Sunil S/O Balram vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

The present appeal has been filed under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being aggrieved by judgment of conviction dated 16/09/2006

passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Barwaha (West Nimar) in Sessions Trial No.48/2006 (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Sunil S/o Balram). The

appellant has been convicted for offence under Sections 363, 364 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and has been sentenced to under go 07

years RI, 10 years RI and Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.200/-, Rs.200/- and 200/- respectively and in default of payment of fine additional 03-03

months RI for each offence.

02- As per the prosecution case, on 29/01/2006 at 05:00 PM the complainant Gajendra came back to his house and his three and half year's daughter

was missing. He was not able to locate his daughter after an exhaustive search and while he was searching his daughter, he was told by labour

Reshami W/o Jairam Banjara and Rampyaribai W/o Devisingh that they have seen Sunil going with the minor daughter towards mines (Khadaan).

03- The accused Sunil was working as a labourer and has worked with the complainant at Khandwa and a day before the incident, Sunil had a fight

with the complainant. A report was lodged that Sunil has taken away the daughter of the complainant and the police has registered the crime at Crime

No.38/2006 for offences under Section 363/366 of the IPC.

04- During the investigation, Sunil was arrested by the police and he has admitted before the police that he took the child towards Lime Stone Quarry

and has thrown the child in the mines in order to kill her. On the basis of memorandum of Sunil, the police recovered the unconscious child and brought

the child to M. Y. Hospital where the child expired and thereafter, a charge sheet was filed for offence under Section 363, 366, 307 and 302 of the

IPC.

05- The accused appellant in his defence has stated that he is innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the crime. The trial Court has

examined large number of witnesses and Gajendra (PW-1) has stated categorically before the trial Court that the deceased Anjali was his daughter

and her age was three and half years. She was missing and while he was searching the child, he was told by Reshami and Rampyaribai that Sunil has

taken away the minor child forcibly and the child while Sunil was carrying her was crying. He has also stated that Sunil has taken the child towards

Lime Stone Quarry.

06- The factum of dispute between Sunil and Gajendra was also informed to the trial Court. Ex.-P/1 which is an FIR was also proved. Gajendra has

also stated before the trial Court that he was informed by the police that his child has been located in a Lime Stone Quarry with injuries over her face,

head and limbs. She is unconscious and was admitted at 12:00 o'clock in night in M.Y. Hospital. However, on the next date she expired.

07- Safeena Form (Ex.-P/2) and Panchnama of dead body (Ex.-P/3) was prepared and the body of the child was given to him for cremation.

Premabai (PW-3), who is wife of complainant Gajendra has also categorically stated before the trial Court that a fight took place between her

husband and Sunil in respect of payment of wages and when she was not in the house, Sunil has taken away the child. Reshami and Rampyaribai

have told them that Sunil has taken the child towards Lime Stone Quarry.

08- The other witness Rampyaribai (PW-2) has categorically stated that she saw Sunil taking the minor child towards Lime Stone Quarry. Satish

(PW-4) and Subhash (PW-5) have also supported the statement of Gajendra and they have categorically stated that they were told by various persons

that Sunil has taken the minor child towards Lime Stone Quarry. Dr. M. S. Sulya (PW-9) has done the medical examination of child on 29/01/2006 at

Primary Health Centre and there were as many as six injuries including serious head injury. Dr. N. M. Unda (PW-12) has done the postmortem on

31/01/2006 and in respect of injuries he has stated that injuries were serious in nature and were sufficient enough to cause death.

09- The Station House Officer, Police Station Barwaha C. L. Darvi has categorically stated that complainant has lodged a report and a crime was

registered at Crime No.38/2006 for offence under Section 363 of the IPC. FIR is Ex.-P/1 and later on, on the basis of memorandum (Ex.-P/6), the

child was recovered from the Lime Stone Quarry in a critical condition. The child was medically examined and was later on admitted to M. Y.

Hospital and after the death of the child on 01/02/2006, a Merg was registered Merg No.6/2006.

10- The memo of arrest (Ex.-P/5), memorandum (Ex.-P/6) and recovery (Ex.-P/7) have been proved by independent Panchnama witness Zafar (PW-

6). Spot map (Ex.-P/8), seizure memo (Ex.-P/9) have also been proved during the trial by the independent witness Zafar (PW-6). Mishrilal (PW-10)

retired Constable has registered the Merg (Ex.-P/13). He has prepared Safeena form and dead body Panchnama (Ex.-P/3).

11- The prosecution has examined as many as twelve witnesses and the same establishes that the appellant Sunil took away the complainant's minor

daughter Anjali and has thrown her into the Lime Stone Quarry situated in the jungle of Village Sirlaya, with the intention to kill her and thereafter,

Anjali was recovered in unconscious and badly injured condition from the Lime Stone Quarry. She was admitted in hospital and died on account of the

injuries on the next day.

12- The chain of events establishes participation of appellant in respect of crime in question. The injured girl was recovered based upon the

memorandum of the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and it is an open and shut case wherein the involvement of the appellant has been

established.

13- In the considered opinion of this Court, the findings arrived at by the trial Court are based upon testimony of independent and impartial witnesses

and does not warrant any interference. A heinous crime has been committed by the present appellant resulting in unfortunate death of a minor child

and therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court the trial Court was justified in awarding the sentence of Life Imprisonment and this Court does

not find and reason to interfere with the punishment awarded by the trial Court.

14- Resultantly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.