AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 1377

Supreme Court Of India

(From : Bombay)

Hon'ble Judge(s): A. K. Patnaik, Swatanter Kumar , JJ

(A) Penal Code (45 of 1860) , S.376, S.300— Evidence Act (1 of 1872) , S.45— Rape and murder - Expert evidence - F. S. L. report not connecting accused to crime - Involvement of accused, however, proved by circumstantial evidence - Inconclusiveness of FSL report would not earn benefit of doubt to accused. It is a settled principle of law that the evidence has to be read in its entirety. If, upon reading the evidence as such, there are serious loopholes or lacking in the case of the prosecution and they do not prove that the accused is guilty then the Court would be justified in giving the benefit of doubt to the accused on the strength of a week FSL report. But when from evidence of mother of deceased it is clear that it was accused who took the deceased away on pretext of buying biscuits and the accused and deceased were last seen together by many witnesses from the village and it was established not only by substantial evidence but clearly by medical evidence as well, that minor girl had suffered serious injuries on her private parts and there were bite marks on her chest and she died because of rape and asphyxia, merely because the FSL report was inconclusive and did not connect accused to crime, benefit of doubt could not be given to accused.(Para 13) (B) Penal Code (45 of 1860)....