The judgment establishes the importance of circumstantial evidence, the burden on the accused to explain incriminating circumstances, and the admissibility of electronic evidence under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, J.

1. Since these two criminal appeals have arisen out of the common impugned judgment dated 18.12.2015 passed by the Sessions Judge, Session at Jashpur, Chhattisgarh in Sessions Trial No. 21/2014, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

2. The sole appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 543 of 2016 namely Imtiyaj Ansari @ Kalu (A-1) and the sole appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 71 of 2016 namely Ravitosh Toppo (A-2); both have preferred these two appeals under Section 374(2) of the CrPC, calling in question the validity, legality and correctness of the impugned judgment, whereby both have been convicted and sentenced as under:

All sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. Case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that on the date of offence i.e. 18.12.2013 between 5:00 pm to 9:00 pm, near Jashpur Nagar Palika, Police Station Jashpur, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, appellants herein abducted Yash Kumar Singh @ Raj (now deceased), and asked for ransom from his mother Anita Singh (PW-1) and thereafter, they killed Yash Kumar Singh @ Raj and to screen themselves from the aforesaid offences hide the dead body of the deceased under the bricks in Vishwanath Bhagat’s old bricks clan and thereby committed the aforesaid offence.

4. It is further case of the prosecution that on the date of offence, Yash Kumar Singh, aged about 13 years, left his house at 5:00 pm for playing badminton, when he did not return home, Anita Singh (PW-1) called him on his mobile phone by using cellphone of Inamul (PW-2), which was answered by unknown person who asked for ransom for custody of her son. Thereafter, FIR was registered vide Ex.P/1. Dehati merg intimation and merg intimation were registered vide Exs.P/34 & P/36, respectively. Nazari naksha was prepared vide Ex.P/16. Inquest proceedings (Ex.P/4) were conducted and the dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem. As per postmortem report (Ex.P/20), proved by Dr. R.N. Kerketta (PW-10), cause of death was external and internal hemorrhagic shock due to injury of great vessels of neck right side and nature of death is homicidal. Pursuant to memorandum statement of A-1 (Ex.P/5), shirt, two mobile sets and shoes have been seized vide Ex.P/10 and pursuant to memorandum statement of A-2 (Ex.P/12), clothes have been seized vide Ex.P/13). Dead body of the deceased was recovered vide Ex.P/2, pursuant to memorandum statements of A-1 & A-2. Seized articles have been sent for chemical analysis, but FSL report has not been brought on record for the reasons best known to the prosecution.

5. After due investigation, appellants were charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial in accordance with law. The appellants/accused persons abjured their guilt and entered into defence.

6. In order to bring home the offences prosecution has examined as many as 24 witnesses and exhibited 52 documents and defence in support of its case has neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document.

7. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the appellants/accused persons herein for the offences as mentioned in t