MANI RAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VISHNU Sahai, J. This appeal has been preferred by Mani Ram against the judgment and order dated 30-4-2001, passed by IV Additional Sessions Judge, Gonda, in Sessions' Trial No. 100 of 1999, whereby he has been convicted and sentenced, in the manner, stated hereinafter: (i) Under Section 302 IPC to imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 10,000 and six months' S. I. in default; and (ii) Under Section 376 IPC to 10 years' R. I. and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000 and three months' S. I. , in default. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

(2.) SHORTLY stated, the prosecution case runs as under: The informant Ganga Ram PW 1 was the brother-in-law of deceased Jagpata, Jagpata was the wife of informant's brother Ayodhya. At the time of the incident, Ayodhya was working in Ludhiana and the informant and Jagpata were living in contiguous houses in village Nagwa with the limits of police station Wazirganj District Gonda. On 29-9-1997, before sun-rise, Jagpata had gone to sprinkle gamaxine powder or her paddy crop. Appellant, who was the cousin of the informant told her that he would do the said job and consequently, followed her. The informant and Basanti (daughter of Jagpata) saw the appellant going with Jagpata. When till the evening, she did not return, the informant inquired about her whereabouts from Basanti. When she failed to give him any clue, next morning, he started searching her and found her naked body in the field of Bandey Nai. Thereafter he got the FIR scribed by Dost Mohammad, who after scribing it, read it over to him. Thereafter, he affixed his thumb impression on it and lodged it at Police Station Wazirganj.

(3.) THE case was committed to the Court of Sessions in the usual manner where the appellant was charged for offences punishable under Sections 302 IPC and 376 IPC. He pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. His defence was of denial. During trial, in all, the prosecution examined six witnesses. We straightway mention that there is no eye- witness of the incident. THE evidence adduced by the prosecution was circumstantial in nature; there being a solitary circumstance, namely, last seen. In respect of the said circumstance, two witnesses, namely, Ganga Ram and Basanti, the brother-in-law and daughter respectively of the deceased were examined. THE learned trial Judge believed the evidence adduced by the prosecution and convicted and sentenced the appellant, in the manner, stated in paragraph-1. Hence this appeal.