An accused cannot be convicted under Section 364 IPC in the absence of specific charges and reliable evidence of abduction, as both criteria are essential for establishing the offence.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR-X, J.

1. Heard Sri K.K.Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri K.K.Gupta, learned AGA for the State.

2. The accused-appellants have been convicted and sentenced vide judgment and order dated 21.2.1986 passed by Sessions Judge, Etawah in Sessions Trial No. 24 of 1985, appellant has been sentenced up to seven years rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 364 IPC.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that a written report (Ex. Ka-1) was lodged by Baijnath Singh, son of Raghubir Singh, at Police Station Barhpura, District Etawah on 23.10.1983. It was scribed by Tirbhuwan Singh of village Kasata. The informant alleged that on 20.10.1983, his son Mahesh Singh was at home when Vinod Kumar came and took him along. When Mahesh did not return, an information was lodged at police outpost Jaswara on 22.10.1983 at 7:00 p.m. by his younger brother Jagdish Singh. On 23.10.1983, while searching for his son, the informant found Mahesh Singh lying dead near the field of Kali Prasad Bajpayee, with injuries on his body. He suspected that Vinod Kumar and Sunit Singh, both sons of Shiv Ram Shukla, had committed the murder. Accordingly, a case under Sections 302/34 IPC was registered at Police Station Barhpura on 23.10.1983 at 9:15 a.m. against them. Case was entrusted to P.W.-6 Hori Lal Yadav who after investigation submitted chargesheet against all the three accused under Section 302/34 IPC.

4. Case was committed to Session Court. All the accused were charged for offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Six witnesses were examined by prosecution. P.W.-1 Baijnath proved (Ex.Ka-1). He supported the contents of FIR. He stated that accused Vinod had illicit relationship with his son Mahesh. Accused Shiv Ram informed him about this relationship 15 days before the occurrence. He thereafter scolded his son. P.W.-2 Devendra Singh stated that on 20.11.1983 at about 10:00 p.m., while he was returning to his house, he heard screams coming from the house of accused Shiv Ram. Upon inquiring, accused Shiv Ram told him that his younger daughter was unwell, and his sons, i.e., the remaining accused persons, also supported this version by stating that there was nothing unusual.

5. P.W.-3 Bhawan Singh stated that on the alleged day, at about 10:00–10:30 p.m., while he was going towards his field, he met the accused persons. On finding them unusually silent, he enquired about the same, whereupon they replied that there was nothing unusual and that they were getting late. He noticed some yellowish spots on the shirts of accused Vinod and Sunit, which aroused suspicion in his mind; however, being night time, he did not pay much attention. He further stated that he left for his in-laws' house the next morning and, on returning home on 23.10.1983, came to know that the dead body of Mahesh had been found. P.W.-4 Ranveer stated that he had seen Mahesh going inside the house of the accused; however, he did not intervene as Mahesh used to visit their house frequently. On the next day, when he came to know that Mahesh was missing, he informed P.W.-1 Baijnath about the said fact. He further stated that accused Shiv Ram had earlier complained to P.W.-1 Baijnath regarding Mahesh, for which Baijnath had scolded his son.

6. P.W.-5 Dr. Dr. K.C. Jain conducted post mortem of deceased on 24-10-83 at District Hospital, Etawah. He found following ante-mortem injuries on the person of deceased:-

(i). Incised wound 8 cm x 3.5 cm on medial part of neck extending obliquely from lower part of left ear lobule up to medial end of left clavicle