EJAJUL HAQUE Vs. STATE OF JARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole appellant ejajul Haque was put on trial to face charge under Sections 363, 377, 302 and 201 of the indian Penal Code on the allegation that he after kidnapping a minor boy Saddam hussain committed sodomy on him and then killed him and thereafter disposed of the body to screen himself from legal punishment. On being tried the trial Court while acquitting the appellant for an offence under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code found him guilty for the offences under Sections 363, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal code and hence sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Indian penal Code and further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each for the offences under Sections 363 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that on 18. 9. 1999 Saddam Hussain aged about 9 years (son of the informant) came at about 12 O'clock under a Tamarind tree to play with. When he did not return, he was searched, but could not be found and on the next day, i. e. 19. 9. 1999 information was given to the Hussainabad police station, upon which a Sanha was lodged. Further case is that on 21. 9. 1999 while the informant was searching his son along with other persons including the appellant, some of the children namely, Aftab (not examined), shah Alam, PW 3 and Mumtaz (not examined)on seeing the appellant told the informant that he is the person who had taken saddam Hussain with him while he was playing with them under a Tamarind tree and then the appellant on being questioned by the informant and others confessed before them that on 18. 9. 1999 he took Saddam hussain on the pretext of fishing and then brought to a lonely place and then he as well as his friends Toukir @ Sonu Choubey and mintu Singh strangulated him to death behind a bush and buried the dead body. Thereafter the informant Jainul Abedin (not examined) gave fardbeyan on 21. 9. 1999 at 11 p. m. before the Office-in-charge, hussainabad Police Station. On the basis of which a case was registered and the matter was taken up for investigation. In course of investigation dead body was taken out and subsequently, autopsy on the dead body seems to have been done by the doctor, but unfortunately doctor has not been examined, and as such post-mortem examination report has not been brought on record.

(3.) AFTER completion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the appellant. Accordingly, cognizance of the offence was taken and in due course when the case was committed to the Court of sessions, the charges were framed, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.