IMPORTANT POINTS
Recovery of SIM card from which ransom calls were made from room of the accused is important not the fact that it did not belong to him.
Ransom calls made after killing the victims is not a mitigating circumstance.
Recovery of dead bodies beneath the ground in the compound of accused without any explanation u/s 313 CrPC points to his guilt.

ORDER :

1. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

2. Leave granted.

3. The accused respondent has been convicted, inter alia, under Section 302 IPC by the learned trial Court by its judgment and order dated 18th November, 2014 and sentence of death was imposed. In appeal, the conviction of the accused respondent was reversed and he has been acquitted of all the charges levelled. Aggrieved, the State of Uttar Pradesh is in appeal before us.

4. The case of the prosecution is that one Zoraver had bequeathed certain immovable properties to one Sushila, the grandmother of the two deceased children, namely, Vikesh and Jitender aged 6 and 7 years respectively. The accused respondent who happened to be the nephew of Zoraver did not approve of the bequeath and nursed a grievance in this regard. On 9th January, 2013, the two children, namely, Vikesh son of Vidya Ram (PW-1) and Jitender son of Brijesh (PW-2) disappeared and were not found despite a vigorous search. On 11th January, 2013, PW-1 - Vidya Ram received phone-calls from a Mobile No.7895848163 demanding ransom. Subsequent phone-calls were made from the aforesaid Mobile No.7895848163 giving different instructions. This aroused the suspicion of the family members of the two missing children who filed a subsequent report before the Police on 11th January, 2013 indicating their suspicion that it is the accused respondent who may be responsible for the disappearance of the children. Pursuant thereto the accused respondent was arrested on 19th January, 2013, as claimed by the witnesses; and on 22nd January, 2013, as claimed by the prosecution.

5. On 22nd January, 2013, certain recoveries were made including one SIM card of Airtel Company bearing no.7895848163 from one of the rooms of the house of the accused respondent. The dead-bodies of the two children were recovered from three feet (3 ft.) underneath the ground where they were buried. The spot of recovery happen to be within the compound of the accused respondent.

6. The learned trial Court held the aforesaid circumstances to be proved and piecing the same together came to the conclusion that the accused respondent is responsible for the crime. Accordingly, the conviction and the sentence imposed.

7. The High Court, in appeal, reversed the said finding. The broad grounds on which the High Court thought it proper to do so are as follows:

Firstly, the High Court held that if the accused respondent nursed a grievance with regard to the property that was bequeathed, the murder of the two children would not have benefitted him to get the property in any manner. In fact, the High Court went on to hold that the accused respondent would have got the property only if the entire line of the descendants is to be wiped out.

So far as the recovery of the SIM card from one of the rooms of the house of the accused respondent is concerned, the High Court thought it proper to pay regard to the fact that the said SIM card did not belong to the accused respondent.

Insofar as the recovery of dead-bodies of two children are concerned, the High Court relied on the evidence of PW-3 - Sher Singh to the effect that the recovery memo was not read out to him. The High Court further took the view that the prosecution case of ransom calls on 11th January, 2013 did not appear to be logical in a situation where the two children were already dead on 9th January, 2013. The High Court also took into account certain statements made by the witnesses with regard to Police torture of the accused respondent to arrive at the conclusion that the statement leading to the recovery was obtained under duress and, therefore, ought not to have been relied on.

8. We have considered the matter. We have taken note of the evidence of PWs-1, 3 and 5 (Panch witnesses) and also the evidence of the Investigating Officer. We have read and considered the statement of the accused respondent recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "