Madhya Pradesh High Court
Om Prakash Shahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 July, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 MP 517
Author: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
Bench: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPLE SEAT AT
JABALPUR
D. B. : Hon'ble Shri Justice. S.K.Gangele &
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
Criminal Appeal No. 416/2009
Om Prakash Shahu
Vs
State of M.P.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Abhishek Tiwari, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant.
Shri Vijay Soni, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
(18.07.2018) Per Rajendra Kumar Srivastava, J:
This appeal under section 374 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, has been filed by the appellant/accused being aggrieved by the judgment dated 28/09/2007 passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Satna, in Session Trial No.67/2005, in which the trial Court held the appellant guilty for commission of offence punishable under Sections 376 (1), 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded the sentences as follows-
Section Awarded Sentence 376 (2) of the Indian Penal Code R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of fine, R.I. for 3 months 2 Cr. A. No. 416/2009
302 of the Indian Penal Code Life imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of fine, R.I for 3 months 201 of the Indian Penal Code R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of fine, R.I for 3 months All the sentences to be run concurrently.
2. The prosecution story in brief is that deceased victim aged 8 years was the daughter of Smt. Kuraisa Bi (P.W-6). Deceased was playing in front of the house of Smt. Kuraisa on 21.1.2005 in the evening. It was the day of Bakrid. After sometime Kuraisa came out of her house but deceased was not visible. She searched and informed her father Jumman (P.W-1) and others. Kodulal @ Santosh (P.W. 8), Biti Bai (P.W. 5) and Nafis Khan (PW 8) told her that the appellant along with deceased were wandering in auto. When appellant returned, Kuraisa asked him about deceased. Appellant told Kuraisa that he left the deceased near temple. Deceased was not found and, therefore, Kuraisa informed the Police, which was written in Rojnamcha Sanha vide Ex. P-13. 3 Cr. A. No. 416/2009
3. On the next day i.e. 22/01/2005, some women were shouting that a girl's corpse was lying beside the garbage and the dogs were screwing the body. Jumman Khan went the spot and found that the body of deceased was lying there. Thereafter the marg was registered vide Ex. P-1. Jumman Khan informed the police that yesterday the accused-Om Prakash was wandering with deceased in his auto. On the basis of aforesaid information, police registered Marg No. 7/05. B.D. Pandey (P.W. 19) reached the spot. He issued notice vide Ex. P-2 under Section 175 Cr.P.C. to the witnesses requiring them to appear. Lash Panchnama was prepared vide Ex. P-3. He prepared spot map vide Ex. P-4. Dead body was identified to be of deceased vide Ex. P-6. Pieces of locket in two parts of necklace, coin of one rupee and bread and omelet wrapped in leaf were seized from the spot vide Ex. P-7. First Information Report was lodged vide Ex. P-17. Deadbody was sent for postmortem vide Ex. P-12. Dr. Preeti Nema (P.W.11) and Dr. P.D. Nema (P.W. 12) have prepared the autopsy report vide Ex. P-12. Slide was prepared and sent 4 Cr. A. No. 416/2009 to police vide Ex. P-4. Appellant was taken into custody on 23.1.2005. Arresting memorandum was prepared vide Ex. P-11. On his memorandum one nylon underwear, one Full Shirt and one black full pant were seized vide Ex. P-
8. Memorandum of accused under Section 27, Evidence Act was prepared vide Ex.P-10. Medical examination of the appellant was conducted vide Ex. P-14. Memo for examination was sent to F.S.L vide Ex. P-18. F.S.L. Report was marked as Ex. P-19 and P-20.
4. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed. Appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded innocence. After appreciation of evidence, learned trial Court held the appellant guilty for commission of offence under Sections 376 (1), 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded the sentences as mentioned above.
