SATTAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal under Sec. 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code has been preferred against the judgement and order dtd. 16/4/2012 passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Muzaffarnagar in Sessions Trial No.1580 of 2008 (State vs. Sattar), arising out of Case Crime No. 695 of 2008, Police Station Shamli, District Muzaffarnagar whereby the accused appellant was convicted under Ss. 363, 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to undergo four years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Sec. 363 IPC with a fine of Rs.5,000.00, to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Sec. 302 IPC with a fine of Rs.10,000.00 and to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1000.00 for the offence under Sec. 201 IPC with default clause. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution story, as culled out from the record, is that a missing report Ext. ka-1 in respect of missing of Ummed, aged about 4 years, son of Momin since 10/5/2008 at about 10.00 a.m. was reported at P.S. Kotwali Shamli on 14/5/2008, which was registered at Ext. ka-5. Subsequently, another application Ext. ka-2 was given by the informant at P.S. Shamli alleging therein that his missing son was last seen in the company of Sattar son of Abbas by Shamshad and Lilu on 10/5/2008 at about 11.00 a.m. During investigation, accused Sattar was arrested by the police and on his pointing-out from a sugar cane field one skeleton of deceased Ummed was retrieved by the police on 16/5/2008. The Investigating Officer performed necessary formalities during investigation and recorded the statements of witnesses as well. The recovered skeleton was sent for inquest and post mortem and after completion of investigation charge sheet under Ss. 363, 302 and 201 IPC was submitted against accused Sattar. The case being exclusively triable by the Sessions Court was committed to the Court of sessions where charges under Ss. 363, 302 and 201 IPC were framed on 25/2/2009 against the accused, who denied all the charges and claimed for trial.

(3.) To bring home the charges against the accused, the prosecution relied upon the oral evidence of P.W.-1 Momin - informant / father of the deceased, P.W.-2 Lilu, the witness of last seen, P.W.-3 Ajay Prakash, scribe, P.W.-4 Dr. Pankaj Jain, P.W.-5 Shyam Pratap, the first Investigating Officer, P.W.-6 S.H.O. Brijpal Singh, the second Investigating Officer and PW-7 Dr. V.V. Bhargav, radiologist.