Decided on October 31,2012

PYARA Appellant


- (1.) A missing report (Ext. Ka-1) was lodged by Gulzar to Inspector, Police Station Kotwali, Roorkee on 09.10.1998 informing that his son Gulfam, aged 12 years, was missing since 12 noon of 03.10.1998. A frantic search for the missing child was made, but to no avail. After lodgement of said missing report, informant Gulzar lodged a first information report (Ext. Ka-2) on 24.10.1998, alleging that his son Gulfam was missing since 03.10.1998 and despite best efforts, the child could not be traced. It was also alleged in the first information report that on the selfsame day (i.e. 24.10.1998) in the morning, Taufeeq, Waseem and Shaukeen told the informant that on 03.10.1998, at about 12 noon, when they were playing in the field, Pyara s/o Asgar came there and asked them to call Gulfam. Gulfam came to his house, changed his clothes and went with appellant Pyara. In the meantime, fellow villagers Yasin, Hamid and Noor Hasan told informant that they saw the victim in the company of appellant Pyara and his brother-in-law Alam on 03.10.1998 at 06:00 P.M. in the jungle. Informant Gulzar apprehended that his son Gulfam was killed by appellant Pyara and Alam.
(2.) Criminal law was set into motion on the basis of said first information report. After investigation of the case, a charge sheet (Ext. Ka-7) against accused Pyara and Alam was filed in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 364, 302 and 201 of IPC. When the prosecution opened its case before learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar, charges in relation to offences punishable under Sections 364, 302 / 34 and 201 / 34 of IPC were framed against both the accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trail. Witnesses namely, PW1 Gulzar, PW2 Taufeeq, PW3 Waseem, PW4 Hamid, PW5 Dr. R.K. Pandey, PW6 Nafeesa, PW7 S.I. Hari Prakash Vats and PW8 S.I. Nautan Das were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in reply to which they said that they were falsely implicated in the case. DW1 Ahmad Hasan was examined in defence. After hearing both the sides, learned trial court found accused-appellant Pyara guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 364, 302 and 201 of IPC and sentenced him appropriately. Coaccused Alam was acquitted of the charges framed against him giving him benefit of doubt. Aggrieved against the order of conviction and sentence, accused-appellant Pyara preferred this criminal appeal.
(3.) PW1 Gulzar (informant) proved the contents of his complaint. While proving the prosecution story, he narrated all the facts in his examination-in-chief, which facts were written by him in his complaint. He was not an eyewitness to the incident.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.