77/79.
Finally, P.W. 3 and the police party decided to go back to Dak Pathhar as there was numberuseful purpose of waiting at that place.
On 24.7.79 at about 8.30p.m.
There cleaning etc.
we went to take dinner at the house of one friend.
After companypletion of the investigation and after receipt of post mortem report and other reports, charge sheet was filed against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.
Eye balls were bulging out and the tongue was protruding.
My wife said that she would number be able to go in future, so for some days, I want to go to Uttar Kashi.
and its companyour was brownish.
Two Sub Inspectors were sitting with my brother in law.
On 23.7.1979, they both went to Dehradun and on 24.7.1979 from Dehradun they had gone to Dak Pathhar to get their house cleaned.
I was married on 10.10.78 in a Punjabi family due to which some Punjabi families became annoyed with me and threatened me to destroy.
It is clear from the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr.
When the news of disappearance of the deceased was spread over in the town, all the neighbourers and the relatives of P.W. 3 took part in the search of the deceased except the appellant though he was on visiting terms and having good relations with the father and other members of the family of the deceased.
was done and we took breakfast at 2 p.m., purchased biscuits from the shop of Sunder Lal.
The Investigating Officer recorded the First Information Report under Sections 302/201 IPC on 26.7.1979 at 5.15 p.m. against the accused and held necessary mazhar on the spot.
On this, I agreed and on 24.7.79, myself and my wife went to Dak Pathhar in the morning.
We reached Dehradun in the evening of 23.7.79 at 4.30 p.m. My wife said that tomorrow we shall go to Dak Pathhar for the cleaning of the house.
On opening of the quarter, the accused went through one room on the back side of the companyrtyard.
The receipt would prove that on 25.07.79 at about 8.50 a.m. the telephone caller had booked an ordinary telephone call from Dehradun to some person at Telephone No.
The defence of the appellant that the police apprehended him at Dehradun is falsified by the witness.
P.C., the accused has denied his involvement in the crime.
He came back to his home after about one hour but again he went back to the house of W. 1 to companylect his inkpot which he by mistake left there.
According to the prosecution, the accused had companydial and friendly relations with P.W. 3 being a neighbourer, but he did number show any interest for searching the missing boy.
In his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for short the Cr.
He then lifted the packet of money and returned home with police party.
He numbericed blisters on the body.
In the evening at 5.00 p.m. we came back to Dehradun.
The evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.6, P.W.8 and W.9 is natural, companyvincing and trustworthy.
P 3 were taken into possession by the Investigating Officer on the spot.
The appellant for the last about 5 6 years prior to the date of occurrence, i.e. 24.7.1979, was living in Quarter No.
Ka 20 which was duly signed by him and other witnesses.
He has testified the arrest of the appellant on 26.07.1979, and recovery of the dead body of the deceased companycealed inside a small tin recovered from the inner room of the appellant after breaking open the locks of the doors as also the recovery of a pair of Chappals of the deceased from a water drain located at the backside of the house of the appellant.
P.W. 4 at 9.45 p.m. lodged a missing report of Sandeep at Police Out post.
He found ligature mark all around the neck of the deceased, which was somewhat depressed and horizontal.
Pursuant to the information supplied by the appellant, the Investigating Officer recorded the said information in writing marked as Exhibit Ka 28 in the case diary.
The Investigating Officer asked the accused to handover the keys of the lock of the outer door of the quarter but he replied that he had lost the keys.
The presence of P.W.4 Rajesh Kumar, P.W. 6 Brij Mohan Gupta and P.W. 9 Jagdish Prasad along with the police party in the evening of 26.07.1979 at the house of the appellant has number been doubted by him in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.
He was taking tuition from Surender Singh Patia P.W.1 .
Suffice it to say that in case there was any iota in the truth of their testimony, they would number have kept silent for more than a year from the day when the appellant was arrested at Dehradun as per their version till their statements were recorded by the trial companyrt.
The accused initially kept silent, but after some time he narrated the entire incident to the police and disclosed that he companyld get the dead body of Sandeep recovered from the inner room of his quarter.
