SHEESH PAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed against impugned judgment dated 12.07.2010 in Sessions Case No. 41/2010 passed by the learned Addl Sessions Judge-III, North Delhi arising out of FIR No. 286/2002 P.S. Sabzi Mandi by which appellant has been convicted under Section 363/302/201 IPC. The appeal is also directed against the order of sentence dated 12.07.2010 by which he has been sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years and a fine of ' 5,000/-, in default SI for 3 months for the offence under Section 363 of IPC. He is further sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of ' 50,000/-, in default SI for one year for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. The appellant is further sentenced to undergo RI for 4 years and a fine of ' 5,000/-, in default SI for 3 months for the offence under Section 201 of IPC.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 25.10.2002, the complainant Rajbir PW-10, made a statement Ex. PW10/A in P.S. Sabzi Mandi alleging therein that he is a rag picker. On 03.10.2002, the appellant, R/o N-272, Old Chandrawal, Majnu ka Tila, had come to his house at 6.15 p.m. and told him that his daughter Laxmi aged 14 years, who had gone to Bara Hindu Rao Hospital along with the wife of appellant had gone missing from there. Thereafter, the complainant PW-10 and his family members had made a search for Laxmi but she could not be traced. The complainant PW-10 had given the description of his daughter Laxmi in the said statement. He had also stated that on 03.10.2002, the appellant Sheesh Pal also lodged missing report of Laxmi i.e., DD No.17A Ex.PW 22/A in P.S. Sabzi Mandi. He has also stated that he has suspicion over appellant having kidnapped Laxmi after enticing her. On the basis of aforesaid statement Ex.PW10/A, SI Parshu Ram PW25 had put his endorsement Ex.PW25/A and got FIR Ex.PW19/A registered under Section 363 IPC against the appellant. During investigation, SI Parshu Ram interrogated the appellant and tried to find the missing girl Laxmi but could not locate her. Due to transfer of SI Parshu Ram PW-25, further investigation was handed over to SI Raman Pratap PW-24. On 10.02.2003, the case file was marked to him. During investigation, he got a hue and cry? notice pasted and got a wireless message flashed and also got a notice published in the newspaper regarding the factum of Laxmi being missing. The appellant was also interrogated by him but nothing was revealed. He also took the appellant to CFSL, Malviya Nagar and got his polygraph test conducted on 27.03.2003. Thereafter, he obtained the report Ex. PW 24/A and also made a search for the missing girl but could not get any clue. The complainant Rajbir PW-10 had also filed a writ petition being W.P.(Crl) No. 97/2003 in the High Court seeking directions to the Station House Officer P.S. Sabzi Mandi for searching Laxmi and for the arrest of the appellant. By the order of this court dated 07.04.2003, the investigation of this case was transferred to AntiKidnapping Cell, Crime Branch, Delhi Police. Thereafter, the investigation was assigned to SI Karan Singh PW29, who also tried to find the missing girl by joining the complainant PW-10 in the investigation and also went to Bombay and Nagpur but the victim could not be traced. Thereafter, SI Karan Singh PW29 was transferred from Anti-Kidnapping Section and the investigation was handed over to SI Daya Chand PW-35 on 12.08.2004. He also interrogated the appellant but the appellant insisted that he did not know anything about the case. Thereafter, he met the parents of the missing girl at Trans-Yamuna and they had expressed their suspicion that the appellant had killed Laxmi. Then he examined the neighbours of the appellant Sheesh Pal i.e., Mohina PW-2 and Prem Devi PW-1. He also examined Asha PW5, the lady who was living with the appellant as his wife and one acquaintance of the appellant Master Shivraj Singh PW15. During investigation, SI Daya Chand PW-35 came to know that appellant was in the habit of keeping girls/ladies. On further investigation, he also allegedly came to know that appellant Sheesh Pal had earlier killed his wife and a five-month old child. Accordingly, he briefed the higher officers. On 13.02.2005, the investigation was assigned to Inspector Mahesh Kumar Tholia, PW- 36. On that day itself, IO PW-36 organized a team comprising of SI Ram Avtar PW30, ASI Rajbir PW18, HC Vijay Pal PW33, Constable Yash Pal PW20, Constable Sat Pal Singh PW32, Constable Devender and Constable Unni Krishnan, SI Daya Chand PW-35 was also associated with the said team. SI Daya Chand PW-35 knew appellant Sheesh Pal as he had earlier interrogated him. On his pointing out, IO had apprehended the appellant. The appellant was arrested vide memo Ex.PW18/B1. His personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW18/B and he made an alleged disclosure statement Ex.PW18/C. From there, they had come to the house of the appellant and on the pointing out of the appellant they got recovered one ladder, one twowheeler scooter having no. DL 7S 7132 and one black tirpal weighing about 20 kgs. The aforementioned articles were seized vide memo Ex.PW18/D. IO had also conducted search of the house of the appellant and blank I-cards and rubber stamps of impression of different officials were seized vide memo Ex.PW18/E. Before seizing, necessary formalities about putting them in the pulanda and sealing them with the seal of IO was done. It is alleged that on 14.02.2005, appellant had pointed out the place of occurrence. He had also pointed out the place vide memo Ex.PW35/A at Yamuna river near ISBT, Kashmere Gate where it is alleged that he had thrown the polythene containing pieces of the dead body of Laxmi. After completion of necessary formalities, a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed before the concerned learned MM, Delhi. The learned MM committed the case to Sessions Court and thereafter it was assigned to learned Addl Sessions Judge-III, North Delhi wherein charge was framed against the appellant for having committed offence punishable under Section 363/376/302/201 IPC. Appellant pleaded not guilty to the same and claimed trial and thus was tried there.

(3.) The prosecution in all had examined 37 prosecution witnesses, out of which Prem Devi PW1, Mohina PW2 are the neighbours of appellant, Munni PW3, Rajbir PW10 are the parents of missing girl Laxmi. Sonu PW4 is her brother, Asha PW5 is the wife of appellant with whom it is alleged that he had married in a temple in 2001. The other public witnesses are Suraj Bhan PW9, Raman Kumar PW6, Shivraj Singh PW15. The remaining testimony relates to police and medical evidence.