5. After taking us through the reverent materials relied by the prosecution learned amicus curiae raised the following contentions:-
1. In this case, there are materials, contradictions and omissions in the Court statement of witnesses.5 Cr. A. No. 416/2009
2. The entire evidence is based on hearsay evidence.
3. The important last seen witness namely Kodulal (PW-8) has been turned hostile.
4. There is no direct evidence against the accused, the case is based on circumstantial evidence.
5. Jumman Khan (PW-1) and Kuresha (PW-6) had not narrated this fact at the time of lodging missing complaint that accused took deceased in his auto.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent State submits that the prosecution has examined 19 witnesses in the trial though one Kodulal has turned hostile but in his cross examination he supported the version as deposed by other witnesses. The last seen witnesses PW-5, PW-7 and PW-9 have categorically stated that they have saw the accused to take away deceased in his Auto and no contradiction and omission were found in deposition of prosecution witnesses. He further submits that in FSL report semen of accused was found in vaginal slide of deceased. So also the blood which was found in article-D and F was of same group. Therefore, the chain is complete to fulfill the conditions for conviction on the basis of circumstantial 6 Cr. A. No. 416/2009 evidence. Hence the judgment passed by learned trial Court does not warrant any interference.
7. Now the question which arises for consideration first is that the death of deceased was homicidal and she was raped.
8. Dr. Preeti Nema (PW-11) and P.D. Agrawal (PW-12) have performed post-mortem of the deceased and opined that the death of deceased occurred due to asphyxia because of strangulation. The duration of death was 12 to 24 hours prior to the time of post-mortem. All injuries that were found were anti-mortem in nature. There is evidence of rape. Dr. P.D. Agrawal (PW-12) found following injuries on the person of body of the deceased.
Ckkg~; ijh{k.k%& 2- 'kjhj vxM+k gqvk Fkk] 'kjhj ij ihyk Qzkl] LysVh dyj dk LosVj ,oa eS:u dyj dk myu Ldki Fkk] thHk nkar ds chp esa ckgj dh vksj fudyh Fkh 'kjhj ij /kwy feV~Vh ?kl iwl ekStwn Fks] nkfgus rjQ dk psgjk ,oa nkfguh tka?k [kqys gq;s Fks tks fd fdlh tkuoj ds [kkuk izrhr gksrk FkkA vaMj fo;j ekStwn ugha Fkk] dUVwtu vcsztu ds lkFk vfu;fer Fkk] 3 bapx1 bap] ls ysdj vk/ks lkbt dk xnZu ds vxz ,oa Åijh 7 Cr. A. No. 416/2009 Hkkx ij ekStnw FkkA tks fd e/; Hkkx ls FkksM+k cka;h vksj ls 'kq: gksdj nka;s rjQ dh LVksxu esVjkbZt rd ekStwn Fkk e/; Hkkx ¼xnZu½ dh rjQ ekStnw FkkA 3- ,d NksVk lk dUVwtu xnZu ds ck;ss Hkkx ij Åij dh rjQ ekStwn FkkA tks fd 1 bapx1 lseh- lkbt dk FkkA ;g NksVk dUVwtu tks Ldki dh xBku Fkh ,oa tks xnZu ij Ldki ekStwn Fkk xys esa tks Ldki Fkk vkSj tks mldh xBku Fkh] xBku ds Åij xys esa pksV FkhA xys esa xBku ds Åij dUVwtu pksV FkhA xys esa ik;h xbZ pksV e`R;q ds iwoZ dh FkhA vkarfjd ijh{k.k 4- vkUrfjd ijh{k.k ds nkSjku 'kckuk dk ijh{k.k djus ij ik;k flj ¼efLr"d½ ,oa f>Yyh dUtsLVVZ FkhA daB ,oa 'okl uyh ds nksuksa QsQMs dUtsLVMZ FksA g`n; dk nka;k Hkkx [kkyh Fkk vkSj nka;s Hkkx esa [kwu ekStwn FkkA eqag rFkk xzkl uyh dUtsLVMZ FkhA isV esa v/kipk [kk| inkFkZ fdMuh ekStwn FkkA 5- yhoj] Liftal ,oa@dUtsLVMZ FksA Hkhrjh ,oa ckgjh tkUusfnz; dk ijh{k.k %&¼izkbZoVs ikVZl] xqIrkaxksa dk ijh{k.k½ 6- nksuksa yhfo;k fjtksyk lwts gq, Fks] dUVwt Fks] ,oa uhys jax ds Fks yhfo;k ekbtksMk dUVstLVZMZ Fks rFkk cStkbuk ds pkjksa vksj dUVwtu lwtu ekStnw FkhA ,d QVk gqvk ?kko 5 lsehx5lsehx2-5lseh0 6 vksdyk iksthlu ij Fkk ;g ?kko cstkbu dh nhoky ls 'kq: gksdj cstkbuk jhtu dh peM+h rd Qsyk Fkk bldh eftZ;u yky Fkh tek gqvk [kwu