Rajendra Kumar alias Rajjan vs State

Giridhar Malviya, J.—Rajendra Kumar alias Rajjan has filed this appeal against his conviction and sentence in Sessions Trial No. 411 of 1983 whereby he was found guilty u/s 364 Indian Penal Code and was awarded seven years'' rigorous imprisonment.

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 appeal. 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. Kamla 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 Bajnu. This created suspicion in the mind of Krishna Devi who adds an application to the Senior Supdt. of Police whereafter the case was registered and investigated. Ultimately 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 witnesses. 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. Chaudhary has appeared on behalf of the Appellant and Sri N.A. Chaudhary, Addl. Govt. Advocate 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 the Appellant.

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 February, 1982 on which date the prosecution alleges taking away Kamla 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 admits having written these letters, his denial that he did not take away Kamla becomes pulpably false and the fact that after taking away Kamla, he does not explain what happened to Kamla becomes yet another circumstance against him.

The Appellant denied Ext. Ka. 3 the letter in which he had alleged that Kamla Devi had gone away with Bajnu. This latter was also received in the month of February, 1982 itself. The reason for denial is obvious when a fortnight ago a person takes his wife to a new place, it is inconceivable that she would elope (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.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant then contended that in any case, offence u/s 364 of Indian Penal Code is not made out as according to him even if the prosecution case is accepted he had taken away his (sic) wife from her mother's place in bidai which could not be an offence.

Section 364 of Indian Penal Code reads as follows:

Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder--whoever kidnaps or abducts any person in order that such person may be murdered or may be so disposed of as to be put in danger of being murdered, shall be punished with imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Abduction'' u/s 362 of Indian Penal Code is defined as under--

Abduction.--Whoever by force compels, or by any deceitful means induces, any person to go from any place, is said to abduct that person.

From the evidence on record and from his own admission Ext. Ka. 1 and Ext. Ka. 2, it is clear that the Petitioner had, by falsely promising to treat Kamla in a proper manner, taken her away which means that he had, by deceitful manner, induced Kamla to go with him (sic). Consequently his motion is adequately covered by the definition of abduction under the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, on the facts it can be clearly said that he had abducted Kamla and since it appears that his intention was either to murder Kamla or to dispose her corpse so as to put him in danger of murder, the ingredients of Section 364 of Indian Penal Code are made out.

It was further argued that even if it may be found that Kamla was abducted by the Appellants, there is hardly any evidence to demonstrate that she was abducted with an intention to murder. This appeal has been pending for well over 12 years. The Appellant having taken Kamla with him was bound to explain her whereabouts. The Appellant has failed to do so. As stated earlier, he did not even lodge a report with the police regarding the whereabouts or disappearance of Kamla, hence it can be said that disappearance of Kamla was not without the knowledge of the Appellant and in any case, his positive hand in her disappearance is proved by his taking away Kamla and the way she disappeared. Consequently, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the conviction of the Appellant u/s 364 of Indian Penal Code is perfectly justified.

There is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed. The Appellant is on bail. He shall be arrested forthwith to serve out the sentence. The lower court record shall be transmitted back to the trial court immediately.