PAWAN KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PAWAN Kumar has been held guilty for murder of Baby 'A' and destruction of evidence of offence by putting her dead body in a plastic katta and throwing the same in the vacant plot adjoining his house. He has been acquitted of the offences under Section 376/377 IPC. Vide order dated November 29, 2013 he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for offence under Section 302 IPC with a fine of Rs. 15,000/ -, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. For offence under Section 201 IPC he has been awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 5 years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/ - and in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for six months. The learned Trial Judge has returned the verdict of guilt on the basis of conduct of Pawan Kumar, as noted by PW -2 Shashi Bala the mother of the deceased and the last seen evidence of PW -3 Om Prakash running a mother diary booth near the house of Pawan Kumar and the deceased.

(2.) PAWAN Kumar questions the judgment dated November 28, 2013 on the plea that nothing adverse could be inferred from his conduct. Since it was his own house he would naturally be there. He is nowhere connected with the offence. Nothing incriminating has been recovered either from him or at his instance. Despite Om Prakash noticing him lastly with the deceased at 3.50 PM in the missing report lodged at 4.15 PM he is not named. The present is a case of no evidence against the appellant. The finding of guilt has been returned contrary to the settled law with regard to circumstantial evidence, as neither the circumstances have been proved beyond reasonable doubt nor the chain of circumstances is so complete to rule out every hypothesis of the appellant's innocence. Despite the fact that the Police seized his clothes, nothing incriminating was found to connect the appellant with the offence alleged.

(3.) THE case of the prosecution based on the statement of Shashi Bala is that she had two daughters, the younger 'A' being aged 7 years. She along with her family was residing as a tenant at the house of Samunder Singh who had two sons and one daughter. The appellant was eldest son of the landlord running a kiryana shop in front of the house. On October 16, 2007 at noon time, 'A' left to play after 12.30 PM. Pawan who was all alone in the house was present at the gate of the house keeping an eye on the children. His father had left for the shop in the morning and mother and sister to the hospital to visit someone. At about 1.30 PM Pawan came and told that 'A' was playing outside, upon which she asked him as to what was his concern and let her play. At about 2.15 to 2.30 PM Pawan again came and told her that 'A' was not playing outside. She came out and found her missing. She got nervous and made searches for her. She also made enquiries from other children and came to know that they had left 'A' and Pawan near the gate of the house lastly before leaving the place. She made searches for 'A' at her mother's house and at different places in which Pawan joined her on his scooter. She noticed that hands of Pawan were trembling while driving the scooter. Pawan made searches in the jungle area and came back. Pawan was very frightened. He made a call to his mother who assured that 'A' will be traced. Pawan made a call to the Police. Police also came and searched. Pawan remained with the Police in the search and finally the dead body of 'A' was found in a white plastic bag in a vacant plot adjacent to their house. Initially, they thought it to be a bag of filth, however on opening dead body of 'A' was recovered. Her statement was recorded vide Ex.PW -2/A. Shashi was confronted with regard to timing of her information and the fact that Pawan's hand were trembling while searching, was not recorded in her statement. Even the factum of Pawan calling his mother was also not noted. Even in cross -examination this witness admitted that Pawan accompanied the Police in the search.