Why is the wife seeking the custody all of a sudden

 This is a case of circumstantial evidence

 Circumstantial evidence
 Section 7- pg12
 if there is no witness, then the case of Circumstantial evidecne comes into
picture
 the first thing you need to prove in circumstantial evidence is the motive. What
was the motive behind committing the act.
 Second thing must be a hypothesis which must be so complete in itself which
shows no other story other than that of the prosecution
 A clear chain of events must be established w/o any breaks.
 Conduct of the accused + last seen together theory+ other circumstaces
 Conviction can’t happen on the basis of last seen theory only.

 Sk. Yusuf vs State Of West Bengal

NOT GUILTY-

 Okay so a motive can be established here as he hated her wife and her daughter. He left them in a country without
any passport so that they won’t be able to survive. He comes back. Sees them and kidnaps the daughter.
 Even if we say that the motive is proved, but this doesn’t mean that he committed the crime. Why would he come
after 4 years and then commit the murder when he has already left them?
 This cant be whole and sole basis for convicting a person. Other versions are also possible.
 A clear chain of events hasn’t been established. There are many breaks in the story.
 No last seen applied
 Conduct of the accused 4 years ago is not admissible.

GUILTY-

There is a motive. He came back. Saw his daughter alive. Kidnapped her and then raped her. Maybe the daughter baat
nhi mann rhi thi and he killed her out of sheer anger.
 Along with that, the apparels of both of them were found on the murder spot. There can’t be any other version of the
story. Rex wasn’t in touch with missy for 4 years and all of a sudden, his blood-soaked apparels are found near the
Crime scene

Just because there wasn’t any direct evidence or witness doesn’t mean that the crime hasn’t been committed and the
trial court was negligent in not taking into the consideration the fact of regarding the discovery of apparels of rex from
the spot.
Also the court apart from the bloodstains disregarded the fact that the girl goes missing ust after rex entered into
essos.

Forensic evidence[edit]
Other examples of circumstantial evidence are fingerprint analysis, blood analysis or DNA analysis of the evidence found
at the scene of a crime. These types of evidence may strongly point to a certain conclusion when taken into consideration
with other facts—but if not directly witnessed by someone when the crime was committed, they are still considered
circumstantial. However, when proved by expert witnesses, they are usually sufficient to decide a case, especially in the
absence of any direct evidence. Owing to subsequent developments in forensic methods, old undecided cases (or cold
cases) are frequently resolved.

Validity of circumstantial evidence[edit]

A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence. [3][4] This is only
partly true: direct evidence is popularly assumed to be the most powerful. [5] Many successful criminal prosecutions rely
largely or entirely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect
evidence.
Indeed, the common metaphor for the strongest possible evidence in any case—the "smoking gun"—is an example of
proof based on circumstantial evidence. [6] Similarly, fingerprint evidence, videotapes, sound recordings, photographs, and
many other examples of physical evidence that support the drawing of an inference, i.e., circumstantial evidence, are
considered very strong possible evidence.
In practice, circumstantial evidence can have an advantage over direct evidence in that it can come from multiple sources
that check and reinforce each other. [7] Eyewitness testimony can be inaccurate at times,[8] and many persons have been
convicted on the basis of perjured or otherwise mistaken testimony. [9] Thus, strong circumstantial evidence can provide a
more reliable basis for a verdict. Circumstantial evidence normally requires a witness, such as the police officer who found
the evidence, or an expert who examined it, to lay the foundation for its admission. This witness, sometimes known as the
sponsor or the authenticating witness, is giving direct (eyewitness) testimony, and could present credibility problems in the
same way that any eyewitness does.
Eyewitness testimony is frequently unreliable, or subject to conflict or outright fabrication. For example,
the RMS  Titanic sank in the presence of approximately 700 witnesses. For many years, there was vigorous debate on
whether the ship broke into two before sinking.[10] It was not until the ship was found, in September 1985, that the truth was
known.
However, there is often more than one logical conclusion naturally inferred from the same set of circumstances. In cases
where one conclusion implies a defendant's guilt and another his innocence, the "benefit of the doubt" principle would
apply. Indeed, if the circumstantial evidence suggests a possibility of innocence, the prosecution has the burden of
disproving that possibility.[11]
Examples[edit]
Much of the evidence against convicted Timothy McVeigh was circumstantial. Speaking about McVeigh's trial, Robert
Precht said, "the prosecution's use of indirect evidence is no cause for worry." [12] The 2004 murder trial of Scott
Peterson was another high-profile conviction based heavily on circumstantial evidence. Another case that relied on
circumstantial evidence was that of Nelson Serrano. The 2015 murder trial of Ivan Chan Man-sum was a conviction
based solely on circumstantial evidence[13][14] without finding the body.[15]
A famous aphorism on the probity of circumstantial evidence was penned by Henry David Thoreau: "Some circumstantial
evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk." [16]

