouth and nose. On the neck there was mark of hanging with no peteichial hemorrhage on direction. Trachea and hyaid bone was fractured. Marks of nail were evident on the left breast. Bruises were over the back. Injuries were present over the external genitals. Depression at Rt. intercoastal region. Vaginal wall was found ruptured. External genitalia, labia majora and labia minora had lacerated wounds. He had prepared slides from the vaginal wall with opinion to send the same for FSL examination. By the team conducting post- mortem, cause of death was noted as hypovolemic shock due to excessive internal and external bleeding, from ruptured external and internal genitalia's and ruptured liver. Nature was specifically opined to be homicidal. During cross-examination, nothing 13 material could be extracted by the defence side, so as to contradict such opinion. PW-24 has categorically stated hanging after death. It is specifically denied that in the event of suicide, injuries as noted above were possible to have sustained. So, effort of defence side to establish case of suicide, stands liquidated. It is not the case of defence that death was natural or accidental. Therefore, from the opinion of the doctor and other attending circumstances as discussed hereinabove, it can be safely concluded beyond reasonable doubt that death of deceased was homicidal in nature. Finding to this point is therefore recorded in 'Affirmative'. 16. Now, the next question for consideration would be whether the appellant has kidnapped the deceased knowing fully well that she may be subjected to illicit intercourse, subjected her to forcible sexual intercourse, thereafter caused her death by beating and in order to screen himself from legal punishment gave colour of suicide by hanging her body on a tree ? 17. Admittedly there is no eye-witness in this case. Proof of charge has to be examined in the light of circumstances and scientific evidence brought on record. 18. At this stage it would be appropriate to discuss in brief, role and statements of witnesses, examined for and on behalf of prosecution. Majority of the independent witnesses have turned hostile and despite having been led, have not supported the prosecution case. Umakant Prajapati (PW-1), Sushil Kumar Lakra 14 (PW-3), Geeta Bakhla (PW-4) and Om Prakash Vishwakarma (PW-5) had visited the crime scene and had made statements to police, however, they while being examined in the court have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case on the material points. 19. Vinay Kumar (PW-7) has though admitted his signatures on Notice Ex.P/20, Memorandum Ex.P/21 and Seizure Memos Ex/P/22 and 23, as also on statement under section 164 CrPC Ex.P/24, however, has disowned his previous statements. He has not supported the prosecution story, despite having been led by the prosecution after being declared hostile. Similar is the position of Stanish Kerkatta (PW-19) who has though admitted his signatures on Memorandum Statement Ex.P/21 and his statement under section 164 CrPC Ex.P/74, however, has disowned them despite having been led by prosecution upon being declared hostile. During cross-examination he has admitted suggestion of defence that in his presence no enquiry was conducted from A-1 nor, his memorandum statement was recorded in his presence. He has further denied proceeding of any seizure in his presence. However, he has admitted making statement under section 164 CrPC before the concerned Magistrate, though, as being tutored by police personals. Jagdish Prasad (PW-15) is witness of seizure memos Ex.P/8, 33 and 34. He has though admitted his signature on said memos, however, has turned hostile on its contents. 15 20. Devendra Kumar Jaiswal (PW-9) and Rahul Kerkatta (PW-14) are witnesses of identification Panchnama Ex.P/26 and 27 whereby towel and rope, with the aid of which deceased was allegedly hanged, was sought to be got identified. Both have admitted that same was got conducted by the Executive Magistrate and Panchnama bears their signature, but have denied that said articles were brought under sealed condition and after proceedings, same were sealed back and were identified by one person in Tehsil office Patna. 8. Lakhan Sonwani (PW-8) is witness of Spot Panchnama Ex.P/3, Body Panchnama Ex.P/25 and Seizure Memo Ex.P/26. Having been suggested by prosecution, he has admitted that Body Panchnama was got conducted in his presence and Mobile and Sleeper of deceased was got seized from the spot. 21. Banwari Lal (PW-10) has admitted to have made Morgue Intimation Ex.P/28. He has also admitted proceedings of Panchnama Ex.P/30 and Identification Panchnama of Sleeper Ex.P/31. He has admitted to have made statement under section 164 CrPC (Ex.P/32). During cross-examination he has admitted that he had not stated in his statement under section 164 CrPC about identification of sleeper by one girl. However, has volunteered that his statement was recorded prior to such identification by such girl. 22. Harbharan (PW-12) has admitted his signatures on seizure memos Ex.P/8, P/33 and P/34, whereby mobile phone and 16 motorcycle from accused and marks sheet of deceased from her father were seized. Afsana Anjum (PW-13) has proved on record panchnama Ex.P/35 whereby blood sample of appellant was taken for blood group examination. Jaiprakash (PW-16) had identified towel (Gamchha) of accused vide Panchnama Ex.P/36. He has denied of recovery of motorcycle from possession of the appellant. 23. Ramchandra (PW-17) is Patwwari who has proved on record Spot Map Ex.P/10. Anand Soni (PW-18) is I.O., who has proved on record his investigational aspects. Nothing material could be elicited by defence side during cross-examination of this witness. ASI, Shiv Kumar Yadav (PW-22) has conducted Morgue Inquiry and has proved on record Body Panchnama Ex.P/3 having been prepared by him. Manmohan Pratap Singh (PW-23) is the Executive Magistrate who got identification proceedings carried out and has proved his report Ex.P/79. During cross-examination he has stated that the towel, subject matter of identification was brought in sealed condition. Dr. Shreshtha Mishra (PW-24) has conducted post-mortem and has proved his report Ex.P/25. 24. Constable, Pushkal Kumar Sinha (PW-25) has proved on record call details of mobile phones of accused and deceased, with related documents pertaining to their ownership. 