Circumstantial evidence chain, including last seen and forensic corroboration, remains conclusive despite hostile panch witnesses.

On 08.04.2013, a 13-year-old minor attended a marriage ceremony in village Uchvania, Dahod.

Around 12:30 a.m., the appellant forcibly took her to a lonely field, committed rape, and subsequently murdered her by smothering to prevent disclosure.

The victim’s father (PW-4) lodged an FIR the same day.

The Investigating Officer conducted an inquest, seized blood-stained soil, and collected FSL and postmortem reports.

On 14.03.2014, the Sessions Judge, Dahod, convicted the appellant under Sections 376 and 302 of the IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment for both counts.

The appellant challenged this conviction before the High Court of Gujarat.

Whether the prosecution proved the charges of rape and murder under Sections 376 and 302 IPC beyond reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence.

Whether the chain of circumstances was complete and unbroken, ruling out any hypothesis of the appellant’s innocence.

The court primarily applied Section 302 (Murder) and Section 376 (Rape) of the IPC, noting that for a victim under the age of consent, penetration constitutes statutory rape.

Regarding circumstantial evidence, the court relied on the "Five Golden Principles" established in *Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra*, requiring a complete chain of evidence that excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

It further cited *Laxman Prasad Alias Laxman v. State* and *Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan v. State of Gujarat* to emphasize that if any link in the circumstantial chain is missing, the conviction cannot be sustained.

The court found the "last seen" theory established through the testimonies of PW-3 and PW-2, who witnessed the appellant forcibly taking the victim at 12:30 a.m. under electric light.

The medical evidence (PW-1) confirmed death by asphyxia due to smothering and noted perineal tears and semen, matching the timeframe of the incident.

Scientific evidence from the FSL Officer (PW-5) identified the scene of the struggle and bloodstains pointing to the appellant’s involvement.

The court rejected the defense's arguments regarding the lack of a birth certificate, noting parental testimony sufficiently established minority.

It concluded that the sequence of rape followed by throttling demonstrated a deliberate intent to silence the witness, bringing the act under the "thirdly" clause of Section 300 IPC.

The recovery of incriminating articles via the appellant’s disclosure (Section 27, Evidence Act) and his subsequent absconding provided the final links in an unbroken chain.

The court affirmed the conviction under Sections 376 and 302 IPC and upheld the sentence of life imprisonment, agreeing that the case did not meet the "rarest of rare" threshold for the death penalty given the appellant’s age and lack of prior record.

The appeal was dismissed, and the trial court's judgment was maintained.