Words/phrases
 but applying the principle of prudence in cases of circumstantial evidence, the demeanour of the
statements of the abovementioned witnesses compel us to draw an inference that the trial court did not
commit any error in concluding that they might have been won over.

 21. In a case based on circumstantial evidence where no eye- witness account is available, there is another
principle of law which must be kept in mind. The principle is that when an incriminating circumstance is
put to the accused and the said accused either offers no explanation or offers an explanation which is
found to be untrue, then the same becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances to make it
complete. This view has been taken in a catena of decisions of this Court. [See State of Tamil Nadu v.
Rajendran (1999) 8 SCC 679 (para 6); State of U.P. v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal AIR 1992 SC 2045
(para 40); State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (2000) 1 SCC 471 (para 27); Ganesh Lal v. State of
Rajasthan (2002) 1 SCC 731 (para 15) and Gulab Chand v. State of M.P. (1995) 3 SCC 574 (para 4)].
 22. Where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds
in leading evidence to show that shortly before the commission of crime they were seen together or the
offence takes placed in the dwelling home where the husband also normally resided, it has been
consistently held that if the accused does not offer any explanation how the wife received injuries or
offers an explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong circumstance which indicates that he is
responsible for commission of the crime. In Nika Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh AIR 1972 SC 2077 it
was obsrerved that the fact that the accused alone was with his wife in the house when she was murdered
there with 'khokhri' and the fact that the relations of the accused with her were strained would, in the
absence of any cogent explanation by him, point to his guilt. In Ganeshlal v. State of Maharashtra (1992)
3 SCC 106 the appellant was prosecuted for the murder of his wife which took place inside his house. It
was observed that when the death had occurred in his custody, the appellant is under an obligation to give
a plausible explanation for the cause of her death in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The mere
denial of the prosecution case coupled with absence of any explanation was held to be inconsistent with
the innocence of the accused, but consistent with the hypothesis that the appellant is a prime accused in
the commission of murder of his wife. In State of U.P. v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal AIR 1992 SC 2045
the medical evidence disclosed that the wife died of strangulation during late night hours or early
morning and her body was set on fire after sprinkling kerosene. The defence of the husband was that wife
had committed suicide by burning herself and that he was not at home at that time. The letters written by
the wife to her relatives showed that the husband ill-treated her and their relations were strained and
further the evidence showed that both of them were in one room in the night. It was held that the chain of
circumstances was complete and it was the husband who committed the murder of his wife by
strangulation and accordingly this Court reversed the judgment of the High Court acquitting the accused
 and convicted him under Section 302 IPC. In State of Tamil Nadu v. Rajendran (1999) 8 SCC 679 the
wife was found dead in a hut which had caught fire. The evidence showed that the accused and his wife
were seen together in the hut at about 9.00 p.m. and the accused came out in the morning through the roof
when the hut had caught fire. His explanation was that it was a case of accidental fire which resulted in
the death of his wife and a daughter. The medical evidence showed that the wife died due to asphyxia as a
result of strangulation and not on account of burn injuries. It was held that there cannot be any hesitation
to come to the conclusion that it was the accused (husband) who was the perpetrator of the crime.

