GOPAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been directed against the judgment dated July 28, 1971 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tonk whereby he convicted the accused appellant Gopal udder Section 363 I.P.C., and sentenced him to one months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/ -, in defult of the payment of which to undergo imprisonment for a further period of two weeks.

(2.) THE prosecution story as disclosed at the trial is that on the date of the occurrence Rameshwar, a boy of about ten years age was living with Ridheyshyam, his maternal uncles who was Head -Master of the School at Chhang. On October 20, 1967 Gopal accused went to Radhey Shyam and requested him to send Rameshwar with him to be taken to Deoli to attend a feast. He further represented that Rameshwar's father lad asked the former to fetch toe boy and had paid Rs. 2/ - bus -fare of the child. Balieving this representation to be true Radheyshyam asked Rameshswar to accompany the accused appellant Gopal. Later on it was revealed that the accused appellant Gapal had removed the boy from the guardianship of his maternal -uncle under a false pretext. The boy was taken to the village Deoli where some beating was given to him by the accused and his relatives. The former was baten and asked to confess his guilt regarding the theft which is alleged to have been committed at the house of Radheyshyam, and ultimately he was made to sign on a blank paper. A first information report of this occurrence was fiyeh at the Police Station Deoli on October 24, 1967, and the Police after usual investigation submitted a challan against the accused -appellant under Section 330 and 363 Indian Penal Code in the Court of Additional Munsif Magistrate No 2, The learned Magistrate after taking proceedings under Section 207 Cr. PC committed the accused, to the Court of Additional Session Judge, Tonk to stand his trial under Sections 330 and 363 I.P.C. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge.

(3.) THE learned Judge found the defence unreliable and placing reliance on the statements of P.W. 1 Rameshwar PW. 2 Gulabchand, P.W. 4 Radheyshyam and P.W. 5 Laduram coavicted the accused appellant under Section 363 I.P.C. and sentenced him as mentioned above. However, he acquitted the accused appellant of the rest of the charge.