ORDER :

The appellant aggrieved by his conviction for offence under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the 'IPC') and sentence of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default clause as also under section 386 read with section 511/34 IPC and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default clause, is before us with the leave of the Court.

2. According to the prosecution, on 06.10.2001 at about 2 p.m., deceased Deepak left his house telling his mother PW-1 Babli that he was going to the house of the appellant Vijay Kumar to collect payment of Rs. 1,100/- which he owed to him. When he did not return the parents made search for him and around 9.45 p.m., a phone call was received by his father PW-2 Devinder Choudhary in the nearby provision shop. He was asked to arrange a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- as ransom for release of the child. PW-2 Devinder Choudhary, accordingly, informed the police and on the basis of that FIR No. 168/2001 was registered at Police Station Kapashera under section 364A IPC. During the course of investigation, the child was found murdered and accordingly, offence under section 302/34 read with section 120B IPC were added.

3. The police after usual investigation submitted the charge-sheet and the appellant was committed to the court of sessions to face the trial where he was charged for commission of the offence under section 302/34 and section 386 read with section 511/34 IPC. The appellant denied to have committed any offence and claimed to be tried. From the trend of the cross-examination, his plea seems to be of false implication.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. There is no eye-witness to the occurrence and the prosecution in order to bring home the charge has relied on the circumstantial evidence only.

6. The first circumstance relied on by the prosecution for bringing home the charge is that deceased Deepak was last seen along with the appellant and another convict at their residence. In order to prove that, the prosecution has examined PW-5 Ishwar Singh who has stated in his evidence that while he was going to his place of work after taking lunch, he noticed the deceased with the appellant and another convict present at the gate of the house. PW-1 Babli the mother of the deceased, has also stated in her evidence that the deceased has left the house saying that he is going to the appellant's house to collect the dues. From the evidence of PW-1 Babli, it is further evident that while she had gone in search of her child, the accused met her and on enquiry, told her that her son did come there but after couple of minutes returned. The evidence of PW-1 Babli and PW-5 Ishwar Singh, therefore, clearly shows that the deceased was last seen with the accused.

7. The other circumstance relied on by the prosecution is the recovery of the dead body on the basis of the statement made by the accused from the room occupied by them. The appellant during the course of investigation has disclosed about the presence of the dead body in a gunny bag in the room. The aforesaid statement led to the recovery of the dead boy in a gunny bag from the room in occupation of the accused. A piece of tape was found pasted over the mouth of the deceased and his hands and feet were tied with a Niwar.

8. PW-1 Babli, PW-2 Devinder Choudhary, PW-5 Ishwar Singh and PW-6 Ram Chander have stated in their evidence that the room in which the dead body was recovered was in physical possession of the accused.

9. Therefore, the recovery of the dead body on the statements made by the accused from the house in their possession has also been proved. Yet another circumstance, relied on by the prosecution to bring home the charge, is the recovery of the materials used in the crime from the room in occupation of the accused which tallied with what has been found on the dead body of the deceased. As stated earlier, the mouth of the deceased was pasted with tape and his hands and fe