UDHO RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed by Udho Ram, the applicant, challenging his conviction under Section 420 IPC. According to the prosecution case, the applicant's daughter-in-law was related to the wife of Kalyan Rai. Kalyan Rai was the resident of village Kaunandan whereas the applicant was the resident of village Para-dauli which lies at a distance of seven or eight miles from Kaunandan. Kalyan Rai was issueless. According to the case of the prosecution, on 27th of July, 1972 when Kalyan Rai was not present in his house, Udho Ram, the applicant, went there and represented to Uma Devi wife of Kalyan Rai that he had brought a Mahatma with him who was capable of blessing her with riches and children and as his daughter-in-law had received the benefit of Mahatma's blessing, she could also avail of his services. On the aforesaid representation being made by the applicant, Uma Devi arranged for Puja and invited Ballu Ram, Nanak Chand and Nan-hey Mal for the purposes of participating in it. As the Puja commenced, Udho Ram asked Uma Devi to bring her clothes and gold ornaments. On these articles being brought, he kept the ornaments locked and got them placed in the Puja. The key of the lock, however, was kept by the applicant with himself. After sometime he asked every one present in the puja to close his eyes and concentrate on the Mahatma. This was complied with. After sometime when people were asked to open their eyes, Uma Devi was told by Udho Ram that the box was not to be opened for about 24 hours. Uma Devi was also warned by Udho Ram that in case the box was opened within 24 hours, the husband of Uma Devi was likely to lose his eyes and would become blind. On that day Udho Ram and the Sadhu stayed at the house of Uma Devi and took their meals there. In the early morning, however, when Uma Devi woke up she found the applicant and the Sadhu missing from the house. This created suspicion in her mind and consequently she opened the box but found that the jewellery kept therein was missing. It was thereupon that Kalyan Rai who had gone to Bareilly was informed about the incident who thereafter came back to his village and lodged a first information report in the police station on 29th July, 1972. After investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted by the police under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The applicant pleaded not guilty and alleged that the delay in lodging the FIR was indicative of the concoction of case against him.

(3.) To establish its case, the prosecution examined Kalyan Rai, Ballu Singh, Nanak Chand and Uma Devi. The applicant, however, produced no defence in support of his claim of being not guilty. The Magistrate, having found that the prosecution had been able to bring home the guilt against the applicant beyond all reasonable doubt convicted him of the offence under Section 420 IPC and sentenced him to undergo two years' R. I. Against the judgment of the Magistrate, the applicant preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge. In the appeal, the findings given by the Magistrate were confirmed and it was found by the learned Sessions Judge that the evidence of Uma Devi supported by that of Ballu Singh fully established that the applicant was guilty of cheating and depriving Kalyan Rai of his valuable property. In this view of the matter, the appeal was dismissed and conviction and sentence of the applicant were confirmed. Aggrieved by the judgments of the two courts below, the present revision has been filed by Udho Ram in this Court.