SANJAY DEEVAN Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 2-5- 1994 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad, in Sessions Trial No. 192/91, convicting him under Sections 302,364 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to imprisonment for life, Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs. 1000/- and Rigorous Imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. 1000/- on each count respectively. Sentences directed to run concurrently.

(2.) In short, the prosecution case is that on 24-8-1991, N.K. Vyas, lodged report with the police that his son Prateek @ Bittu, aged about 10 years, who had gone out at about 5 o'clock in the evening for playing, did not come back home. A missing report was recorded in Rojnamcha No. 1955. On enquiry, it was revealed that the appellant was seen carrying Prateek @ Bittu on a scooter at 'Jind Baba Place' and 'Bus Stand', Hoshangabad. Since a letter was also received by N.K. Vyas in the past, in which name of appellant was mentioned, it was suspected that he might have kidnapped Prateek. After enquiry, a case under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against him and the First Information Report (Exh. P-33) was recorded. On 25-8-1991, at about 19.45 hours appellant was arrested and on his information (Exh. P-4), vide recovery memo (Exh. P-5), dead body of Prateek was recovered from the forest of Budhni on the same day at about 23 hours. Merg intimation (Exh. P-34) was recorded. Spot map (Exh. P-6) and inquest memorandum (Exh. P-7) were drawn. Dead body of Prateek was sent lor post-mortem examination. Dr. S.N. Katariya (P.W. 8), Assistant Surgeon of District Jail, Hoshangabad conducted the post-mortem examination of the body and found that the cause of death of Prateek was asphyxia due to throttling. Death was homicidal in nature. Postmortem report is Exh. P-16. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant under Sections 364,302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) During trial, appellant abjured his guilt. According to him he was falsely implicated. In the night of 24-8-1991, two Constables had come to his house and enquired about the missing child. On his expressing ignorance they left him, but on the next day, i.e., on 25-8-1991, they took him to police station and booked in the case. In his defence, he examined Inspector Sunder Singh (D.W. 1), Clerk of S.P. Office, M.L. Batham (D.W. 2), Reader of S.D.M., Ganesh Prasad Rathore (D.W. 3) and Constable Santosh Kumar Sharma (D.W.4).