SUNIL KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has been convicted for the offence of having kidnapped and murdered Mukesh, aged 6 years, as per the impugned judgment and order dated 26.10.1998. Vide order on sentence dated 27.10.1999, for the offence of murder, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and for the offence of kidnapping has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 10 years.

(2.) THE learned trial judge has sustained the conviction on the findings returned that 2 incriminating circumstances have been proved by the prosecution and that the two are sufficient wherefrom the guilt of the appellant can be inferred. THE first circumstance held established is that the deceased and the appellant were last seen together in the company of each other at 10 PM on 12.10.1997, a fact proved through the testimony of Bal Kishan PW-4 and that nobody saw young Mukesh thereafter. THE second incriminating circumstance held to be established is, the dead body of Mukesh being recovered pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the appellant; followed by the appellant leading the police to a dirty water drain (ganda nala) and pointing out the spot and getting the dead body recovered. This, as per the learned trial judge is a circumstance established and proved through the testimony of Hari Mistri PW-3, Rewati Raman PW-5, Giri Raj PW-8, SI Shri Kishan PW-11, Virender Sherawat PW-13 and Insp.Ashwani Kumar PW-14.

(3.) RELEVANT would it be to note that Hari Mistri PW-3 also deposed on similar lines with respect to what happened after his statement was recorded by PW-11. Revati Raman PW-5 has deposed to the facts very cryptically by stating: 'On 12.10.1997 son of Hari Mistri was missing. I got this information on 13.10.1997 after taking the meal. I went to the mandir. The boy was searched. I got information on the night of 14.10.1997 through my brother Hari complainant. Then I went to nala at 11:00 pm. There were several persons. The dead body was taken out by the police. I cannot say as to at whose instance it was taken out.' It is apparent that PW-5s testimony is useless.