 The aforesaid decision has been followed in the case of Raj Kumar Prasad Vs. State of Bihar 2007 (10)
SCC 433, in the case of Narendra Vs. State of Karnataka 2009 (6) SCC 61 and in the decision of Gajanan
Dashrath Kharate Vs. State of Maharashtra 2016 (4) SCC 604."

106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge- When any fact is especially within the knowledge of
any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.

A case where circumstantial evidence is the only available evidence then in such cases, the task of the Court is to
find out the motive for the commission of the offence in order to link it with the commission of the crime by an
accused. This has to be done by following the principles relating to a conviction or an acquittal in a case arising
out of circumstantial evidence. For this reference may be had to the celebrated decision of Sharad Viridhi
Chandra Sharda Vs. State of Maharashtra 1984 (4) SCC 116. The principles that were culled out therein
have been followed time and again in a large number of cases including the latest decision in the case of State of
Himanchal Pradesh Vs. Raj Kumar 2018 (2) SCC 69 where the Court has ruled that an inference of guilt can
be drawn in a case based on circumstantial evidence by observing as follows in paragraph nos. 9 and 10 that are
extracted hereinunder:-

"9. Prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. It is well settled that in a case based on circumstantial
evidence, the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly
established and that those circumstances must be conclusive in nature unerringly pointing towards the guilt of
the accused. Moreover all the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a complete chain and there should
be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence.

10. In a case, based on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be drawn only when all the
incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused. In
Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra (2006) 10 SCC 681, it was held as under:-

"12. ...........The normal principle in a case based on circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances from which
an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; that those circumstances
should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; that the circumstances
taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all
human probability the crime was committed by the accused and they should be incapable of explanation on any
hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with their innocence."

The same principle was reiterated in State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram (2006) 12 SCC 254, Ganesh Lal v. State of
Rajasthan (2002) 1 SCC 731, State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (2000) 1 SCC 471 and State of Tamil Nadu v.
Rajendran (1999) 8 SCC 679.
In order to prove the case on the basis of the evidence available whether direct or circumstantial, it is the duty of
the prosecution to discharge its initial burden by adducing material on the basis whereof an inference of the
commission of an offence involving the accused can be drawn. This discharge of initial burden is mandatory as
held in several cases and reiterated in the case of Joydeb Patra and others Vs. State of West Bengal 2014 (12)
SCC 444 where in paragraph 10, the supreme Court has ruled as follows:-

10. We are afraid, we cannot accept this submission of Mr. Ghosh. This Court has repeatedly held that the
burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt is on the prosecution and it is only when this
burden is discharged that the accused could prove any fact within his special knowledge under Section 106 of the
Indian Evidence Act to establish that he was not guilty. In Sucha Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2001) 4 SCC 375,
this Court held:

"19. We pointed out that Section 106 of the Evidence Act is not intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden
to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, but the section would apply to cases where
prosecution has succeeded in proving facts for which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the
existence of certain other facts, unless the accused by virtue of special knowledge regarding such facts failed to
offer any explanation which might drive the court to draw a different inference."

1. Whether this appeal can be admitted or not

2. Whether motive should be cl

3. whether rex can be convicted solely

Shyamal Ghosh                                 ... Appellant

Versus

State of West Bengal                           ... Respondent

6.    Further, the case of the prosecution reveals that on 29th  September, 2003, at about 9.00 p.m. the
victim Archideb Bhattacharjee had started from
his  house  on  his  Avon  bicycle  to  visit  one  Chandan  Dey  of  Ghola Gouranganagor for making
tagada in connection  with  his  business  and  he started back therefrom at about 11.00 p.m. for
returning to his home but on his way back, he was restrained by the accused persons
near  Goshala  Field at about 11.30 p.m.  and  was  assaulted  by  them.   The  accused  persons
strangulated him and ultimately he was murdered by them on the midnight  of 29th/30th
September, 2003.  With the intention to  cause  disappearance  of evidence of the said murder,
the accused persons subsequently  severed  the head, legs, hands and body of the corpse
by  a  sharp  cutting  weapon  and after putting the same in gunny bags, carried it in a Maruti
Van  at  about 9.00 p.m. on the following day i.e. 30th September, 2003 and left the  same at
Pathulia Danga-dingla by the side of Barrackpore Dum  Dum  Highway  near
the  Electric  Tower  and  in  front  of  the  garden  of   Tapan   Santra. Subsequently, as already
noticed, at about 10.00 p.m. on that day these two sacks containing the dismembered and beheaded
corpse were noticed  by  PW15 who then reported the matter to the Police.

