R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) MANGAL , the appellant, has challenged the judgment dated 23.5.2006, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Bharatpur whereby the learned Judge has convicted him for offences under Sections 302 and 363 IPC. For the former offence, the learned Judge has sentenced him to life imprisonment, has imposed a fine of Rs. 5000/ - and has directed him to further undergo six months of rigorous imprisonment in default thereof. For the latter offence, the learned Judge has sentenced him to three years of rigorous imprisonment, and imposed a fine of Rs. 1000/ -, and has directed him to further undergo three months of rigorous imprisonment in default thereof.
(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts of the case are that on 21.1.2006 around 8:15 AM, the complainant, Brijlal (P.W.1) submitted a written report (Ex.P.1) before the SHO, Police Station Kotwali, Bharatpur. The said report when translated in English reads as under: - - "To,The SHO,Kotwali, Bharatpur. Sir, It is submitted that yesterday on 20.1.2006 around 1:00 PM in the afternoon, my nephew, Mangal Singh, took my maternal grand -child, Ved Prakash @ Tampu S/o Mukesh with him from our house. Ved Prakash @ Tampu had a cycle with him. When Ved Prakash did not return by the evening, we inquired from Mangal Singh with regard to the whereabouts of Ved Prakash. But he did not give any satisfactory answer. I do not know where Mangal has taken my maternal grand -son, Ved Prakash @ Tampu. Whether he has taken him to his house or somewhere else, I do not know. Therefore, I pray that proceedings should be initiated. Sd/ -" On the basis of the said written report (Ex.P.1), a formal FIR (Ex.P.2), FIR No. 25/2006 was registered for offence under Section 363 IPC. Subsequently, during the investigation, the accused, Mangal Singh, was arrested by the police. During interrogation he gave a statement (Ex.P.17) under Section 27, Evidence Act. In pursuance of the said statement, the dead body of Ved Prakash was discovered in a well. The site plan (Ex.P.14) of place of recovery was made, the Panchayatnama (Ex.P.3) was drawn and the post -mortem was performed by Dr. Banai Singh. The Post -Mortem Report is Exhibit -P.18. At the end of investigation, Mangal Singh, was put up for trial. By order dated 10.4.2006, the learned trial court framed charges for offences under Sections 363 and 302 IPC against the appellant. He denied the charges, and claimed trial.
(3.) IN order to support its case, the prosecution examined nine witnesses, and submitted eighteen documents. In turn, the defense examined a single witness, but did not submit any document. After completion of the trial, the learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal before this court.;