PRAHLAD Vs. STATE NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant Prahlad has assailed the order of his conviction under Section 364/302/201 Indian Penal Code and the sentence imposed upon him by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge sentencing to him life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000.00 in default R.I. for six months under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 10 years imprisonment and.,fine of Rs-1000.00 in default R.I. for six months under Section 364-A Indian Penal Code. He was further sentenced imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs.1000.00 in default R.I. for six months under Section 201 Indian Penal Code. All the sentences were to run concurrently.

(2.) Mr.Rajeev Awasthi counsel for the appellant contended that case of the prosecution was based on circumstantial evidence. There was no eye witness to the occurrence. And the circumstantial evidence of last seen adduced by the prosecution suffer from a number of infirmities. Prosecution in order to prove the last seen circumstance adduced the evidence of Ramji(Public Witness-2) and Ramu(Public Witness-11). Mr.Awasthi contended that reading of the evidence of Ramji (Public Witness-2) and Ramu(Public Witness-11) would show that they are planted subsequently. Their statements under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code. were recorded after the discovery of dead body. So no reliance could be placed on their testimonies. Secondly the dead body that is the skeleton recovered at the alleged disclosure of the appellant was so decomposed that it could 'not be identified. Dr.L.K.Baruah(Public Witness-6) who conducted the post-mortem could not tell the sex of the person whose skeleton was recovered nor could tell the cause of death.

(3.) In order to appreciate the challenge made by the appellant we may have quick glance to the facts of this case. Deceased Nagin a boy of seven years was found missing from his house on 24/07/1994. Nagin as per the version of his mother Champa (Public Witness~9) had gone out at about 7.00 P.M. on 24/07/1994 to play. Thereafter he did not return. Champa (Public Witness-9) searched for him but could not find out the whereabouts of Nagin. She, therefore, lodged a missing report with the police on 25/07/1994 vide Ex.Public Witness-8/A. Police tried to trace out Nagin but failed. When the boy Nagin was found missing his father Kanji Bai (Public Witness-1) was not at home- he had gone out in connection with his business. He returned back after two days and .lodged report vide Ex.Public WitnessI/A. He also tried to search for his son, but there was no trace of Nagin. After about a month Ramji (Public Witness-2) and Ramu (Public Witness-11)told Kanji Bai (Public Witness-i) that they had seen his son Nagin with the accused Prahlad on the fateful day i.e. 2 4/07/1994 at about 7.00 P.M. Kanji Bai (Public Witness-1) reported this matter to the police vide Ex.Public Witness-1/A. On receipt of secret information police apprehended the accused from bus stand of Route No.857 where he was found selling eggs on the "rehri". It is further the case of the prosecution that after the accused was apprehended he made a disclosure statement as to how he murdered Nagin and hidden the body of Nagin. On the basis of disclosure statement of the accused police reached the spot i.e. pit near water tank Raghubir Nagar and at the pointing out of the accused dead body was recovered. It was hidden under the earth and a stone was put over there. After the recovery of the dead body which was a skeleton, the same was sent for post-mortem. The skeleton was identified by Kanji Bai (Public Witness-I) to be that of his son Nagin.