ekStwn FkkA Ldu gkbeu cstkbuy ikslk] QkslZ ,DV] yhxkesUV] 8 Cr. A. No. 416/2009 e'kyl] ;g lc QVh gqbZ FkhA [kwu ds FkDds tka?k ij ekStnw Fks] cstkbuk dUtsLVZM Fkh] ;wdjs k lfoZl ;g lkekU; Fkh] iSjhVw;y esa dksbZ [kwu ekStnw ugha FkkA 7- I;wch [kSj] ctLM ,oa bUtqvjh Mcyi ugh FksA nks LykbM cuk;h xbZ vkSj iqfyl dks lkSaih xbZ FkhA diMks dks lhycan iqfyl dks fn;k x;k FkkA e`R;q dk dkj.k gekjs er ds vuqlkj ,Dlihfl;k gS tks LVsfxayl s u ds dkj.k gksuk izrhr gksrk gSA e`R;q 12 ls 24 ?kaVs ds Hkhrj vkuk izrhr gksrk gSA jsi gksus ds lk{; ekStnw FksA e`frdk ds lkFk cykRdkj gksus ds lk{; ekStnw FksA^^
9. There is no material contradiction on the cross- examination. So considering the reason of death due to asphyxia because of strangulation the nature of decease was homicidal. Medical evidence of rape is available. So it is proved that death of deceased id homicidal and she was raped.
10. Next question which now arises for consideration is that appellant committed rape on deceased and caused death of deceased. It is also to be seen that the findings of the learned Trial Court are correct or erroneous. For this purpose we will have to scrutinize the evidence led by the prosecution. There is no direct evidence of the incident and the case of prosecution is based upon 9 Cr. A. No. 416/2009 circumstantial evidence. Prosecution should have proved each incriminating piece of evidence satisfactorily by cogent and reliable evidence.
11. The Apex Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 has held as under in regard to conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence:-
"153. ........The following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established on circumstantial evidence:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must or should be and not merely 'may be' fully established, (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."
12. The Hon'ble Apex Court has further considered the aforesaid judgment in the case of Nathiya vs State Represented Through Inspector of Police,Bagayam, (2016) 10 SCC 208 and has held as under:-
10Cr. A. No. 416/2009
"26. The classic enunciation of the lawpertaining to circumstantial evidence, its relevanceand decisiveness, as a proof of charge of a criminal offence, is amongst others traceable to the decisionof this Court inSharad Birdhichand Sardavs. Stateof Maharashtra(1984) 4 SCC116. The relevant excerpts from paragraph 153 of the decision is assuredly apposite:
"153...(2) The facts so established should beconsistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused...they should not be explainable on anyother hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.
* * * (5) there must be a chain of evidence socomplete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."
27. As recently as in Sujit Biswas vs. State of Assam(2013) 12 SCC 406 and Raja @ Rajendra vs. State of Haryaya (2015) 11 SCC 43, it has been propounded that in scrutinizing the circumstantial evidence, a court is required to evaluate it to ensure that the chain of events is established clearly and completely to rule out any reasonable likelihood of innocence of the accused. It was underlined that whether the chain is complete or not would depend on the facts of each case emanating from the evidence and no universal yardstick should ever be attempted. That in judging the culpability of the accused, the circumstances adduced when collectively considered, must lead only to the irresistible conclusion that the accused alone is the perpetrator of the crime alleged. That the circumstances established must be of a conclusive nature consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, was emphatically propounded."
