RAJPAL Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by Raj Pal appellant against his conviction under Ss. 307, 364 and 201 I.P.C. and sentence passed there under by the impugned judgment and order of sentence, both dated July 27, 1983 of the court of Shri Mohammed Shamim,- Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. The appellant has been sentenced to R.I. for ten years under section 307 I.P.C. five years R.T. under section 364 and one year R.I. under section 201 I.P.C. The prosecution case stated in brief is that one Ram Wati, daughter of Sukhan Lal, was married to Raj Pal accused/appellant. The accused used to ill-treat his wife Ram Wati who was lame. Her parents brought her back to their home. Raj Pal appellant used to live in a jhuggi nearby the jhuggi of Sukhan Lal at village Todapur in the Union Territory of Delhi. The appellant was annoyed with the family of Sukhan Lal on account of their not sending back -his wife Ram Wati from their house to his house. It is alleged that the appellant enticed Brajesh P.W. son of Sukhan Lal, aged 6 years from his house on the morning of December 15, 1982. He had allured Brajesh by telling him that he would give him banana. The appellant took Brajesh to Kuri in District Meerut (V.P.). He made Brajesh sit at the boundary of a well in that village and later gave a push to Brajesh throwing him inside the well. There was some pipe fitted in the well. Brajesh dung to that pipe and started shouting for help. On December 16, 1982 at about 1.30 p.m. Bhule Ram P.W., resident of village Kuri, happened to pass from near that well. He heard a voice coming from the well calling for help. He saw the child Brajesh clinging to a pipe in the well. He went back to his village and brought the matter to the notice of the Pradhan of the Village Daya Ram (P.W. 3). Several persons from the village including Bhule Ram, Daya Ram and one Jogi (P.W.4) came to the well. Jogi was lowered in the went and he brought Brajesh outside the well. Brajesh became unconscious, on being taken out of the well and he regained consciousness in a couple of hours. Brajesh then told the persons present there I that he is the son of Sukhan Lal and he has been thrown in the well by Raj Pal. The parents of Brajesh came to know about his having been recovered from the well in village Kuri seven days after the occurrence. Sukhan Lal, father of the child, came to village Kuri on December 22, 1982 and he brought the child with him to his village Todapur. He then lodged the report with the police on the morning of December 24, 1982. He stated that Raj Pal had enticed his son earlier who has been recovered in the circumstances as narrated above.

(2.) The appellant in his statement under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code after the conclusion of the prosecution evidence denied the allegations of the prosecution against him and stated that he had been falsely implicated on account of enmity. He did not lead any evidence in defence.

(3.) The only evidence as relied upon by the prosecution is the statement of Brajesh Kumar as P.W. 6, without oath. He stated that the accused Raj Pal, whom he identified in the court as such, had taken him away and had told him while taking him away that he would give him bananas. The accused took him to a house. He further stated that the accused made him sit on the boundary wall of a: well and then told him that he was going to ease himself. He (Raj Pal) thereafter kicked him inside the will. He (Brajesh) caught hold of the pipe which was hanging in the well. He was thereafter taken out of the well by a person who was lodged in the well with the help of a rope. His parents then came to that village and took him away. This was in the examination-in-chief of the witness. In his cross examination he stated that the accused took him away in the day time. There was sun at that time. The accused did not feed him banana. The police recorded his Statement and had come to his house once. Lacily on the court question he stated that whatever had happened with him he had stated that before the court. He, however, admitted that he had been told hi& statement by the police that day. He denied the suggestion that he had deposed falsely and he had gone away himself. Corroboration to the statement of their child witness has been sought by the prosecution from the statements of aforesaid two witnesses of village Kuri i.e. Bhule Ram (P.W. 2) and Daya Ram (P.W. 3). These witnesses, among others, have stated to the effect that the child on regaining consciousness after a couple of hours of his being taken out of the well had stated that he \vas thrown in the well by Raj Pal. So far as Jodhi (P.W. 4) is concerned he has not said anything regarding the child having given the name of any person having given him a push in the well. Jodhi (P.W. 4) only stated that the child on regaining consciousness had told them that the name of his father was Sukhan. In his cross-examination he stated that he had told the police that the child had stated that the name of his father was Sukhan. However, on being confronted with his statement given to the police Ex. P.W. 4/ D.A. it was found that this witness had not stated even that to the police, to this extent the statement of this witness was certainly an improvement on his statement to the police. From this it is clear that there is nothing absolutely of any help to the case of the prosecution so far as the statement of Jodhi (P.W. 4) is concerned.