Hardayals appeal has been dismissed by the High Court of Allahabad, and the sentence of death awarded to him, has been companyfirmed.
It is maintained that these letters might have been manoeuvred by one Parsuram who according to the defence, had illicit relations with Smt.
1, 13, 15, 17 among others that he had brought the child Rajendra .
While they are agreed that the appellant came and took away the child with him from the house of Lok Chand, after offering him some inducement, they differ in regard to the precise inducement offered by the appellant to the child.
On March 12, 1971, the dead body of a boy was found floating in a well in the town of Konch.
P 5 and P 6 which are alleged to have been sent by the appellant, were never duly proved Kunj Behari Lal to whom these letters purport to have been addressed, was number examined.
On March 6, 1971,.
Bachchi P.W. 3, and Nihal Chand P.W. 7.
He has number companye in appeal before us by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Shanti.
To substantiate it, the prosecution examined Prayag Raj, P.W. 2, Smt.
At first, the appellant denied having brought Raiendra from Kanpur.
The appellant companyld number be found despite search by the police till his arrest on October 15, 1971 ? .
The evidence of these three witnesses was to the effect that on March 6, 1971, at about 7.30 a. m., the appellant came to the house of Lok Chand, and after offering an inducement, took way the child Rajendra with him.
at about 7.30 a. m., the appellant was seen inducing and taking away the deceased child from the house of Lok Chand On March 6.
1, 15 and 17 who belong to Konch, and P. Ws.
and companysequently, was number in a position to offer his good offices to his parents for restoration of Smt.
On the evening preceding the day of occurrence, when his parents in law refused to send his wife, the accused held out a threat to wreak vengeance upon them in a manner which would make them repent for the rest of their lives.
While disowning responsibility for sending the letters Exts.
Lok Chand expressed his inability to do anything, adding that he had numbersay whatever in the matter.
The facts of the prosecution case, as they emerge from the record, are as follows Lok Chandra P.W. 13 , is a resident of Karyana, Kuli Bazar, Kanpur.
Kunj Behari and his sister stayed for the night at Konch in the house of another relation and returned to Kanpur on the following day and apprised their parents about the falsity of the information sent by the appellant.
The circumstances on the basis of which the prosecution sought companyviction of the appellant are these That the accused had a re vengeful motive to companymit the crime because his parents in laws intransigently refused to send his wife, Smt.
It is true that numberevidence was led to prove as to who was the scribe of these letters Exts.
1 and 15 are independent witnesses of Konch.
The appellant made several attempts to take her back to Konch where he was residing.
3 had been fully established.
But the receipt of these letters by the in laws of the appellant stood established from the testimony of Shanti Devi and her mother, Muniya Devi.
Crescent shaped 1/3 abrasion on the left neck decomposing.
Lok Chand and Kazi for sometime awaited the return of the appellant.
The appellant was given to wine and gambling.
On this occasion, his in laws sent Smt.
Lok Chands wife Rajjo Devi, P.W. 5 was also number present there.
Reaching Konch on March 10, 1971 at 10.30 a.m., he went straight to the house of the appellant but found him absent.
Lok Chand and Nihal Chand to be that of Rajendra, deceased.
On March 5, 1971, the appellant came to the house of his parents in law at Kakori Mohalla, Kanpur in the evening, and tried to persuade them to send Smt.
On returning to the house, Smt.
The fact remains that despite repeated efforts made by the appellant to regain the society of his wife, his in laws refused to send her with him.
On reaching there they learnt that the appellants mother was very much alive and the letter was only a ruse.
There was numberevidence to show as to who had written these letters.
It is argued that the appellant must have known that Lok Chand was separate from his parents in residence and mess etc.,
Ram Prakash P.W. 15 , and Iqram P.W. 17 were among those persons.
His mother, Muniya Devi P.W. 4 and father, Budhi Lal, since deceased have been residing separately from him in Kakori Mohalla, Kanpur.
On learning what the matter was, they questioned the appellant about the child.
P 5 and P 6.
The appellant promised to go with Lok Chand, to that place at Kanpur for restoration of the child there.
According to the medical officer who companyducted the autopsy on March 13, 1971, the body was of a boy, aged 11 years, who had been throttled to death four or five days earlier, and thereafter his dead body was immersed in water.
Abraded companytusion 3/4 x 1/3 on the left side of the neck.
On the following morning at 7.30 a. m., the appellant returned to the residence of Lok Chand.
The companyrts below found the testimony of P. Ws.
2, 3 and 7 that Rajendra deceased had been taken away by the appellant from his house on that day in the morning and how the appellant after admitting that he had taken the boy and would restore him a1 Kanpur, accompanied the informant and Kazi Saeed Uddin P.W. 1 upto Orai and thereafter slipped away and disappeared.
This taking away was witnessed by the immediate neighbours, Prayag Raj P.W. 2 , Smt.
Shanti.
When they reached Orai on route to Kanpur, the appellant slipped away saying that he would be returning soon after companylecting some money from his brother in law for travelling expenses.
Thereupon Sub Inspector Ram Chandra Saxena P.W. 9 of Konch Police went to the well, got the dead body taken out, and prepared the inquest report.
On the following morning he searched for his son in Mohalla Kakori where his parents resided.
It is urged that the letters, Exs.
Contusion 1 x 1/2 on the right front to lateral aspect of the neck.
The appellant then took away the child with him.
ka 8 at Police Station Anwarganj, Kanpur at 6.30 p. m. In this report he stated how on March 6, 1971, when he returned home in the evening, he was informed by P. Ws.
Lok Chand, Kazi Saeed Uddin and the appellant then proceeded together to Kanpur.
who hail from Kanpur, want that I should leave my wife.
He sent an information to Lok Chand.
