Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The appellant was charged for the said offences along with co-accused Rajeev S/o Mahesh Prajapati who was declared a juvenile, and accordingly, his case was transferred to the appropriate Court. Thus, it was the appellant alone who was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and convicted and sentenced under the impugned judgment dated 20.07.2013.

The FIR was lodged on 07th June, 2009 at about 05:00 pm by PW-1 informant Harpal narrating that the co-accused Rajeev and the appellant Guddu @ Jitendra used to come to his house and they were known to the family. At about 10:30 am on the same day both the accused came to his house and accompanied his daughter Ms. Pinki aged about 20 years telling him that they were taking her to Amroha (Jyotiba Phule Nagar) for an interview. The informant further narrates that when his daughter did not return till 03:00 pm in the afternoon, then his son and other family members set out to search his daughter at the residence of co-accused Rajeev but neither his daughter nor any of the accused were available. Then they went to the residence of the appellant at village Sakarpur Ki Marahaiya where also they did not find either the deceased or the accused, and consequently, they took their journey back to their village. When they reached a roadside restaurant, namely Sadbhavna Hotel, they saw that there was a crowd of some people standing at the tubewell behind the said hotel. There were some people coming and going from there towards the main road. The informant made an enquiry from the passers by who informed him that a dead body of a girl is lying in the tubewell of the accused appellant. The informant and the others then went to the site and saw his daughter lying dead with a rope tied around her neck.

The distance to Amroha has been described in the evidence as 18-20 kms. The distance of the residence from the place of occurrence and the village of the accused is all within 4 kms. The recovery of the stationery, the application form, the passport size photographs and a book of General Knowledge from the purse of the deceased strengthens the statement of the prosecution witnesses about the accused having informed them that the deceased was going to Amroha for an interview. Such articles in her purse are an indicator of the fact of that she was going for an interview. The submission of the learned counsel that it was a Sunday and therefore interview was not possible could have been guaged had there been any actual interview being held and any knowledge about the same to any of the witnesses but in cases of circumstantial evidence an inference is permissible provided there are other links to the chain.

In our considered opinion the items which have been recovered and the timing at which the departure had been made lends support to the prosecution story that the deceased departed with the accused for such a purpose. This we find to be further strengthened by the fact that PW-1 in his cross-examination has indicated visiting Amroha and the bus stand at Atrati even though this fact is not mentioned in the first information report. On cross-examination he stated that he did not ask the name of the school where she was going. PW-2 has stated that he remember having asked his sister about the school where she was going but he does not remember the name of the school that was informed by her. It is thus evident that when they did go to search the deceased they did go to Amroha which was the place about which information had been given to PW-1 and PW-2 by the accused or else there was no occasion for them to have gone to Amroha. This was in-continuity of their effort when they failed to find the deceased either at the residence of Rajeev or the appellant where they had gone to search her. The witnesses therefore by their testimony have nowhere contradicted each other on the issue of last seen in the company of the accused. We have not been able to find any element of doubt on this count either in the evidence or in the findings recorded by the trial court. Additionally the statement of PW-3 to this extent also corroborates the version of PW-1 and PW-2.

Then comes the link relating to the motive that is reflected in the evidence and which is one of the ingredients to be taken into account while dealing with a case of circumstantial evidence. The prosecution witnesses have indicated and established through their testimony that the deceased was taken by the accused on the pretext of an interview at Amroha. The deceased knew the co-accused Rajeev since her school days. After having completed her Intermediate she had also performed teaching job at two places. It is therefore quite possible that pursuing the profession of teaching in a private school had led her to believe about the offer of a job of a teacher and an interview being held at Amroha. This is coupled with the fact that the appellant as well as the co-accused were well known to the family and therefore there is a probability of trust having generated between the family members of the deceased, the deceased and the accused and this is clearly reflected in the statement of PW-1 and PW-2 that they believed what was informed to them plainly. This belief and trust between them led the deceased to accompany the accused who took advantage of this and took her to Amroha. The motive part has to be guaged from the conduct thereafter.