25. Krishnachand (PW-26) is camera man. He has stated that police personnel had taken his camera and after recording had directed to prepare, which he had so prepared vide Ex.P/45. He has 17 denied to have recorded contents of CD Ex.P/45 himself, despite having been led by prosecution. During cross-examination it is admitted that said police personnel took camera to which place, he is not aware. He has further admitted that certificate under section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act was got prepared by the police officials and he only signed on that. 26. Pankaj Ramaiya (PW-27) and Krishna Sharma (PW-28) are Nodal officers of respective telecom companies, whose mobile phones were being used by the deceased and the appellant. They have duly proved respective CAF and certificates under section 65-B of the Evidence Act. 27. PW-2 is father of the deceased. He has stated that incident is of 24.04.2018 when her daughter went on missing. He tried to search her, but could not succeed. Next day having come to know about body of a girl hanging on a tree, he went on the spot and identified that it was none other than her daughter. He has further stated that when the deceased had left home, she was possessed with a mobile phone. During morgue inquiry, he was informed that deceased had conversed with the accused persons. Police had prepared Body Panchanama EX.P/3 and Spot Map EX.P/4, which bears his signature at point A to A. He has further admitted post- mortem having been conducted and body having being handed over to him vide body handing over acknowledgement EX.P/6. He had also handed over marks sheet Article A-1 of class 10th of the deceased, which was seized vide seizure memo EX.P/8. He has 18 further stated that Patwari had prepared Spot Map in his presence vide map EX.P/10. During cross-examination in para-10 defence has suggested that upon receipt of information he along with his wife had visited the place of occurrence. He has been further suggested that police had taken his statement along with statement of his wife. 28. PW-2 has further deposed that when deceased went missing, she was possessed with a mobile phone. Recovery of mobile phone from the person of deceased stands duly proved by PW-8 vide seizure memo Ex.P/26 with SIM card carrying number 7694089809. PW-12 has proved recovery of mobile phone equipped with SIM cards carrying numbers 9009431489 and 7470964572 from possession of appellant. PW-25 has proved vide Ex.P/80 and 92 that mobile phone numbers 9009431489 and 7470964572 belonged to appellant. He has further proved vide Ex.P/82 that mobile phone number 7694089809 stood in the name of father of deceased. His aforesaid statements stand duly corroborated by concerned Nodal Officers PW-27 and PW-28. Exs.P/80, 92 and 82 carry due support with certificates ( Exs.P/84 and 85) under section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, duly proved by PW-27 and 28. 29. Moreover, from CDR (Ex .P/81) of appellant and that of deceased (Ex.P/82), it is not only established that they were frequently conversing with each other, but it also stands established that on the date of incident i.e. during the intervening nights of 24th and 19 25th April, 2018, appellant and deceased were continuously in touch over phone from around 8:54 PM to 1:07 AM. While being put to appellant under examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., instead of tendering any explanation, he has even denied the aforesaid phone numbers belonging to him, which has otherwise been duly proved in the above terms. 30. From perusal of DNA report Ex.P/72, conducted on the basis of DNA samples taken from vaginal slide of deceased (Ex. 648) and blood sample of appellant (Ex.649), it clearly stands established on record that male DNA found in Ex.649 and female DNA found in Ex.648 were same, meaning thereby appellant had established physical relationship with the deceased. Kind of injuries noticed on the private parts of the deceased, clearly takes the case out of the purview of consent. Even otherwise, in the light of finding that the deceased has been found to be child within the meaning of section 2(d) of the POCSO Act, therefore, her consent, even if any, which has not been pleaded even by the accused, is of no consequence. The trial Court, therefore, has no hesitation in holding that prosecution on the basis of materials proved on record has established beyond reasonable doubt that deceased was raped by the appellant. 31. PW-24 has categorically stated that marks of nail and bite marks were evident on breast of deceased. Bruises were found over the back. External genitals were found injured. Depression was noticed at Rt. intercostals region. Vaginal wall was found ruptured. 20 External genitalia, labia majora and labia minora were found ruptured with lacerated wounds thereon. From the aforesaid established facts on record it can be safely presumed that deceased was first raped, thereafter, looking into the supervening circumstances or ill design well within the knowledge of accused, she was caused such injuries. The nature of injuries inflicted and caused clearly depicts and establishes the intention of appellant, that he wanted to eliminate her. PW-24 has further categorically deposed that in his opinion deceased was first made to death and thereafter her body was hanged on the tree. There is nothing material on record either by way of cross-examination or otherwise, so as to discard such opinion. The appellant has not tendered any explanation, except bald denial of facts put to him, which is not liable to be believed. I.O. has proved recovery of towel recovered at the instance of appellant, which was used for hanging the deceased, after causing her death. So, it stands established that the appellant in order to screen himself from legal punishment hanged the body of the deceased on the tree after causing death, thus liable to be convicted under section 302/201 IPC. 32. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 366, 376A, 302, 302/201 of IPC and Section 4(1) of the POCSO Act. 21 33. The view taken by the learned trial Court that the appellant is the author of the crime is a pure finding of fact based on evidence available on record and we are of the opinion that in the present case, the only view possible was the one taken by the learned trial Court. 34. From the above analysis, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been successful in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court has not committed any legal or factual error in arriving at the finding with regard to the guilt of the accused/appellants. 35. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 36. The appellant is stated to be in jail. He shall serve out the sentence awarded by the trial Court by means of the impugned judgment and order dated 15.11.2021. 37. Registry is directed to send a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record of the case to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance and also send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail sentence to serve the same on the appellant informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of 22 High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra