- (1.) GIRIDHAR Malaviya, J. Rajendra Kumar alias Rajjan has filed this appeal against his conviction and sentence in Ses sions Thai No. 411 of 1983 whereby he was found guilty under Section 364, Indian Penal Code and was awarded seven years' rigorous imprisonment.
(2.) RAJENDRA-was married to one Kamla Devi. As the two could not prolong together amicably Kamla Devi returned to her mother's place. On a suit for maintenance appellant RAJENDRA was directed to pay Rs. 100 per month to Kamla. Against the order of maintenance RAJENDRA preferred an ap peal. It is stated that during pendency of the appeal a compromise took place whereafter on 10. 2. 1982 the appellant took Kamla with him on the assurance that he would treat her properly. Immediately after taking away Kamla, the appellant admits, that he had sent two letters Ext. Ka. 1 and Ext. Ka. 2 to Smt. Krishna Devi, P. W. 1 in which he promised that they would be returning at the time of Holi and that they were happy and that they should not worry about Kamla. However subsequently yet another letter in the month of February itself was received by Krishna Devi in which it was stated that Kamla Devi had eloped with one Rajnu. This created suspicion in the mind of Krishna Devi who made an application to the Senior Supdt. of Police whereafter the case was registered and investigated. Ul timately the charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant and his father Raja Ram and they were tried. With a view to prove its case the prosecution examined P. W. 1 Smt. Krishna Devi P. W. 2 Hemraj and P. W. 3 Kamla Prasad who all stated that accused had taken away Kamla Devi on 10. 2. 1982. Apart from these three witnesses, head constable and the Sub-Inspector were examined as formal wit nesses. Accused Rajendra admitted sending the first two letters but denied having sent the third letter. He also denied having taken Kamla with him. However no evidence was led by the accused in their defence. The trial Court while acquitting Raja Ram father of appellant Rajendra convicted the appellant against which in this appeal Sri J. N. Chaud-hary has appeared on behalf of theappellant and Sri N. A, Chaudhery, Addl. Govt. Advo cate has appeared and argued on behalf of the State. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the prosecution has not been able to establish any case against theappellant.
(3.) WHAT is noteworthy in this case is the fact that the appellant admits having written letters Ext. Ka. 1 and Ext. Ka, 2 shortly after 10th Feb. 1982 on which date the prosecu tion alleges taking away Kamala with him. Reading of two letters makes it clear that the appellant had been assuring P. W. 1 Krishna Devi that her daughter was alright. If the appellant had not taken away Kamla Devi with him there was no question of his writing such letters. Once the appellant ad mits having written these letters his denial that he did not take away Kamla becomes palpably false and the fact that after taking away Kamla he does not explain what hap pened to Kamla becomes yet another cir cumstances against him. The appellant denied Ext. Ka. 3 the letter in which he had alleged that Kamla Devi had gone away with Rajnu. This letter was also received in the month of February, 1982 itself. The reason for denial is obvious, when a fortnight ago a person taking his wife to a new place it is inconceivable that she would elope in such a (sic) with some person and that person would not lodge any First Information Report. It is obvious that the appellant either himself or through legal advice did not consider it proper to pursue the defence as was advanced through the letter Ext. Ka. 3.;