JUDGMENT :

Goutam Bhaduri, J.

Heard.

1. Instant appeal is against the judgement dated 30/08/2012 passed in Sessions Case No.34/2012 by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund whereby the appellants have been convicted for offence under sections 364(a)/34, 302/34 and 201/34 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo RI for life; RI for life and RI for 7 years respectively with default stipulations.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that on 27/01/2012 at about 5 pm at a village accused Ramratan and Premlal along with one Hem Prakash Diwan who was minor then, abducted Ku. Manisha Yadav aged about six years for a ransom and in consequence at subsequent stage thereof Manisha Yadav was killed by strangulation. Thereafter, in order to conceal the crime, they dumped the body in an abandoned car which was stationed at the “badi” of one Hem Prakash and tried to do away with the evidence. Initially a missing report was lodged on 29/01/2012 by one Jeetu Yadav at Police Station, Baghbehara that his daughter who was playing in the open compound of the house in the village was missing from 27/01/2012. He initially did not notice the absence of girl by thinking that the girl must be playing somewhere nearby but when till late night, when the girl did not return, the family members started searching for her. The father tried to contact his friends from his mobile but his mobile was also found to be missing and on 28/01/2012 from his stolen mobile number 8959012406 a call was received by his father Bodhan i.e. grand father of girl and an amount of Rs.3 lakhs ransom was demanded. They were also threatened that they should not report this issue to the police. Thereafter, on 29/01/2012 a report was made and in consequence thereof subsequently the FIR was registered under Section 365 of IPC and the investigation started. During the investigation, Hem Prakash, Ramratan and Premlal were taken in to custody and their memorandum statement were recorded wherein this fact came to fore that they abducted the child Manisha. It was revealed before killing the child her hands and mouth were tied up and was kept in a dilapidated house (kandhar). Subsequently, when the family members started searching, they killed the child by strangulation by a nylon string and concealed the dead body in an abandoned car which was stranded parked in the badi of one Udai Ram Diwan. On the basis of memorandum, the dead body with a nylon string at neck was recovered and offence under Section 302 and 201 of IPC was registered. Subsequently, the mobile and sim were also recovered and after investigation, the charge sheet was filed under Section 364-A, 302, 201, 34 of IPC before the CJM, Mahasamund. One of the accused Hem Prakash @ Bablu being the minor, his trial was conducted before the Juvenile Court, Mahasamund and for two of the appellants/accused the case was committed to the sessions.

3. During the trial the appellants/accused abjured their guilt and claimed to be tried. On behalf of the prosecution 14 witnesses were examined and the accused did not examine any witness in defence. The learned trial court after trial, convicted the accused under sections 364(a)/34, 302/34 and 201/34 of IPC. Hence this appeal.

4. Shri Anish Tiwari, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants would submit that the case is based on circumstantial evidence and the circumstances which would require to complete the chain are missing. The counsel would submit according to the prosecution, the girl was kidnapped to recover a ransom for which different calls were received but call detail report has not been placed by the prosecution. He would submit that in absence of such evidence, the demand of ransom was not established. He would further submit that statement of PW-3 who is said to have last seen the accused with the deceased was recorded after the recovery of dead body made, therefore that evidence is also doubtful. He further submits that recovery of the dead body on the basis of memor