MOTI CHAND Vs. STATE OF C G

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 06.08.2008 passed in Sessions Trial No. 113/2006 by the Sessions Judge, Durg, District-Durg (C.G.). By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted under Sections 364 & 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, with default sentences under each count with a further direction to run the sentences concurrently. The facts, briefly stated, are as under:--

(2.) Mr. Uttam Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has argued that Ku. Fimli (P.W.-1) was aged about 6, years; she was a child witness; her evidence was not reliable as she clearly admitted in the cross-examination that neither the appellant had visited to the place where they were playing nor the deceased was taken by the appellant; she also denied many other relevant facts. He also argued that the diary statement of Ku. Filmi (P.W.-1) and the diary statement of Chetan Bai (P.W.-3) were recorded after 14 days and the diary statement of Ram Sumer was recorded after 2 days of the incident. In appreciation of evidence of these witnesses, it would appear that, according to them, Ku. Filmi had told them about the abduction of the deceased by the appellant at about 2 p.m., but, this fact is not mentioned in their diary statements. He submitted that in the above facts & circumstances of the case, conviction based on solitary testimony of Ku. Filmi (P.W.-1) can not be sustained. He also pointed out other infirmities in the case of the prosecution.

(3.) On the other hand, Ms. Pushpa Dwivedi, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State, has opposed these arguments and supported the judgment passed by the Sessions Court.