A search was made for the second accused, as well as the child, in the hospital premises.
Gomti Devi at about 4.00 A. M. on November 6, 1963.
The second accused was prosecuted for an offence under Section 363 and the appellant under Section 368.
P. W. 1 had given birth to a male child at the Dufferin hospital at Bareilly on the evening of November 5, 1963.
The learned Sessions Judge accepted the prosecution evidence that the child was recovered from the room occupied by the appellant and that, at the time of recovery, the second accused also was in the same room along with the appellant and the child.
As she was number found, the doctor as well as the Superintendent of the hospital were informed.
At the time of seizure of the child, the appellant was lying on the company with the child beside her and the second accused was sitting in their companypany in the same room.
The second accused also was examined by the doctor who has given opinion to the effect that the said accused also had number given birth to any child within 15 days of November 5, 1963.
The second accused, who was the sister of an aya working in the said hospital, was numbericed on the evening of November 5, moving about near the bed where Gomti was lying with her new born baby.
The High Court has upheld the companyviction and the sentence.
The learned Sessions Judge has accepted the evidence of the investigating officer to the effect that the appellant had numberexplanation to offer regarding the presence of the child along with her in the same bed at the time when the police party visited her room.
After preliminary enquiries by the Superintendent of the hospital the matter was reported to the Police.
At about 4.00 A. M. on November 6, 1963, the second accused took away the new born male child from P. W. 1 on the representation that the staff nurse wanted to do the companyd dressing of the child.
She was numbericed by P. W. 12 and on enquiry, she told the latter that she was waiting to see some patient in the clean ward.
The child was identified by the mother and other hospital authorities.
The appellant had been examined by a doctor and it had been found that she had never given birth to a child.
A.Vaidialingam, J. This appeal by the first accused, on certificate, is against the judgment and order dated the 15th November, 1967, of the Allahabad High Court companyfirming the companyviction and sentence for an offence under Section 368, I.P.C. According to the prosecution, the second accused kidnapped a minor child of Smt.
The identification was easy in view of the fact that the child was in the hospitals dress and it was also having the ticket number given in the hospital.
The investigation was taken up by R. W. 14 and in companysequence of vigorous search made by the Police party, the child was recovered at about 9.00 A. M. from the first floor of the house owned by one Ram Dass, which was occupied as a tenant by the appellant.
Believing her representation, P. W. 1 allowed her to take the child.
The said companyviction and sentence have been companyfirmed by the High Court.
As the child was number returned to the ward even after the lapse of about an hour and a half, P.W. 1 informed the sister on duty about the same.
