RANJAN ALIAS RAJ KISHORE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant stands convicted for the offence underSections 364/302, Indian Penal Code by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi inSessions Case No. 132/86 in FIR No. 173/86, Police Station, Delhi Cantt.

(2.) The facts leading to the present appeal, shortly stated, are that one S.C.Gain who resided at WZ 1290, Nangal Rai, New Delhi, alongwith his wife Sulataand daughter Vijaya aged about 7 years, lodged a report on 31/03/1986 videD.D. No. 77-B at 10.10 a.m. stating that his daughter Vijaya went from the house toplay with the children in the neighbourhood; that she did not return to the houseand had been missing; that the complainant S.C. Gain further reported on 1st April,1986 that het he came to know that one boy named Rajan, who was resident of LajwantiGarden used to come to his house and used to offer toffees, biscuits, etc. to hisdaughter and the complainant had been told by the children of the locality that Rajanhad taken complainant's daughter Vijaya on a cycle; that a suspicion was expressedon Rajan; that the offence came to be registered; that the dead body of Vijaya wasnoticed by the villagers in Ganda Nallah under the bridge of Brig. Hoshiar SinghMarg; that the dead body was identified by the complainant; that Rajan was chargesheeted and charge under Section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure came tobe framed; that the learned Trial Judge, appreciating the prosecution evidence andfurther statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C., found the accusedguilty of the offences charged and convicted the accused to undergo R.I. for a periodof seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000.00 for the offence under Section 364, IPCand also sentenced the accused to undergo imprisonment for life for the offenceunder Section 302, IPC. Both the sentences were made to run concurrently. It is thisfinding of guilt and the consequent sentences imposed which have been assailed inthis appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr. P.C. by the appellant/convict.

(3.) Ms. Neelam Grover, learned Counsel-amicus curiae, for the appellant, hasassailed the conviction contending (i) that the appellant is a juvenile and could nothave been tried by the regular Court of Sessions and, therefore, the trial is vitiatedand the conviction and the sentence is liable to be set aside, (ii) that the case restssolely on circumstantial evidence, that there is no direct evidence, that the motiveis not established by the prosecution evidence and, therefore, the conviction onlyon the circumstance of last seen together cannot be sustained.