KUMAR ALIAS NARAYANA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28-5-2002 passed by the learned Session Judge, Bangalore in S. C. No. 279 of 2001 finding the accused guilty of the offence under Sections 302, 363 and 201, IPC, the present appeal is filed.

(2.) THE brief facts according to the prosecution giving rise to the present appeal are as follows: p. W. 1-H. Jayaram and his wife bhagyamma-P. W. 2, were, residents of bangalore. P. W. 1 is an autorickshaw driver by profession. According to the prosecution, the accused Kumar was also an autorickshaw driver and as such. P. W. 1 knew him very well. The couple-P. Ws. 1 and 2 had three children, out of whom, the victim Shwetha was aged three years at the relevant point of time. According to the prosecution, on 30-6-1993 as there was festival in the house of P. W. 1's mother, while he was taking Shwetha to his mother's house at Gayathrinagar, on the way, the accused met P. W. 1 and requested him to give drop till gayathrinagar as he was proceeding to Gayathrinagar. As they were acquainted, it is alleged that P. W. 1 agreed to take him up to the house of his mother. It is alleged that at that time, the deceased Shwetha was wearing a pair of gold ear stud and a pair of silver leg chain.

(3.) ACCORDING to the prosecution, when P. W. 1 stopped his autorickshaw in front of his mother's house in gayathrinagar and went inside for some time, the accused took away the child from the autorickshaw and disappeared. As the accused was well-acquainted, after waiting for sometime, P. W. 1 goes to the jurisdictional police, lodges a missing complaint and only during their search comes to know from a neighbour P. W. 9-Jayamma that the accused was seen taking the girl from autorickshaw and going away. As such, having waited for sometime, as the needle of suspicion fell on the accused, P. W. 1 again goes to the jurisdictional police on the next day around 11. 00 a. m. and points out his suspicion towards the accused in the disappearance of his daughter. P. W. 8-N. T. Ashwath narayana, PSI on duty, on the basis of the said statement, registers a case in Cr. No. 199/93 for the offence under Section 363, IPC against the accused and investigation is taken up. Unfortunately, neither the accused nor the victim Shwetha are traced almost for a period of eight years and only on 17-1-2001 when the accused is seen and apprehended by the police, he is interrogated. On interrogation, the accused is alleged to have been made voluntary statement, admissible portion of which is marked as per Ex. P. 9. The same discloses that he had in fact kidnapped the child for taking away the gold and silver ornaments and after he removed the ornaments from the child by taking her to a remote place, when the child started crying, he hit her and unfortunately, it resulted in her death. Thereafter, according to the prosecution, the accused stashed the body in a drainage and then pledged the articles with a pawn-broker on 1-7-1993. As this admissible portion was pointing towards the discovery of facts as well as the conduct of the accused, the police investigated in that line. The police and the mahazar witnesses are led by the accused to the pawn-broker shop of P. W. 6 Jaychand. As almost eight years had elapsed, by that time the pawn-broker as per the licence condition had already disposed of the ornaments pledged. However, he produced the necessary registers showing that on 1-7-1993, a person by name kumar s/o Rama Rao, resident of Mysore road had pledged a pair of ear stud and a pair of silver leg chain for Rs. 250. The police took out a Xerox copy of the register maintained by P. W. 6. In spite of search, the body is not traced and ultimately, on completion of investigation, charge-sheet is filed against the accused for the offence under Sections 363, 302 and 201, IPC.