NEEL KUMAR @ ANIL KUMAR v. THE STATE OF HARYANA

The prosecution c:ase was that the appellant raped his 4 year old daughter and thereafter killed her. The appellant's wife (PW.3) lodged the FIR giving the complete C version regarding both the criminal acts i.e. rape as well as murder. The trial court enumerated incriminating circumstances against the appellant as under: (i) The victim was in custody of appellant; (ii) No explanation from the side of appellant as to how such severe injuries D were suffered by the victim and how she met with death as these facts were in his special knowledge alone. (Ill) Non information of the crime by appellant to the police or other members of the family; (iv) Recovery of blood stained clothes of the victim and the appellant from E possession of appellaint on his disclosure statement; (v) presence of blood 01r1 the clothes of appellant and no expla.nation thereof; (,vi) abscondence of appellant after the occurrence and (vii) strong motive against appellant for murder as charges of rape were being raised against F him and accordingly convicted the appellant under Sections 302, 376(2)(f) and 201 IPC and awarded death sentence. The High C:ourt affirmed the conviction of the appellant as also the death sentence. Hence the present appeal. G Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The provisions of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 were fully applicable in this case. Appellant was guardian of the child and was duty bound H to safeguard the victim. The accused had kept mum and NEEL KUMAR @ ANIL KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA 699 had not given any information to any law enforcing A agency or even to the mother of the victim. It comes out from the statement of PW.3 that the information about rape and murder to her was telephonically given by co accused 'R'. If somebody else would have committed the offence it was but natural that appellant must have taken B steps to initiate the legal action to find out the culprit. The silence on his part in spite of such grave harm to his daughter is again a very strong incriminating circumstance against him. The High Court has agreed with the findings recorded by the trial court and c confirmed the death sentence after re-appreciating the evidence. The courts below· have taken a correct view so far as the application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act is concerned. [Paras 16, 17] [709-C-G]