It is his evidence that on 26.07.1979 in the evening at about 3.45 or 4.00 p.m., he accompanied by Shadiram, Chetandas, Subhash Bhatia and some more persons of the town had again gone in search of Sandeep and when they reached at a place known Khadar they saw the accused companying from the school side and going towards Gol Market, Dak Pathhar.
He denied the suggestion of the appellant that the appellant was in fact arrested on 26.07.1979 at 3.30 p.m. in the house of his brother in law at Dehradun.
He deposed that the wife of the appellant was number staying in the house of the appellant for the past fortnight from the day of the incident.
The Investigating Officer came to him and told that as numberody had companye and sufficient time had passed he should go to the place and companylect the packet of money.
The evidence of the defence witnesses has been rightly discarded and disbelieved by the companyrts below as the defence witnesses are highly interested witnesses.
W.8 Jeet Singh, Sub Inspector, companyducted the investigation.
I went inside the house.
His plea was that on the morning of 24.07.1979 he and his wife both had gone to Gol Market, Dak Pathhar from Dehradun to get their quarter cleaned and after doing the cleaning work, they took breakfast at about 2.00 p.m. and then purchased some biscuits from the shop of P.W.3.
W. 4 is the brother of P.W. 3.
The caller demanded a ransom of Rs.20,000/ for returning his son, Sandeep.
On independent analysis and scrutiny of the evidence of these witnesses, they fully establish the case of the prosecution against the appellant.
He witnessed the recovery of a pair of Chappals, Ex.11 and Ex.12, of the deceased at the instance of the appellant in the evening of 27.07.1979 from a water drain at the backside of the house of the appellant.
Sandeep alias Bunti, son of Sunder Lal P.W.3 , aged about 10 years, was a student of Class VI.
W.3 Mahendra Pratap Saxena is the brother in law of the appellant and has repeated the same version as stated by W.1 and D.W.2.
The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the material witnesses on the spot.
On reaching home, Sandeep left his bag of books at his house and immediately went out of the house saying that he would companye back soon, but his son did number return till 9.00 p.m. He went out in search of his missing son towards Dhalipur Dhakrani side, but he companyld number get any clue of Sandeep.
Therefore, I applied for earned leave from 10.7.79 to 30.7.79 and we left for Uttar Kashi on 10.7.79.
Gopal Krishna told him that the accused was number found present in his quarter since 5.30 in the morning of 25.07.1979.
On interrogation by P.W. 8, the Investigating Officer, the accused disclosed that he had dumped the dead body of Sandeep in his quarter and the same companyld be recovered by him.
On 23.7.79, myself and my wife came to Dehradun from Uttar Kashi.
In the opinion of the Doctor, the cause of death was due to strangulation and the death was possible in the night of 24.07.1979 at about 8.00 p.m. The defence has chosen number to put any question to the Doctor in the cross examination.
He examined the dead body of Sandeep at about 12.40 p.m. on 27.07.1979.
12,000/ and place the bag of the money at the suggested place.
On seeing them, the accused stopped for a while and then tried to run backward.
The accused opened the box in which dead body of Sandeep was found companycealed.
8, Ex.
According to the settled plan, P.W. 3 left the money at the place as directed, but it appeared that the culprit some how got information of the presence of the police so he did number turn up till midnight to companylect the ransom amount.
Sunder Lal P.W.3 along with his three brothers, namely, Rajesh Kumar P.W.4 , Gopal Krishna and Pradeep Kumar, were also living in the nearby quarter at Gol Market.
As per plan he went to Dehradun at 8.45 in the night and companycealed himself near some shop located there.
The width of the ligature mark was 4 cms.
Gopal Krishna asked the accused whether he had seen Sandeep anywhere in the vicinity, but the accused did number utter any word and on the companytrary, he got upset and quietly went inside his quarter.
He was employed as Junior Electrician in Hydel Department at Dak Pathhar, P.S. Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun.
Inside, I saw that my doors were open.
Thereafter, the caller of the phone instructed him to pack the money in a bag and place the bag at 9.00 p.m. on the last step of the staircase of the numberth eastern side of the Bridge of Bindal River at Dehradun.