13. The first incriminating circumstance said to have existed against appellant is that he had cordial relations with the family members of the deceased and due to these 11 Cr. A. No. 416/2009 relations and belief appellant had a chance to wander with deceased. Kuresha (PW/6), mother of deceased in her deposition stated that she knows the accused and there was cordial relationship between her husband and the accused and he was living with her husband in their house. When her husband went to Bombay, she told her husband to tell the accused to manage his stay some where else, then the accused started living at her father's house. Her children used to call the accused as "Chacha" and they were friendly with him. Jumman (P.W. 1), Sharif Nisha (P.W.4) and Beeti Bai (P.W-5) deposed the same facts in their evidence. Appellant admitted in his accused statement that he lived in the house of Jumman (PW-1) on rent. Aforesaid facts seems to be true. Therefore, it is proved that there existed cordial relations between appellant and deceased due to which appellant had every chance to takeout deceased from the custody of her guardian.
14. According to prosecution second circumstance is that appellant took deceased from the custody of her 12 Cr. A. No. 416/2009 mother Kuraisa (P.W. 6) and thereafter she was not seen alive.
15. Jumman Khan (PW-1), who had lodged the report has stated in his deposition that on that day, there was Bakrid festival and guests were eating food and deceased was playing with other children outside. At around 08:00 in the evening, mother of deceased came to him and asked about deceased, she told him that deceased is missing. Thereafter he went with his family members to search for deceased but she was not found. Kodulal and her wife informed him that deceased went with her uncle (Accused-Om Praksh Sahu) in his auto. He further stated that the accused came back to his house after some time and on asking about deceased, Accused told that he had left deceased near temple after roaming in his auto. When, deceased was not found, thereafter a missing complaint was lodged at Police Station, Kolagawan. On the next day in the morning, when he was going to bus-stand for making announcement of the name of deceased, some women were shouting that the corpse of a girl child was 13 Cr. A. No. 416/2009 laying beside the garbage of Tikrua Tola Hawai Adda and dogs were screwing her body. He went to the spot and found that the dead body of deceased was lying there. She was dressed-up but her underwear was not there. On the basis of his statements, police registered the marg as Ex. P/1 and he signed the same.
16. Sharif Nisha (P.W. 4) and Kuraisa P.W. -6 deposed same facts. Beeti Bai (P.W. 5) deposed in her statement that appellant had taken deceased by auto. Nafis Khan (P.W 7), Kodulal @ Santosh (P.W 8) and Lallu Yadav (P.W 9) deposed the same facts in their evidence. Nafis Khan P.W. 7 clarified that when he was sitting in front of fire place, then appellant came here in auto and sat down with them. In that auto deceased was also there and was playing with other children. Thereafter the accused had taken away deceased for wandering in his auto. There is no enmity of these witnesses with appellant and, therefore, there was no reason for them to falsely implicate the appellant in such a grave false case. When Kuraisa Bi (PW 6) came to these witnesses and asked about the 14 Cr. A. No. 416/2009 deceased then at that time these witnesses told Kuraisa Bi that appellant had taken the deceased by auto. These witnesses clearly deposed that thereafter deceased did not come back and was not seen alive. All these witnesses deposed that in the morning dead-body of the deceased was found at the spot. So this circumstance is also proved by cogent and reliable evidence that appellant had taken the deceased from the custody of Kuresha Bai (P.W. 6) and after that she was not seen alive and her body was found in the morning.