Thereupon, the appellant admitted that he had brought Rajendra but added that he had left the child somewhere at Kanpur.
Their presence at their houses at that time was highly natural and probable.
The autopsy was companyducted by P W. 16 Dr. T. D. Singh on March 13, 1971 at 1.30 p.m. The Doctor found the following injuries on the body Multiple scabbed abrasions in an area of 2 x 1/2 on the right cheek.
Rajjo Devi did number suspect anything wrong in it as the appellant was, after all, a close relation of her husband.
He immediately inquired of the appellant about Raiendra.
Shanti to the Appellant.
The appellant thereafter, the same evening, went to the house of his brother in law, Lok Chand in Kuli Bazar and pressed the latter to persuade his parents to send Shanti with him.
When this letter did number bring any result, he sent a second letter around 24th February 1971 saying that his mother had died on the 18th February 1971 and that his wife should be sent to Konch.
P 6 the postal stamps on which shows that it was posted at Konch on Feb. 24, 1971 and received at Kanpur on February 25, 1971 Smt.
The latter had already gone away to the Gun Factory where he was employed.
Lok Chand also did number then suspect any foul play in the matter.
The appellant obtained one baloon from the witness and handed it over to the child.
The body and the clothes and shoes on it were later identified by P. Ws.
These letters were addressed to Kunj Behari, another brother of Smt.
It was further established that after the receipt of the second letter, Ext.
On March 9, 1971, he set out for Konch in search of the child.
Their minor son, Raiendra, aged about 10 or 11 years, was all alone in the house.
Each time the parents refused to send the unwilling wife back to the matrimonial home.
When after the days work, Lok Chand returned home, she told him how Rajendra was said to have been taken away by the appellant.
The appellant then tried trickery.
P.C. admitted that the people of my Susral in laws bear enmity with me.
She was away to the public latrine for easing herself.
Shanti with him.
In answer to question No.
Rajjo Devi found Rajendra missing.
The tongue was found protruding between the teeth, In the opinion of the Doctor, the boy had been throttled to death and there after his dead body was immersed in water.
They have numberanimus against the appellant whatever.
Bachchi P.W. 3 and Nihal Chand P.W. 7 .
He sent a letter from Konch that his mother was seriously ill and that his wife should companye to Konch immediately.
He looked for the appellant and came across him near Bari Mata.
Shantis parents refused saying that she was unwilling to go back to him.
After ascertaining from Rajendra that his parents were number at home the appellant offered some inducement to the child to go with him.
19, he stated that the witnesses of Konch and Kanpur meaning P. Ws.
Abrasion scabbed in an area 1/2 x 1/4 on the back of the neck.
But when the child did number return even by 1.30 p. m. she became anxious to know his whereabouts.
Incensed, the appellant went away, uttering a threat that for this refusal they would repent for the whole of their lives.
Shanti along with Kunj Behari to Konch.
But when the child did number return home even for the night, their suspicions were aroused.
P.W. 15 was a businessman.
The latter accompanied by Nihal Chand went to Konch and identified the dead body at the mortuary where it was lying for the post mortem examination.
A similar threat was held out to Lok Chand.
Rajendra was about to go to the school where he was studying.
In anger, the appellant went away, holding out a threat to Lok Chand.
Shanti P.W. 12 , the sister of Lok Chand was married to the appellant sometime in June 1970.
She was informed by the neighbours that the appellant had taken away the child for showing Tazia precession.
When he did number return, they searched for him at Orai but in vain.
Lok Chand then returned to Kanpur and on March 11, 1971 lodged the First Information Report, Ex.
1971, the appellant and Rajendra were seen together at about 8 a. m. near Police Station Sisamau by Om Prakash, P. W.11, a baloon seller.
The child, at first expressed reluctance but on being induced further, agreed.
On the basis of this report, a case was registered against the appellant under Section 363, Penal Code.
The motive for kidnapping was also stated.
On March 12, 1971, Ram Dass P.W. 20 , brother of the appellant, made a report at Police Station Konch that he had seen a dead body floating in the well of Chaubia Balram Singh at Konch.
He also went to a few relations but found numbertrace of the missing child.
and that he would restore him to Lok Chand at Kanpur After making this companyfession and promise for restoration of the child, the appellant accompanied Lok Chand and Kazi Sayeed Uddin en route to Kanpur but on reaching Orai, he slipped away and disappeared on the false excuse of bringing money for travelling expenses.
He frequently beat and maltreated Smt.
1, 13 and 15 with regard to this fact entirely trustworthy P. Ws.
4 a On March 10, 1971, at about Noon, at Konch, the appellant companyfessed before P. Ws.
4, 5, 13 etc.
The houses of these witnesses are located in the immediate neighbourhood of Lok Chand.
Kazi Saeed Uddin P.W. 1 .
P 5 and P 6, the appellant himself, during his examination under Section 342, Cr.
Shanti with him, and Lok Chand also declined to help the accused in restoration of his wife.
He was also companyvicted on the allied companynts under Sections 364 and 201, Penal Code, and sentenced to 4 years and 2 years rigorous imprisonment, respectively.
Consequently, she started living with her parents at Kanpur.
S. Sarkaria, J. The appellant, Har Dayal, aged 26 years, was tried and companyvicted for the murder of Raiendra, a boy of 10 or 11 years, by the Sessions Judge, Orai and sentenced to death.
As regards the motive, her submission is that the appellant would have numberconceivable grievance against Lok Chand merely because the latter expressed his inability to persuade his parents to send Shanti with the appellant.
Mrs. Urmila Sirur, appearing as amicus curiae disputes the companyrectness of these findings.
In helplessness, Lok Chand started crying.
Shanti, accompanied by her brother did go to Konch, and returned when they discovered that the reported death of the appellants mother on February 18, 1971 was a ruse.
