KISHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Jail Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 29-7-1995 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Churu in Sessions Case No. 25/1994 whereby the convict-appellant, while being acquitted of offence under Section 364, I.P.C., has been convicted under Sections 302, 201 and 377, I.P.C. He has been awarded sentence of Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- and, in default of payment of fine, three months' S.I. under Section 302, I.P.C., seven years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and, in default of payment of fine, three months' S.I. under Section 377, I.P.C. and three years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- and, in default of payment of fine, two months' S.I. under Section 201, I.P.C. respectively. All the substantive sentences so awarded to the appellant have also been ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the prosecution, trial and consequently the impugned judgment and order of sentences are that the appellant Kishan Lal and P.W. 4 Kheta Ram belong to the Village, Kalaribadi in District Churu. P.W. 1 Smt. Vidhya is the wife of Mohar Singh who is son of Kheta Ram. The appellant is son of elder cousin brother of Mohar Singh.

(3.) P.W. 4 Kheta Ram lodged Ex. P. 1 verbal report at the Police Station, Hamirbas on 29-1-94 at about 7 A.M. before P.W. 12 Om Prakash, Officer-in-charge, wherein it was alleged that he had gone to the forest for grazing his sheep on the previous day and return in the evening at the time when the sun was about to set in. P.W. 1 Smt. Vidhya immediately told him that it was between 1.30 P.M. to 2 P.M. in the day that the appellant took away her son Vikas (deceased) aged 4 years while holding a finger of his hand and Vikas had as yet not returned nor his whereabouts were known in spite of search carried out so far. Kheta Ram immediately rushed to Bharat Singh (P.W. 6) residing in his neighbourhood whereat Bajrang (P.W. 2), Satveer (P.W. 3) and Tara Chand (P.W. 5) were also present. He narrated this incident about missing/dis-appearance of Vikash. They all left in search of Vikas. They also went to the fields situated nearby the village but they could not find any trace of Vikas. They also went to the house of the appellant and enquired about him but he was not available there. They were all worried and it was in the night between 2 to 3 A.M. that all these persons again went to the house of the appellant whereat the appellant was found present. They, in the first instance, enquired about whereabouts of Vikas but he denied that he had at all taken away Vikas with him. On being repeatedly asked and consoled and assured about no harm to be caused, lastly, the appellant admitted that he had taken away Vikas to his field whereat he committed sodomy on him and, thereafter, fearing some action for his mis-conduct, apprehending that Vikas would expose his mis-deed before the villagers, with an intent to cause did-appearance of his, he took Vikas to the water reservoir situate in the field of Sumer Singh and drowned him into the deep water reservoir and put the lid on the opening of the same. On the basis of this confessional and disclosure statement, they took Kishan Lal along with them to the Police Station and he was produced before Om Prakash (P.W. 12). P.W. 12 Om Prakash immediately registered a case under Sections 363, 377, 302, 367 and 201, I.P.C. vide Ex. P. 1 F.I.R. and started investigation.