Victim(s) Convicted Description

An elderly couple who

disappeared during a
road trip; only the
charred remains of
their motorhome were
found. Vader was
convicted of second-
degree murder after
being arrested a
second time, having
spent four years in jail
before the charges
Lyle and Marie were dropped following
Travis Vader
McCann his first arrest.
Testimony at his
second trial
established that his
blood was found mixed
with that of the victims
in the vehicle;
prosecutors theorize
that Vader, a meth
addict, killed the
McCanns in the course
of a botched robbery
attempt.[4]

Datuk Sosilawati N. First murder conviction

Lawiya, Pathmanabhan, without a body in
Kamaruddin T. Thilaiyalagan, Malaysia. A cosmetics
Shamsuddin, R. Kathavarayan millionaire, her driver,
Noorhisham banker, and lawyer,
Mohamad, Ahmad respectively, went
Kamil Abdul Karim missing at the same
time. The victims' blood
 Victim(s) Convicted Description

and wristwatches were

found at a farm in
nearby Tanjung Sepat,
at the property of local
lawyer N.
Pathmanabhan. It was
determined that two
farmhands
(Thilaiyalagan and
Kathavarayan) had
murdered the victims,
incinerated them, and
thrown the ashes on a
river under orders of
Pathmanabhan. All
three were sentenced
to death

Woodgate was
executed in January
1877 for the murder of
his niece's newborn
child. The case turned
on the testimony of the
Point niece and her sister,
An unnamed William Henry November December
Resolution, Marlborough and whether the
newborn Woodgate 1876 1876
Province alleged infant had been
separated from the
mother's body
according to the
definition
of infanticide at the
time.

Marta del Castillo Miguel Carcaño Seville January October A 17-year-old girl who
Casanueva Delgado 24, 2009 17, 2011 disappeared after
leaving home to talk
with her ex-boyfriend,
the convict. He was
arrested on February
13 and confessed to
the murder the next
day. However, he soon
recanted and produced
several different
versions of the murder
 Victim(s) Convicted Description

and the fate of the

body, which was never
found. Carcaño was
found guilty due to
witness statements,
blood and DNA
evidence.

Victims of con
artist and serial
killer John George
Haigh, who dissolved
the bodies in acid
under the belief that he
couldn't be prosecuted
for murder without a
William, Donald
corpse; the resulting
and Amy
September liquified remains were
McSwann;
John George 9, 1944 - August 10, disposed of in
Archibald and London
Haigh February 1949 a manhole. There was
Rosalie
19, 1949 ample documentary
Henderson, Olive
evidence tying him to
Durand-Deacon
his victims however,
and a search found
remains of human fat,
three gallstones and a
couple of dentures in
the vat he had used to
dissolve the body of his
last victim.

Stanislaw Sykut Michail Llandeilo, Wales Late 1953 August Partner of the convict
Onufrejczyk 1954 in the management of
a farm rehabilitated by
the Polish
Resettlement
Corps after World War
II. Onufrejczyk, who
had been previously
denounced by Sykut
for violence and was
about to lose the farm
as a result of legal
action, offered wildly
varying stories to
explain his partner's
 Victim(s) Convicted Description

sudden disappearance.
He was convicted
largely because of the
finding of over 2000
blood stains in the
passage leading from
the farm's kitchen to
the backyard, which
Onufrejczyk claimed to
be from rabbits he had
skinned. Police
believed that
Onufrejczyk
dismembered Sykut's
body in the kitchen and
fed the parts to the
pigs. The ruling was
cited as a precedent in
later murder without a
body cases in England
and Wales.[13]