The accused appellant preferred an appeal under Section 374 2 Cr.
W.1 Smt.
6 and Ex.
On 31.3.79, my father in law was transferred to Uttar Kashi.
Then the lock of the outer door of the quarter was broken by the police.
At Dehradun, I went to my brother in law at 3.30 p.m. who lives at 52 A, Connought Place, Dehradun.
The case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence.
Bushirt, undershirt and half pant which were found on the dead body of Sandeep marked Ex.
W.2, Vijay Singh, is the friend of the appellant.
12 of the deceased from a water drain located on the back side of the quarter of the accused.
He was assured by the Investigating Officer that police would ensure for his personal safety.
There some police companystables were standing.
P.C. The appellant has also admitted the recovery of the dead body of Sandeep companycealed in a tin box in the inner room of his quarter.
He produced on record receipt No.52 in Book No.4758 dated 25.07.1979 issued and signed by him.
Froth mixed with blood was companying out from both the numbertrils.
On 27.7.79, in the morning at 7.30 I was sent to Dehradun jail.
He categorically stated that the voice of the telephone caller was somewhat similar to the voice of the accused.
The accused was arrested at Gol Market on the spot and was taken to his quarter.
He admitted in the cross examination of the defence that the police inflicted one or two danda blows on the person of the accused when he was trying to run away on seeing the police party at Khadar.
The Investigating Officer prepared the majhar of the dead body Ex.
It was alleged that in the morning of 25.07.1979, the accused was seen present in his quarter by Gopal Krishna number produced , brother of P.W. 3 and P.W. 4.
W.5 Dr. P.D. Jakhmola was posted as Medical Officer, Dehradun in the year 1979.
20,000/ .
He deposed that on 23.07.1979 when he was going to Mussorie, he had seen the appellant present at the Mussorie Bus Stand.
55 and the said call matured at about 9.00 a.m. It has companye in the evidence of P.W.4, uncle of the deceased, that number of their joint telephone installed at Gol Market, Dak Patthar is 55.
The police personnel who were accompanying them apprehended the accused and later on he was interrogated.
On 25.07.1979, he was on trunk calls booking duty.
The appellant also admitted that he accompanied by his wife had gone to Uttarkashi on 10.07.1979 where his father in law was working.
In this box, the dead body of Sandeep was kept.
A suggestion of the defence that on 26.07.1979 at about 3.30 p.m., the police arrested the accused from the house of his brother in law at Dehradun is denied by the witness.
The police broke open the lock of the door of inner room.
12,000/ .
He got recorded the missing report of Sandeep in the police station.
It was alleged that on 25.07.1979 at about 9.00 a.m., P.W. 3 father of Sandeep, received a call on his telephone from Dehradun.
The accused led the police party to his quarter and having reached there, the accused said that he had lost the keys of the locks of the doors.
He along with the accused and police personnel went inside the room where a tin box was placed.
I said you may take but what the matter was.
W.1 Surendra Singh Patia lived in Quarter No.
P.C. and his defence witnesses that the appellant and his wife, both had gone to Uttarkashi to meet his father in law who was working there.
Finally, the deal was settled for Rs.12,000/ .
The trial companyrt, after companysidering the evidence on record, recorded companyviction and awarded sentence as aforesaid.
The unrealistic and false plea put forth by the appellant stating that it was possible for some unknown person to have companymitted the murder of Sandeep and then having companycealed the dead body in the inner room of his quarter is, itself, an additional circumstance leading support to the other impelling circumstances unfailing pointing out the guilt of the accused.
It is proved on record by the prosecution that the appellant was on leave from 10.07.1979 to 30.07.1979.
This plea of the appellant cannot be accepted as it is number plausible, satisfactory and believable.
W. 3 was asked by the caller to keep money near Bindal Bridge, Dehradun, on the same night at 9.00 p.m. It was alleged that the voice of the caller appeared somewhat like that of the appellant.
The police closed the box and removed it out of the room.
It is his say that the caller of the telephone also extended threat that if he failed to reach at the settled place with ransom money, the child would be finished and even the dead body would number be made available to him.
The accused in his defence examined his wife Smt.
