J U D G M E N T

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

1. The appellants were convicted under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter “IPC”) and sentenced to life imprisonment as well as 7 years under Section 364, IPC and imprisonment for 5 years under Section 201, IPC. Their conviction and sentence was upheld by the Uttarakhand High Court.1 2. Haseen, aged about 7 years, was the son of Bisarat, (PW-1), a resident of Signature Not Verified Digitally sivgneidl blyage Akbarpur. He went missing on 08.10.1999. On 10.10.1999, at about NEETA SAPRA Date: 2023.04.19 Reason:

1 By judgment and order dated 05.10.2012 in Crl. No. 358/2004

16:30, the dead body of Haseen was found in the sugarcane field of Yaqub in Village Narayanpur, situated at a distance from Akbarpur, Haseen’s village. Information was sent to the Police Station Manglor. Inquest proceedings were held by ASI Dalchand, PW-6. The post-mortem was conducted on 11.10.1999 by Dr. A.K. Jain (PW-9). According to his statement, death had occurred about two days before the post-mortem examination.

3. PW-1, Bisarat moved an application under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter “Cr. PC”) on 19.11.1999. Based on the order of the magistrate concerned, the first information report (FIR) was recorded on 21.11.1999. In the FIR, the informant alleged that his son Haseen was missing since 3 PM on 08.10.1999 and that despite search, he could not be found. He went to PS Manglor on 10.10.1999 on the day dead Haseen’s body was found. He also narrated about the post-mortem examination on 11.10.1999. PW-1 stated that he was busy in making inquiries. He was told by Sayeed Ahmad (PW-3) and Murad Ali (PW-2) that they had seen A-3 Husn Jahan taking deceased boy Haseen into her house on 08.10.1999 at about 3.30 PM. Suleman (PW-4) told him that on 09.10.1999 at about 6 AM he had seen Haseen standing along with A-1 Jabir and A-2 Jakir on the road near Yaqub’s sugarcane filed. He (PW-1) immediately went to PS Manglor to lodge the report on the morning of 12.10.1999, but his report was not recorded. He then met S.P., Haridwar on the same day, but police did not interrogate him or his witnesses nor take any action against the accused persons. Based on these allegations, the police investigated the incident, and during the course of those proceedings, arrested the accused-appellants.

4. After investigations were completed, the police, in their final report, alleged that the appellants were guilty of the offences. Charges were framed against them, by the court. The prosecution, to establish its allegations, relied on the testimony of 12 witnesses. The defence did not examine any witness. Based on the materials placed before it, the trial court convicted the appellants, who then appealed to the High Court. The impugned judgment affirmed the trial court’s findings.

Appellants’ contentions

5. It is argued, on behalf of the appellants, that the conviction and sentence imposed in this case, is unsustainable. It was argued that no reason was given why the FIR was lodged almost five weeks after the deceased boy went missing and after his body was found on 10.10.1999. The complainant stated that on 12.10.1999, he was told by the witnesses that on 8.10.1999, the third appellant, A-3 Husn Jahan, was seen taking the child inside her house, and on 9.10.1999 at 6 AM, the child was seen along with accused Jabir and Jakir. The application under section 156(3) Cr. P.C. was moved on 19.11.1999, i.e., after more than one month. In the mean-time no application was sent to any officer. There is no explanation for a delay of more than a month.

6. It was urged that there is discrepancy in the testimonies of various witnesses, particularly that of PW-1 (father of the deceased) and the others, particularly PW-4 and PW-5, as to whether the suspicion of the accused’s involvement was, in fact, reported within a couple of days after the boy’s body was found. Counsel especially highlighted that the police witnesses did not sup