A seven-year-old boy
who disappeared while
visiting a funfair in
Wokingham, Berkshire.
He was lured away
from the fair and his
bicycle was found
chained to railings
June 1, December
Mark Tildesley Leslie Bailey Wokingham, England nearby.[16] In 1990 it
1984 9, 1992
emerged that Mark had
been abducted,
drugged, tortured,
raped and murdered by
a London-based
paedophile gang on
the night he
disappeared.[16][17]

Helen McCourt Ian Simms Billinge, Merseyside, February March A 22-year-old woman
England 9, 1988 1989 last seen walking
towards the pub owned
 Victim(s) Convicted Description

by the convict, who

had previously made
rejected advances on
her, and had also
banned her from the
pub after she had an
argument with another
patron. Forensic
evidence included
McCourt's blood found
in Simms's car; a
plastic binfold left by a
river, that contained
McCourts's clothes,
hair and a flex with
toothmarks that were
matched to one of
Simms's dogs; and a
set of clothes and two
towels, property of
Simms and sprinkled
with McCourt's blood,
that were found
abandoned near
the Manchester Ship
Canal.

Danielle Jones Stuart Campbell East Tilbury, England June 18, December The convict's 15-year
2001 19, 2002 old niece, disappeared
while walking to a bus
stop. A pair of
stockings with blood
from both Jones and
Campbell, and lip gloss
used by Jones were
found in Campbell's
apartment. In addition,
Campbell claimed to
have received a text
message from Jones
after she disappeared,
but it didn't match
Jones's texting style,
and Mobile Switching
Center records showed
that both Campbell's
and Jones's cell
phones were in the
 Victim(s) Convicted Description

same place when the

message was sent.[19]

A 5-year-old girl
murdered in 2012. The
convict stated he had
deposited the body in
both the Afon
October 1, May 30,
April Jones Mark Bridger Machynlleth, Wales Dulas and River
2012 2013
Dovey, although
authorities presume
the remains are near
the man's home.[23]
[24]

A 14-year-old girl
abducted outside her
high school. Evidence
included a bullet hole
and blood stains in the
car of the convict,
objects belonging to
Chamberlain found
Thomas Henry November
Thora Chamberlain Campbell, California 1946[30] buried in the convict's
McMonigle 2, 1945
workplace, and two
pairs of socks
belonging to
Chamberlain being
found on the sea cliff
where he confessed to
have disposed of the
body.

Katherine and Lloyd Lee Welch Washington, D.C. March 25, September Two sisters aged 10
Sheila Lyon 1975 12, 2017 and 12 who
disappeared during a
trip to a shopping mall.
In 2013, Welch, a
convicted and
incarcerated child
molester, became a
suspect after it was
noticed that he strongly
resembled a young
man seen stalking the
 Victim(s) Convicted Description

girls by one of their

friends, and that in
1975 he had gone to
police to claim that he
had seen an older man
abducting the girls.
After a cousin of Welch
confessed to helping
him burn two
suspicious duffel bags
at his property
in Thaxton, Virginia in
1975, police searched
the place and found
items that had
belonged to the girls,
but no organic
remains. Nevertheless,
Welch pled guilty to
both counts of
abduction and murder.

The 42 years that

passed between the
crime and the
conviction is the
longest such interval in
an American bodyless
murder case.

Janet Levine Perry and Arthur Nashville, Tennessee August 15, August 16, A woman who
March March 1996 2006 disappeared after
supposedly having an
argument with her
husband, who moved
to Mexico with their
children several years
later. Perry was
convicted after ten
years due to
inconsistencies in his
story and incriminating
statements made to
fellow jail inmates.
Arthur March, his
father, confessed to
placing Janet's body in
a pile of cleared brush
 Victim(s) Convicted Description

where it was burned.