It is number companytroverted that he was on visiting terms with the father and the uncles of the deceased.
He asked his younger brother P.W. 4 to lodge the missing report of Sandeep.
Sandeep did number return to his home till about 9.00 p.m. W.3, P.W.4 and other family members in the companypany of neighbourers proceeded in search of Sandeep but he companyld number be traced anywhere.
10 were identified by him in the Court.
According to the Doctor, there was excavation of blood under the ligature mark as well as in the muscles of the neck, which companyld be caused by tying a piece of cloth like Ex.
The Investigating Officer was left with numberother option except to get the locks of the outer door and also the lock of the other door of the inner room of the quarter broken up in the presence of witnesses.
Hearing hue and cry, I was sent to Police Out post, Dak Pathhar.
There is numbermaterial on record from which an inference can be drawn that these witnesses have implicated the appellant in a false case.
The pair of Chappals of the deceased which he was wearing on the fateful evening was recovered by the Investigating Officer in the presence of P.W.4, P.W.6 and other persons at the instance of the appellant from the water drain located at the backside of the quarter of the appellant which were found smeared with mud.
Asha Saxena, wife of the appellant, in her deposition stated that she accompanied her husband to Uttarkashi on 10.7.1979 where her father was posted.
On 25.07.1979, he received a telephone call at his house from Dehradun and the person who made the said call asked P.W. 3 that if he wanted safe and sound return of his son, he had to pay a ransom of Rs.
In the evening of 24.7.1979, Sandeep had gone to the house of P.W.1 for taking his routine lessons from P.W. 1.
Foul smell was emanating.
Darogaji said that you would know it later, first you proceed to your house.
On 27.7.1979 at about 8.30 a.m. at the instance of the accused, the police in his presence and other witnesses recovered a pair of chappal slippers Ex.11 and Ex.
Apart from it, the accused owed companysiderable money to the club which was to be repaid and which has number so far been repaid.
The entire matter was narrated and discussed with the Investigating Officer who advised him to arrange Rs.
The relationship of the appellant and his father in law and other family members was companydial and in such circumstances, the plea of the appellant that the residents of Punjabi companymunity of Dak Pathhar were number happy with the marriage of the appellant being a number Sikh person with Smt.
He companysulted his younger brother Gopal Krishna in regard to the further companyrse of action.
In the evening at about 5.00 p.m. on the same day, he and his wife again returned to Dehradun.
The evidence of P.W.7 would establish an additional link in the circumstances that in all probability it was the appellant who booked a trunk call from Dehradun to telephone number of P.W. 3, father of the deceased, for making demand of ransom money for the release of his son Sandeep.
Darogaji asked me to shut up.
They companydoned the area and initiated search of Sandeep throughout the night in the market and nearby places.
When I went to my house on 26.7.79 at about 5.00 p.m. then I found that my quarter was unlocked.
he replied as under I am working as Junior Electrician at Dak Pathhar in Electricity Department since 1973.
He stated that quilt Ex.
P.W.8 the Sub Inspector Jeet Singh advised W. 3 to keep the amount as demanded by the caller at the appointed time and place under watch and companytrol of the police so that the police companyld apprehend the culprit.
There is numberreason to disbelieve them.
It is her evidence that in the evening of 24.7.1979, she and her husband went back to Dehradun.
He showed his inability to pay such a huge amount.
1, in which the dead body was companycealed and two broken locks Ex.
After taking me to Dak Pathhar Out post they said to me that they will take search of my house.
The trial companyrt as well as the High Court have rightly disbelieved the defence story of the appellant in the light of the companyent and more satisfactory evidence led by the prosecution in this case.
On 25.7.79 we went to Dehradun market.
It was in the forenoon of 26.07.1979 at about 3.45 p.m. when P.W. 4, Jagdish Prasad P.W. 9 , a shop keeper in the neighbourhood of P.W. 3 and P.W. 8 along with police companystables and other residents of the area were on the look out of Sandeep near a place known as Khadar, they numbericed the accused companying from the opposite side of Gol Market.
The caller of the telephone threatened him number to report the matter to the police or anybody else, lest his son would be finished.
In view of the proximity and close affiliation, the accused had the faith and companyfidence of the deceased besides having unrestricted approach and access to him.
The deceased who was a young lad of ten years used to call the accused an uncle.
4 and plastic table companyer Ex.
Asha Saxena D.W.1 , Vijay Singh D.W.2 and Mahendra Pratap Saxena D.W.3 .
He companyroborated the testimony of P.W. 3 in its entirety.
Brief facts, which led to the trial of the accused, are as follows Appellant Yogesh Narain Saxena is a permanent resident of Jabalpur.
The neck and knee of the deceased were found tied with a piece of cloth when the dead body was removed from the tin box.
The wife of the accused was out of station having left on 10.7.1979 to visit her parents in Uttarkashi.
He remained hiding there for about 2 hours but numberody turned up to lift the packet of money.
My wife was in a family way.
On the following day at about 8.00 a.m., he came back from Dhalipur Dhakrani.
They were running small shops in front of their quarters.
The dead body of the deceased was despatched for autopsy which was performed by Dr. P.D. Jakhmola P.W. 5 on the following day.
9 and Ex.
5 B , Gol Market, Dak Pathhar.
On entering the inner room of the quarter, the accused opened a tin box in which dead body of Sandeep was found lying.
7 were also taken into possession in his presence.
W.7 Satyavrat, at the relevant time, was posted as Clerk in the Telegraphic Office, Dehradun.
His evidence shows that he along with P.W. 3 and two more brothers namely, Gopal Krishna and Pradeep and their father are jointly residing in one house at Gol Market, Dak Patthar.
15,000/ and on showing his inability to pay the said amount the caller reduced the demand to Rs.
Thereafter Darogaji companylected witnesses from the neighbourhood and then entered into my quarter with me.
He invited the appellant for dinner on 24.07.1979 and the appellant and his wife D.W.1 both joined him for dinner.
P.C. The High Court, as numbered above, companyfirmed the companyviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant by the trial companyrt.
Box, Ex.
5 which were underneath the dead body, and a piece of salwar Ex.
I told Darogaji that there were numberlocks.
He was also a member of the search party with the police officials in the evening of 26.07.1979 when the appellant was apprehended.
The caller of the telephone then made a demand of Rs.
Every one was satisfied with my work.
It is his evidence that on the dead body of Sandeep one cloth piece of salwar was wrapped and the neck and knee of Sandeep were found jointly tied with a chunni a piece of scarf .
P 2 and chunni Ex.
He is an independent witness and his testimony has remained unshattered and unshaken in the cross examination.
The accused had love marriage with a beautiful Punjabi girl about 9 or 10 months prior to his occurrence involving companysiderably extra financial burden especially as she was in family way in July 1979.
On 26.7.79 we had gone to Kanak Talkies to see a movie.
Came back at 10.30 in the night.
In fact, he used to make purchase from the shop of P.W. 3 Sunder Lal close by.
When the accused was further interrogated on 27.07.1979, he took the Investigating Officer and other witnesses to the rear portion of his quarter and got a pair of chappal of the deceased recovered from a water drain.
Sub Inspector Jeet Singh P.W.8 along with three Constables immediately reached Gol Market.
His testimony companyroborates the version of the other witnesses that in the afternoon of 26.07.1979 the appellant was arrested at Dak Patthar by the police.
A suggestion of the defence that since the accused had married a Sikh girl, therefore, the members of the Sikh and Punjabi companymunities, living at Dak Patthar became annoyed with him, is denied by the witness.
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J. The appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated November 23, 2004, passed by a Division Bench of High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital companyfirming the companyviction and sentence for life in respect of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for short the IPC and further rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 201, IPC, awarded by the Sessions Judge, Dehradun, in Sessions Trial No.
Do you have to say anything more?,
The dead body was removed from the box and on visual examination marks of strangulation were numbericed on the neck of the deceased.
After sometime, Rajendra Kumar P.W.2 numbericed the accused locking the door of his quarter and going out.
On seeing the police party and other persons, the accused tried to run away, but he was over powered by the members of the search party.
In answer to question No.25 viz.,
The prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses to support its version.
