RAJENDRA KUMAR ALIAS RAJJAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GIRIDHAR Malaviya, J. Rajendra Kumar alias Rajjan has filed this appeal against his conviction and sentence in Ses sions Thai No. 411 of 1983 whereby he was found guilty under Section 364, Indian Penal Code and was awarded seven years' rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) RAJENDRA-was married to one Kamla Devi. As the two could not prolong together amicably Kamla Devi returned to her mother's place. On a suit for maintenance appellant RAJENDRA was directed to pay Rs. 100 per month to Kamla. Against the order of maintenance RAJENDRA preferred an ap peal. It is stated that during pendency of the appeal a compromise took place whereafter on 10. 2. 1982 the appellant took Kamla with him on the assurance that he would treat her properly. Immediately after taking away Kamla, the appellant admits, that he had sent two letters Ext. Ka. 1 and Ext. Ka. 2 to Smt. Krishna Devi, P. W. 1 in which he promised that they would be returning at the time of Holi and that they were happy and that they should not worry about Kamla. However subsequently yet another letter in the month of February itself was received by Krishna Devi in which it was stated that Kamla Devi had eloped with one Rajnu. This created suspicion in the mind of Krishna Devi who made an application to the Senior Supdt. of Police whereafter the case was registered and investigated. Ul timately the charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant and his father Raja Ram and they were tried.

(3.) WHAT is noteworthy in this case is the fact that the appellant admits having written letters Ext. Ka. 1 and Ext. Ka, 2 shortly after 10th Feb. 1982 on which date the prosecu tion alleges taking away Kamala with him. Reading of two letters makes it clear that the appellant had been assuring P. W. 1 Krishna Devi that her daughter was alright. If the appellant had not taken away Kamla Devi with him there was no question of his writing such letters. Once the appellant ad mits having written these letters his denial that he did not take away Kamla becomes palpably false and the fact that after taking away Kamla he does not explain what hap pened to Kamla becomes yet another cir cumstances against him.