17. Investigating Officer, Shri B.D. Pandey (P.W. 9) deposed in his evidence that he reached the spot. He prepared Lash Panchnama of deceased vide Ex. P-3 and spot-map vide Ex. P-4. Jumman Khan (P.W.1), Karim Khan (P.W. 2) and Sohan Banafar (P.W. 3) deposed same fact. Although Kodulal declared hostile and some contradiction and omission have come in the evidence of witnesses; but due to this evidence of witness cannot be discarded. So second circumstance is also proved. 15 Cr. A. No. 416/2009
18. Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Lahu Kamlakar Patil and another Vs. State of Maharashtra (2013) 6 SCC 417 held as under:
"15. It is settled in law that the evidence of a hostile witness is not to be rejected in toto. In Rameshbhai Mohanbhai Koli and Others v. State of Gujarat[1], reiterating the principle, this Court has stated thus:-
'16. It is settled legal proposition that the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross-examined him. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent that their version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof. (Vide Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana[2], Rabindra Kumar Dey v. State of Orissa[3], Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka[4] and Khujji v. State of M.P.[5]) In Takdir Samsuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat and another, [(2010) 10 SCC 158] it is held by their Lordships It is settled legal proposition that while appreciating the evidence, the court has to take into consideration whether the contradictions/ omissions/ improvements/ embellishments etc. had been of such magnitude that they may materially affect the trial. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies, omissions or improvements on trivial matters without affecting the case of the prosecution should not be made the court to reject the evidence in its entirety. The court after going through the entire evidence must form an opinion about the credibility of the witnesses and the appellate court in natural course would not be justified in reviewing the same again without justifiable reasons. (Vide: Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta (Dr.) & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 13 SCC 657).16 Cr. A. No. 416/2009
Which contradictions and omissions have come in the evidence of the witnesses are trivial in nature. Such contradictions and omissions do not effect the credibility of the witnesses. So second circumstance is also proved.
19. According to the prosecution the third circumstance is injury of the deceased. Dr. S.B. Singh (PW-15) who has examined the appellant-accused and opined that:
ftlds ijh{k.k ,oa iqfyl }kjk ekaxs x;s vfHker }kjk fuEukuqlkj ys[k fd;k x;kA 1- O;fDr lsyqyj ,oa dkslZ (sexual intercourse) ds dkfct FkkA 2- fNyu Ldsi ds lkFk -3x-2 ls0eh0 iMh isful dh peMh ij cka;s rjQ ckgj dh vksj Xykl ds Msl ij ;g lstqyj baVj dkslZ ds le; gks ldrh FkhA 3- lheu dh nks LykbM rS;kj dj lhy can djds mls iqfyl dkaLVscy dks ns nh xbZ Fkh tSlk iqfyl }kjk pkgk x;k FkkA 4- Nksyu Ldsi ds lkFk %& 1- cka;h dykbZ ij 1-2x1 lseh0 ¼iMh½ ckgj dh vksj 2- cka;s gkFk dh dykbZ esa ihNs dh vksj igys vkSj nwljs esVkdkj ij Åijh Hkkx ij -1x-,d lseh0 FkhA 17 Cr. A. No. 416/2009 3- Nhyu Ldsi rFkk lwtu ds lkFk cka;s Vkax esa Åijh Hkkx ij ysVleSyksjl ds uhps tks 1-2x-6 lseh0 ¼iMh½ FkhA 4- Nhyu Ldsi ,oa lwtu ds lkFk cka;s ?kqVus esa lkeus fupys Hkkx ij 1-2x-2 ls0eh0 ¼frjNh½ FkhA bUtqjh uacj 2 ,oa 4 tks 48 ?kaVs ds vanj igqp a k;h xbZ Fkh cka;s gkFk gh bUtqjh uk[kwu ls igqp a k;h tk ldrh Fkh vkSj lk/kkj.k izd`fr dh FkhA cka;h Vkax ,oa ?kqVus dh bUtqjh gkVZ vkQ cyaFk }kjk igqapk;h xbZ Fkh tks lk/kkj.k izd`fr dh FkhA igyh bUtqjh lk/kkj.k izd`fr dh FkhA esjs }kjk vkjksih dk esfMdy ijh{k.k fd;k x;k Fkk vkSj ijh{k.k fjiksVZ nh xbZ Fkh tks iz0ih0 14 gS ml ij , ls , Hkkx ij esjs gLrk{kj gSA^^ Although appellant has given explanation that he was beaten up by the people due to which said injuries were caused on his body but it is crystal clear from the evidence of Dr. S.B. Singh (P.W. 15) that there was one injury on the penis of the appellant. Appellant has not given satisfactory explanation as to how this injury came to be caused. So this important circumstance is also proved.
