RAMCHARAN PATEL Vs. STATE OF M. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure takes exception to the judgment dated 30.4.1998 passed in Sessions Trial No.134/1990 whereby appellant No.1 was convicted for committing offences under Sections 302, 364 and 201 of IPC whereas appellant No.2 was convicted under Sections 302,120B, 364,120B and Section 201 of IPC. Both were sentenced to undergo R.I. for life with fine of Rs.1000/- in the first count, R.I. for five years with fine of Rs.500/-in the second count while R.I. for three years with fine of Rs.500/- in the third count with default stipulation.

(2.) Indisputably, the appellant no.1, Dinesh Patel died during the pendency of this case and accordingly this appeal stood abated for appellant no.1. The interesting conundrum in this case is whether the appellant no.2 was rightly convicted and directed to undergo sentence on the basis of circumstantial evidence ?

(3.) Briefly stated, relevant facts are that the present appellant is father-in-law of deceased Vikki Bai. Dinesh was husband of Vikki Bai and son of appellant no.2. In the year 1984, Dinesh solemnized marriage with Vikki Bai. After marriage, their matrimonial relations were not very cordial and on more than one occasion, Vikki Bai compelled to go to her parents' house and stay there for considerably long time. She even remained there for about two years. Dinesh's uncle Ramlakhan took her with an undertaking that proper care of Vikki Bai will be taken. On the intervening night between 27.8.1989 and 28.8.1989, Vikki Bai became untraceable from her matrimonial house. The appellant no.2 Ramcharan lodged "Gum Insaan" Report in Police Station -Rampur Baghelan. The father of Vikki Bai, namely Madhav Singh also lodged a report on 29.8.1989 in the same police station stating that his daughter Vikki Bai has been murdered by the appellants. Since no action was taken on his report, Madhav Singh lodged the complaint before the Collector, Satna, DIG and IG, Rewa. Since his complaints aforesaid could not fetch any result, he filed a complaint before the Court below. In turn, the investigation was conducted and Crime No.100/1990 was registered. After investigation, Challan was filed and in due course the matter was committed before the Sessions Court. The charges were framed. The appellants abjured their guilt and hence evidence was recorded and parties were heard by the court below.