Sandeep Mehta,J. - (1.) Reportable The instant appeal has been preferred by the accused appellants being aggrieved of the judgment dated 14.9.2011 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Sriganganagar in Sessions Case No.53/2007 by which, they were convicted and sentenced as below:- JUDGEMENT_83_LAWS(RAJ)3_2021_1.html
(2.) Facts relevant and germane for disposal of the appeal are noted hereinbelow: The complainant Babulal Paswan lodged a complaint (Ex.P11) in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar on 22.6.2006 stating inter-alia that he was an auto-rickshaw driver and that his wife Smt.Tara Devi used to do domestic chores in various households for sustaining the family. They had five children out of which, three were living in their village and other two, namely Ajay and minor daughter Sunita, were living with them in Ganganagar. On 14.6.2006, as usual, Sunita left his house in the morning to carry out the domestic chores in other households at Ganganagar, but she did not return till 10 11 A.M. upon which, the complainant got worried and searched for her till evening. On making enquiry in the neighbourhood, he received information that Sunita had been seen with one Bhomli, her husband and 2-3 other people near the house, where the complainant used to reside earlier. He informed the concerned police station about his missing daughter the very following day, but no action was taken on his grievance and thus, he was compelled to lodge the complaint in the Court. He prayed that his daughter should be traced out. The complaint was forwarded to the Mahila Police Station Sriganganagar under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation where, F.I.R. No.55/2006 (Ex.P12) came to be registered for the offences under Sections 363 and 366A I.P.C. The investigation was assigned to Sub-Inspector Raghuveer Singh P.W.26, who recorded statements of the complainant Babulal, his wife Smt.Tara etc. Photograph of Sunita was collected and was attached to the file (Ex.P17). During investigation, the finger of suspicion pointed towards one Deepak Kumar @ Ashwani S/o Kedar Prasad resident of Gangrohi Bazar, District Maharajgunj, Uttar Pradesh. Fervent efforts were made to search him and the missing girl but the same proved futile. Accordingly, a negative Final Report with the conclusion that the missing girl could not be traced out was submitted in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar. From where, the file was returned to the Investigating Officer for further investigation. It may be stated here that in the intervening period i.e. on 16.1.2007, the dead body of an unidentified female with marked signs of violence was recovered in the jurisdiction of Police Station Rajpura, Punjab. The Investigating Officer of the present case suspected that the girl found murdered in Punjab could be Sunita, daughter of the complainant Babu Lal. Accordingly, file of inquiry proceedings (Ex.P38) under Section 174 Cr.P.C. No.26/2007 drawn up at the Police Station Rajpura, Patiala including the post-mortem report and the photographs etc was collected. These documents were attached to the file of the case at hand. Babu Lal and his wife identified the photographs (Ex.P6 and Ex.P7) to be of their daughter Sunita and on the basis of their statements, the Investigating Officer concluded that the unknown female deceased found in Rajpura, Punjab was the missing girl Sunita. As per the caste certificate, Sunita belonged to the Scheduled Caste category and thus, the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was added to the case and accordingly investigation was assigned to Kesarichand Jandu (P.W.22) Dy.S.P. SC/ST Cell, Sriganganagar, who conducted further investigation and concluded that the accused Deepak Kumar @ Ashwani, Narendra Kumar @ Kallu, Gautam Giri and Chandrapal @ Kalu had kidnapped and then killed the girl. The accused were arrested in the following order: JUDGEMENT_83_LAWS(RAJ)3_2021_2.html
(3.) Thereafter, interrogation was conducted and informations provided by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act were recorded. Acting in furtherance of the informations provided under Section 27 Indian Evidence Act by the three accused viz., Chandrapal @ Kalu (Ex.P2), Gautam Giri (Ex.P36) and Narendra Kumar (Ex.P49), the place of incident was verified by the Investigating Officer. The place where the weapon of offence was concealed by Gautam Giri was also verified by the Investigating Officer at the instance of the accused Chandrapal @ Kalu vide Memo Ex.P5. On the basis of the information (Ex.P37) provided by Gautam Giri, the Investigating Officer claims to have recovered the weapon of offence being an iron dagger which was seized vide Memo Ex.P16.;