20. According to prosecution fourth circumstance is seizure of articles from the spot, from the accused and deceased. Shri B.D. Pandey, P.W. 9 deposed in his 18 Cr. A. No. 416/2009 evidence that one button of shirt, omelet with bread, broken pieces of locket were seized from the spot vide Ex. P-6. He also deposed that he took custody of appellant during investigation. He seized shirt, pant, nylon rope on the information of the appellant vide Ex. P-8. These articles were sent to F.S.L . Report of F.S.L is Ex. P-20. According to this report the button which was seized from the spot was similar to the buttons found in the seized shirt of the appellant, from which one button was missing. Appellant accused did not give any explanation about this button. So it is proved that the button which was found on the spot was of the shirt seized from the appellant. So this circumstance is also proved.
21. Dr. Preeti Nema (P.W. 11) and P.D. Agrawal (P.W.
12) performed autopsy of the deceased. They seized a scarf from the neck of the deceased. They prepared two slides of the deceased. Dr. S.B. Singh (P.W. 15) examined the accused. He prepared two semen slides of the accused. Semen slides and seized cloths were sent to F.S.L Sagar for medical examination. Ex. P-20 is 19 Cr. A. No. 416/2009 examination report of slide and cloths which shows semen and sperm on the Chaddi (underwear) of the deceased. Apart from that human blood B Group was found on the pant of appellant and scarf of deceased. It shows that this scarf was used for strangulating deceased. Pant of accused and scarf of deceased are connected with the said offence. Accused did not give any explanation how the Blood of B Group was came on his pant. Thus this circumstance is also proved.
22. Although appellant produced Prabhat Singh as D.W. 1 in his support who deposed that appellant has falsely been inplicanted in this case due to enmity. But he admitted that he had no knowledge of the cause of death of deceased victim. The heinous crime had happened in the society but he deposed that he had no knowledge of the incident. It is purely unnatural, so this witness is not reliable.
23. Once these crucial pieces of documentary evidence and the factual links in the story of the prosecution have been duly proved by the witnesses by circumstantial 20 Cr. A. No. 416/2009 evidence, there is no occasion for this Court to doubt that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
24. In our considered opinion, the principle laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Birdhichand Sarda (supra), in regard to cases of circumstantial evidence are completely satisfied in the present case. The circumstances and the chain of events proved by the prosecution is fully established and have been proved by prosecution successfully.
25. We shall tentatively examine the facts of the present case in light of the above principles. First and foremost is that the crime committed by the accused is heinous and inhuman. There is one 26 years old person, who took advantage of trust belief by taking her in auto and committing the rape on her. Further intending to destroy the entire evidence and the possibility of being identified, he kills the minor child. So the prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond any reasonable doubt. So the findings of learned Trial Court that appellant committed 21 Cr. A. No. 416/2009 rape and murder of victim deceased is not based upon proper and cogent evidence.
26. PW-6 Kuresha has stated that her children called the accused by calling "chacha" then the another aspect of the matter is that minor child was helpless in the cruel hands of the accused. The accused was holding the child in a relationship of `trust-belief' and `confidence', in which capacity he took the child from in front of the house of PW-6. the accused, by his conduct, has belied the human relationship of trust.
27. In view of the matter, in our opinion, the trial court has rightly convicted the appellant guilty for commission of the offence. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.
(S. K. Gangele) (Rajendra Kumar Srivastava)
Judge Judge
VIVEK
Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR TRIPATHI
Date: 2018.07.19 05:32:26 -07'00'