[52]

A woman abducted
from her job at a local
convenience store.
Bone chips and a tooth
found in a fire pit on
Blom's property were
May 26, linked to her, although
Katie Poirier Donald Blom Moose Lake, Minnesota 2000
1999 DNA could not be
tested; surveillance
video also suggested
he was the abductor. It
was the first bodyless
murder conviction in
Minnesota history.[53]

A Malaysian-American
woman murdered by
her husband and his
Diazien mistress. Blood
Girly Chew Albuquerque, New September
Hossencofft, 2002 matched to the victim
Hossencofft Mexico 9, 1999
Linda Henning was in a large quantity
which proved she
could not have
survived the attack.[54]

Sierra LaMar Antolin Garcia- Morgan Hill, CA March 16, May 9, Sierra, a fifteen-year-
Torres 2012 2017 old high schooler,
(sentence disappeared one
d morning after missing
December her school bus. Her
2017) cellphone was found
the day after she
disappeared, a few
blocks away from her
bus stop, and then her
clothing and purse
were found the day
after.[62] The
discovery of these
items suggested she
was not a runaway.
DNA from Garcia-
Victim(s) Convicted Description

Torres was found on

Sierra's purse.
[62] Garcia-Torres was
also linked to
attempted kidnappings
of women in Safeway
parking lots in Morgan
Hill beginning in 2009
and was tried for these
kidnappings during the
trial.[63] Garcia-Torres
was convicted of
murdering Sierra and
sentenced to life
without parole in 2017.
[64] Her body has
never been found

1. Yes Amy can file a suit in the trial court.

2. Mother went to court to get the custody of the child which indicates that while rex came back to Essos he
took his daughter with him. under this circumstance, if we apply the last seen theory, the guilt in all
circumstance points to rex. Even if we do consider that it was some other person who abducted missy, it
was the responsibility of rex to inform this to her mother.
3. The most important evidence here is the that the apparels of rex were found at the crime scene. It by no
means can be disapproved as to how the apparels of rex reached there.

4. The fact that the blood group of rex (O+) was found on the outfit of the deceased also gives us a hint
towards the guiltiness of rex.
5. Also, generally the character of a person will not be taken into consideration in deciding the verdict of the
case. However, in certain circumstances, to reach the verdict, the court can take into consideration the
conduct of rex in order to the motive behind the murder.

 Rex always tried to get rid of her wife and daughter. He mistreated them and in certain
circumstances also tortured amy. He even lied to her about his first marriage. This whole
marriage was an aftermath of fraud and deception. He never cared about his daughter and
left both amy and missy stranded in a different country without any source of support. He
wanted to get rid of them. But when he saw them after 4 years his monsteorus side again
took a toll and he abducted missy and therefore killed her.
  It must also be taken into consideration that missy disappeared right after rex came to assos

6. The fact that a timely treatment could’ve saved missy is irrelevant.

Thus, findings recorded by the courts below in this regard stand fortified by the aforesaid judgments.

18. A shirt and pant belonging to the appellant recovered on the basis of his disclosure statement (Ext. P23) and
taken into possession vide Memo Ext. P25 were sent to the FSL for examination. Report of FSL (Ext.P18) shows
that shirt and pant of the appellant were stained with blood. However, no explanation has been given by the
appellant as to how the blood was present on his clothes.

19. In Pradeep Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 2004 SC 3781, accused had not given any explanation for the
presence of blood stains on his pant and shirt. He had simply pleaded false implication. Presence of blood on his
clothes was found to be incriminating circumstance against him.

It is the duty of the accused to explain the incriminating circumstance proved against him while making a
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Keeping silent and not furnishing any explanation for such circumstance is
an additional link in the chain of circumstances to sustain the charges against him. Recovery of incriminating
material at his disclosure statement duly proved is a very positive circumstance against him. (See also:  Aftab
Ahmad Anasari v. State of Uttaranchal, AIR 2010 SC 773).

20. In view of the above, we do not find any cogent reason to take a view different from the view taken by the
courts below and this leads us to the further question regarding the sentence as to whether it could be a rarest of
rare case where imposition of death penalty is warranted.

Amy last saw the victim with witness so kya isne last seen theory

Victim and accused found together

Apparels found, why blood

ACCUSEDDDIDNT RAPE BUT MURDERED