CHANDRA MOHAN MAHIYA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred to challenge the judgment and order dated 6.10.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Sriganganagar in Sessions Case No.16/2005. By the judgment impugned learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted accused Chandra Mohan for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 364 and 201 Indian Penal Code and ordered to undergo sentence as under: - u/S.302 IPC ­ Life term imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1000/ - and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one month's simple imprisonment. u/S.364 IPC ­ Five years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1000/ - and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one month's simple imprisonment. u/S.201 IPC ­ Three years' simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1000/ - and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one month's simple imprisonment.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that on 14.9.2005 Shri Darshan Singh (PW -4) submitted a written report at Police Station Chunawadh with regard to missing of his nephew Suraj, who was working with Malhotra Mobile Shop as Cellular Phone Mechanic. According to missing report submitted, Suraj left his house at about 5:00 - 6:00 PM on 11.9.2005 for Sriganganagar with accused Chandra Mohan in a jeep driven by Shri Kewal Singh (PW -3). A lady in tuesday night telephonically informed that Suraj was safe and no need was there to worry, however, no whereabouts of Suraj were available despite search at all relevant places. Shri Darshan Singh also provided necessary identifications of Suraj including the fact that he was having a tattoo on his arm.

(3.) AFTER completing the entire investigation a police report was filed before the competent court against accused Chandra Mohan and the case was committed to the court of Sessions, being exclusively triable by that court. Learned Sessions court after providing an opportunity of hearing framed a charge against the accused for commission of offences punishable under Sections 364, 302/34 and 201/34 Indian Penal Code. The accused denied the same, thus, trial commenced as desired. Suffice to mention that the case of other accused Sandeep was referred to the Juvenile Justice Board, he being juvenile.