SANJEEV KUMAR @ BABLOO Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the written objections filed by the learned A.G.A. and the judgment and the record of the Trial Court. A prayer for bail has been made in this Criminal Appeal arising out of the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Bareilly, in S.T. No. 779 of 2003, P.S. Faridpur, district Bareilly, convicting and sentencing the appellant to imprisonment for life and fine under section 302, I.P.C.

(2.) THE report was lodged by Narendra Singh, brother of the deceased Pushpa Devi on 13.6.2003 at 8.50.p.m. alleging that the deceased was married to one Rajiv Kumar. He was in Jail in connection with a murder and in the jail he became acquainted with the appellant Sanjeev Kumar alias Babloo. After getting bailed out, Sanjeev Kumar used to visit their house and developed illicit relations with Puspha Devi. On 14.5.2003, the date was fixed in the case for remand of Rajiv and Pushpa Devi along with her six years old daughter, the informant Narendra Singh P.W. 1 and Rammurti Lal, P.W. 2, father of Rajiv Kumar had gone to the Kutchery. The appellant was also there. After the next date was fixed, Rammurti Lal took his six years old grand daughter on his cycle, whereas the deceased was to reach Kiratpur along with the appellant on a tempo. However, the deceased never reached home. A search was made for the deceased and the appellant. On 12.6.2003 a news item appeared in the newspaper that the dead body of a married woman was found under the bridge on Baigul Nadi in Faridpur. Thereupon, the informant and others identified the dead body of the deceased on the basis of her photograph and clothes. They learned that the deceased was residing in the house of Sri Krishan Kashyap along with the appellant as husband and wife for the past 10 days. On 10.6.2003 the appellant had disclosed that the deceased had died due to cholera. The appellant claims that he had taken the dead body for cremation, but in fact he threw the corpse in the Baigul Nadi. Twenty pieces of bangles were also recovered from the house of Sri Kishan Lal, where the appellants were residing. The deceased was the only woman, who was residing with the appellant in that house.

(3.) LEARNED A.G.A., however, argued that as per the postmortem report, the cause of death was strangulation. There was absolutely no reason for P.W. 1 Narendra Singh and P.W. 2 Rammurti Lal for having made the allegations as mentioned in the F.I.R. if, the incident had not transpired in that manner. Merely because some unrelated witnesses Suresh, Omkar and Kishan Lal have either been terrorised or won over by the appellant, who had a criminal record there was no reason not to rely on the versions of Narendra Singh, P.W. 1 and Rammurthi Lal P.W. 2 that the deceased had gone away with the appellant. Rammurti Lal has stated in his evidence that he has even made a gumsudagi report regarding the disappearance of his daughter-in-law at the police out post. Looking to the status and background of the witnesses where the son of the witness Rammurti Lal was even in jail and where his wife, the deceased Pushpa Devi had gone away with the appellant, non-lodging of a regular F.I.R. immediately after the incident was not fatal for the prosecution. As the deceased had gone away with the appellant, the onus lay on him under section 106 of the Evidence Act to explain about her whereabouts. Though some of the witnesses have turned hostile in Court, but in the F.I.R. they supported the prosecution version. It was also mentioned that the appellant was claiming that the deceased had died as a result of cholera, but the postmortem report showed that she had in fact died as a result of strangulation. There was no reason for the false implication of the appellant.