GAJENDER Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant case, victim is Ranveer, husband of Bharti (PW2) and father of Ruchi (PW4). According to the chik FIR, the First Information Report was lodged at 10:15 p.m. of 10 th September, 1992. The First Information Report was lodged by PW2. The same was written by Sri M.A. Khan (PW1), who was the landlord of the victim.

(2.) According to the prosecution, Rekha, youngest sister of PW2, after having had divorced her earlier husband, married Sri Ashok, who was married to the sister of the appellant. It was the case of the prosecution that the appellant and his brother Narender, along with one Sanjay, a relative of the appellant and Narender, came to the house of PW2 with Brijpal and Nirmala, respectively father-in-law and mother-in-law of the only brother of PW2. The purpose of the said visit, according to the prosecution, was to ascertain the whereabouts of Rekha and Ashok. The victim held out to them that he does not know the whereabouts of Rekha and Ashok. It was also the case of the prosecution that Dharam Singh (PW5), father of PW2, was called by appellant, Narender and Sanjay at Delhi, PW5 went to Delhi and stayed with one of his daughters at Delhi, when appellant, Narender and Sanjay enquired from him whereabouts of Rekha and Ashok. It was also the case of the prosecution that PW5 held out to them that he does not know the whereabouts of Rekha and Ashok.

(3.) Appellant, his brother Narender, his relative Sanjay, as well as Brijpal and Nirmala, were charged for having committed offence punishable under Section 302, read with Section 120B, of the Indian Penal Code. Narender absconded. Accordingly, charge for commission of offence punishable under Section 302, read with Section 120B, of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the appellant, Sanjay, Brijpal and Nirmala. What happened to the charge framed against Sanjay is not known. The trial was conducted of the said charge against the appellant, Brijpal and Nirmala. By the judgment and order under appeal, Brijpal and Nirmala have been exonerated. No Government Appeal has been preferred against that part of the judgment under appeal, whereby Brijpal and Nirmala were exonerated.