HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Click here to view full judgement.
Mahesh Chandra, J. -
(1.)THIS appeal arises out of conviction of Doongar Singh Under Section 365 IPG by II Additional Civil and Sessions Judge, Etah. One Angad Ram was also prosecuted along with the Appellant, but has been acquitted. We are consequently not concerned with him in this appeal.
(2.)BRIEFLY stated the prosecution case was this. On 27.12.1962, Suresh Chandra was going to school in morning from Khilora to Bahora. When he had crossed village Narethi at about 9A.M. the Appellant Doongar Singh and two others suddenly came out of an Arhar field and kidnapped Suresh Chandra. This was witnessed by Athar Mohammad (P.W. 3) and Brij Raj Singh (C.W. 1). Two other boys Hari Singh (P.W. 5) and Dhara Singh who were going ahead at a distance of about 40 yards from Suresh Chandra. Suresh Chandra was kept by the Appellant and his companions in the field during the day. He was blind -folded and his hands were tied. After sunset he was taken to the house of Angad Ram in village Nidhauli and was confined in a Kotha locking it from outside. He remained there throughout the night of 27.12.1962. He managed to free his hands at about 5 A.M. on 28 December, removed the fold on his eyes, dug a hole in the wall of the Kotha under a window and escaped returning home at 7 A.M. on 28.12.1962. Meanwhile Suresh Chandra's father had told Inam Hussain (P.W. 1) the Head Master of Junior High School, Bahora, about the abduction. Inam Hussain dictated a report (Ex Ka 4) to another teacher and signed before Sri Yadav, a Sub Deputy Inspector of Schools, and took it to police station Patiali and handed it over to Bashir Mohammad Head Constable at about 11.30 A.M.
Doongar Singh Appellant pleaded not guilty and alleged that he had been falsely implicated in the case out of enmity.
(3.)THREE witnesses (P.Ws. 3 to 5) were examined on behalf of the prosecution. They deposed about the abduction of Suresh Chandra. Brij Raj Singh (P.W. 1) and Hira Singh (P.W. 5) stated that they could not recognise any of the abductors. Athar Mohammad (P.W. 3) who stated that he knew Doongar Singh from before and saw him among the abductors has not been relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge himself who has convicted the Appellant on the sole testimony of Suresh Chandra (P.W. 4). So far as Athar Mohammad (P.W. 3) is concerned he admitted that he had not named Doongar Singh Appellant as one of the abductors in his statement before the Investigating Officer Under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure out of fear. He could not also identify Doongar Singh in the identification parade when the Magistrate was there and there was no reason to fear Doongar Singh. In view of this the learned Sessions Judge rightly refused to place any reliance on the statement of Athar Mohammad. Suresh Chandra stands in no better position. He also failed to identify Doongar Singh as one of the abductors. Nor did he name Doongar Singh to his father to whom he related the incident of abduction soon after his return at 7 A.M. on 28.12.1962. It is consequently not possible to agree with the learned Sessions Judge when he places reliance on the statement of Suresh Chandra for the conviction of the Appellant.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.