(Delivered by Hon. Bharat Bhushan, J.

1. Appellant Mahboob @ Dhumal has assailed the judgment and order dated 15.2.2001 passed by the then Sessions Judge, J.P.Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 49 of 1999 arising out of Case crime no. 541 of 1999 whereby he was convicted under sections 302, 376, 363 and 201 Indian Penal Code (in short, I.P.C.) and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/-, 10 years imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/-, 7 years imprisonment and a fine of Rs.3,000/- and 3 years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-respectively with default stipulations. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that 8 years old daughter of informant Barkatullah (PW-1) was sitting at his door steps on 20.8.1999 at about 8:00pm in the light of Gas. Suddenly, her neighbour appellant Mahboob @ Dhumal arrived at his door steps and enticed away the little girl (referred to as 'victim' in view of bar of Section 228-A IPC).

3. It is alleged that complainant Barkatullah (PW-1) his father and other members of family chased appellant Mahboob @ Dhumal but failed to apprehend him and victim though they were reportedly seen by several persons of locality, who allegedly informed the family members that appellant Mahboob @ Dhumal was dragging away the victim.

4. Prosecution has further alleged that family members of victim initiated a search for the victim on the next day i.e. 21.8.1999 at about 3:00am in the morning. The corpse of victim was found in a dry well located in the agricultural field of Sufi Malik. A Shalwar (a lower garment) of the victim was lying besides the corpse, which gave indication that victim had been sexually assaulted. Complainant Barkatullah (PW-1) got the First Information Report (in short, FIR) (Ex.Ka. 1) scribed by one Mahtab Amrohi, which was subsequently lodged at the Police Station (in short, P.S.) Amroha Nagar at 4:00pm. The prosecution has alleged that appellant Mahboob @ Dhumal is a man of criminal antecedent and that some altercation had taken place between mother of appellant and wife of complainant which resulted in antagonistic relationship between both the families.

5. After registration of the case, investigation was initiated by PW-6 Rajvir Singh, Investigating Officer (in short, I.O.). Inquest report (Ex. Ka. 4) was prepared. The corpse was sent for postmortem. Two site-plans (Ex. Ka. 11 & Ex. Ka. 12) were prepared. Then appellant Mahboob @ Dhumal was arrested. Ex. Ka 11 is site-plan of dry well where corpse of victim was recovered. Ex. Ka. 12 is the site-plan depicting places where victim was playing, raped and murdered. After conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet, Ex. Ka.-13 was submitted against the appellant.

6. On receipt of case after commitment, trial Judge framed charges against appellant Mahboob @ Dhumal under sections 363, 376, 302, 201 IPC on 23.2.1999, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. Prosecution adduced the evidence of Barkatullah (complainant-father of the deceased victim) as PW-1, Munno @ Chandni as PW-2, Azmat Ali as PW-3, Dr. Vijay Kumar Goel as PW-4, Dr. N.V.Sharma (Pathologist) as PW-5 and Inspector Rajvir Singh as PW-6. The statement of appellant was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein appellant denied all the allegations and claimed false implication on account of previous enmity.

8. Defence also produced two witnesses, namely, Munawar Ali as DW-1 and Rafiq Ahmad as DW-2. On conclusion of trial, trial Judge held appellant Mahboob @ Dhumal guilty of offences under section 302, 363, 376 and 201 IPC and awarded various sentences, as aforesaid. This judgment is under challenge before his Court.

9. Heard Sri Abhishek Sharma, learned Amicus Curiae for appellant and Sri Nagendra Kumar, learned AGA for the State.

10. Learned Amicus Curiae has pointed out that entire prosecution case is merely dependent upon the last seen story and that no one has, in fact, witnessed the incident. Learned Amicus Curiae has s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document