STATE OF H.P. Vs. PREM SAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) STATE has appealed against the judgment of the Sessions Court, whereby the respondent, who was sent up for trial for offences punishable under Sections 376, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, has been acquitted.

(2.) PROSECUTION story, as per trial Courts record, may be summed up thus. In Galua Mohalla of Una township PW -22 Master Gurdev Singh has two houses, situated at a distance of about one hundred yards from each other. Gurdev Singh used to reside himself on the ground floor of one house abutting on the street. The upper storey of that house had been rented out to PW -2 Rajay Singh, Patwari, who lived there with his wife (PW -24) Shanti Devi and two small daughters. The eldest daughter was deceased Babli aged about five years. In the other house of Gurdev Singh, situated at a distance of about hundred yards and which house is surrounded by several other hoses, a number of tenants lived, including respondent Prem Sagar. Respondent Prem Sagars tenement consisted of one room, measuring 12 feet x 7 feet and a small kitchen. The respondent used to live in the tenement with his wife and a small daughter, aged about one year. Deceased Babli used to go to the house of the respondent to play with his daughter. On 23.2.1991 respondents wife and daughter were away from Una town as his wife had gone to attend some marriage, a few days earlier. Deceased Babli went to school on 23.2.1991 and on return from school changed her clothes, took her meals and went out to play with other children at a nearby open space. Around 4.00 p.m. Bablis mother Shanti Devi (PW -24) went to fetch milk. While leaving the house she saw Babli playing on a heap of sand near her tenement. When she returned 10 -15 minutes later, she did not notice her aforesaid daughter Babli. She searched for her. She went to her landlady PW -9 Gurbax Kaur and told her that her daughter, who was playing near the house when she went to fetch the milk, was not traceable. Around 5.00 p.m. the respondent passed in front of the tenement of Rajay Singh (PW -2), Shanti Devi (PW -24) asked him if he had seen her daughter Babli. The respondent by the movement of his head gestured that he had not seen her. Around 6.00 in the evening Rajay Singh returned from his office. He was apprised by his wife PW -24 Shanti Devi about Babli having gone missing. Rajay Singh contacted his colleagues and also his neighbours, including Partap Singh (PW -23). Announcements were made on loudspeaker giving the description of the girl that she was missing and anybody finding her should hand her over to PW -23 Partap Singh at his shop near new bus stand. However, the child could not be found. Next day, i.e. on 23.2.1991, Rajay Singh (PW -2) lodged a report (copy Ex.PC) with the police. Police started search for the girl. On 25.2.1991 a young girl, named Deepo (PW -7) went to Santokh Singh, Lambardar (PW -5) and informed him that a gunny bag, with something placed therein, was lying in a nearby Khad. Santokh Singh went to the spot in the company of said Deepo and another man and saw something like the back of a child in the gunny bag. He went to the police station and reported what he had seen. Copy of the report is Ext.PG. Police went to the Khad and found the dead body of a small girl in the gunny bag. It was taken out. The dead body was identified to be that of deceased Babli by her father PW -2 Rajay Singh and two of his colleagues, both named Ram lal. Inquest was conducted. The dead body was sent for postmortem examination. Postmortem examination was conducted by PW -13 Dr. S.P. Kanwar and his colleague Dr. Mrs. S. Sharma. The doctors observed as follows : -

(3.) WIFE of the respondent PW -1 Suneeta told the police, during the course of investigation, that the respondent had confessed to her having committed the murder of the child after raping her, after she spotted a gunny bag, with something bleeding packed in it, in her house on 24.2.1991, after return from the village. She made an application to the concerned Magistrate for recording her statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C. The Magistrate recorded her statement and forwarded the same to the Sessions Court. During the course of trial, Suneeta, wife of the respondent, resiled from her statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C.