Where victim child aged two and half years of age and she had gone to buy Toffea and Gutkha with the permission of her mother and the accused was last seen by the shopkeeper and other witnesses with the victim at the time and thereafter going towards the direction of the basement of the factory.

Thereafter the accused disappeared and the dead body of the victim was recovered from the basement with injuries on her private parts and the circumstances like absence of explanation by the accused about the recovery of the dead body of the victim and the presence of spermatozoa on frock of the victim and presence of spermatozoa stains on the under wear of the accused.

When he was arrested and confirmation by its mortem report that the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of strangulations by thread and that the girl was raped, the mere irregularities or lapse on the part of the IO to send the underwear of the girl and of the accused for serological examination or for DNA test for confirming.

Whether semen found on the frock of the victim correspond with the semen found on the accused s underwear could not be ground to disbelieve the prosecution case and therefore, the conviction of accused under Section 376/302/and 201 IPC held liable to be upheld.

Where the evidence of the witnesses goes to show that he saw the accused outside the door of the flat of the deceased on the relevant date and at the crucial time of the incident, the accused gave false explanation for the injury on his right hand stating he had suffered the injuries due to fall from motorcycle and the DNA test for the virginal swab /vaginal slides of the deceased matched with the DNA of blood of the accused.

All these circumstances formed the complete chain leading to the conclusion that it was the accused and accused alone who had committed rape on the deceased and killed her.