JUDGMENT :

SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, J.

1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. against the impugned judgment dated 24.01.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Sessions Trial No. 25/2013 whereby he has been convicted for offence punishable under Sections 364, 302 and 201 of IPC and he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of fine R.I. for 10 days, life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of fine R.I. for 10 days and R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of fine, R.I. for 10 days, with a direction to run all the sentences concurrently.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 06.06.2012 at about 4 PM, the appellant herein along with two other co-accused persons namely Sarjuram and Jeeyanram, in furtherance of their common intention of causing death of Bhola @ Arjun Pardhi, aged about 8 years, abducted him for ransom but they caused his death by strangulating him and assaulting him with stone on his head and buried his dead body in order to screen themselves from the offence and thereby, committed the aforesaid offence.

3. It is admitted position on record that appellant had married Kunti Bai (PW-6), daughter of Durpati Bai (PW-9) by choodi ceremony and deceased Bhola @ Arjun Pardhi was son-in-law of the appellant. Further case of the prosecution is that on 08.06.2014, Durpati Bai (PW-9) lodged a report at Police Station Nandini Nagar, District Durg that appellant came to her house and told her that since she is not sending her daughter Kunti Bai (PW-6) with him, she must return the expense of Rs. 50000/- incurred by him. On 06.06.2012 at about 4 PM, her son Bhola @ Arjun Pardhi had gone towards the shop in Semariya on his cycle where the appellant was sitting and he took her son with him. On the basis of said information, first information report was lodged for offence punishable under Section 365 of IPC and the wheels of investigation started running. The appellant was taken into custody and his memorandum statement was recorded vide Ex.P/2 and on the basis of information given him, memorandum statements of co-accused persons namely Sarjuram and Jeeyanram was also recorded vide Ex.P/4 and P/5 pursuant to which seizure of one black coloured cycle was seized from the spot vide Ex.P/6, blood-stained soil and plain soil was seized vide Ex.P/7, green-coloured slippers belonging to the deceased and one heavy stone were seized from the spot vide Ex.P/8 and one cream coloured shirt worn by the appellant which was stained with blood was seized vide Ex.P/10. On 09.06.2012, permission was obtained from the Subdivisional Magistrate and thereafter, dead body of deceased Bhola @ Arjun Pardhi was exhumed and dehati merg intimation was registered vide Ex.P/20. Nazri naksha was prepared vide Ex.P/21 and inquest was conducted vide Ex.P/1. Thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was subjected to postmortem which was conducted by Dr. S.K. Agrawal (PW-3) and as per the postmortem report (Ex.P/16), cause of death is said to be asphyxia due to strangulation (throttling) and nature of death is said to be homicidal. The aforesaid seized articles were though sent for forensic examination but no FSL report has been brought on record. After due investigation, the appellant as well as two co-accused persons were charge-sheeted for offence punishable under Section 364(A)/34, 302/34 and 201/34 of IPC which was committed to the Court of Sessios for trial in accordance with law. The accused persons abjured their guilt and entered into defence.

4. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and brought on record 31 documents. Statement of the appellant and co-accused persons was taken under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein they denied guilt, however, they did not examine any one in their defence and brought on record only 3 documents.

5. Learned trial Court,