The prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of evidence beyond reasonable doubt for conviction, failing which the accused is entitled to acquittal.

Judgment :

Rajani Dubey, J.

1. This appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.12.2014 passed by learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, District Korba (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.76/2013 whereby, the trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him as under:-

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 16.05.2013, complainant Mukesh Kumar Bairagi lodged a missing report of his child Bhupesh alisa appu aged about 6 years along with his description. On the basis of above information, a missing person Case No. 13/13 was registered by the Urga Police station and by registering Rojnamchasanha No. 22, search proceedings were initiated. On 17.05.2013, an unknown person called the minor’s grandfather, Jagdish Das Vaishnav, on his mobile number 9993585275 from mobile number 7805990913 at about 19:00 hours, demanding a ransom of Rs.10,00,000/- for the release of the kidnapped child. Upon obtaining call details, it was revealed that the SIM used for the ransom call had been issued to one Amit on the basis of forged documents, leading to registration of a separate offence under Sections 420 and 467 IPC against shopkeeper Sohan Lal Gupta. As the SIM was subsequently found to be linked to the accused, Urga Police registered FIR No. 72/13 under Sections 363 and 364 IPC. The call details of the said mobile number were collected, and the accused was arrested on 17.05.2013. During interrogation before witnesses, the accused disclosed that, due to financial constraints and with the intention of humiliating the child’s financially well-off family, he kidnapped the child, demanded ransom, strangulated him to death, and concealed the body inside a storeroom. A Panchnama was prepared, the body was recovered, post-mortem was conducted and the body was handed over to the family. A site map, further Panchnamas, and witnesses’ statements were recorded; the mobile phone used in the incident, relevant SIM cards, and another phone recovered from Jagdish were seized. The accused was remanded to judicial custody. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 364-A, 302, and 201 of the IPC before the Judicial Magistrate, who committed the case to the Sessions Court, from where it was transferred to the trial Court for trial. The learned trial Court thereafter framed charges under Sections 363, 364-A, 302 and 201 of the IPC against the appellant, to which the appellant abjured his guilt and sought trial.

3. To establish the guilt of the accused/appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses. The statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence and pleaded innocence and false implication. In defence, he examined one witness namely Shashikant Vaishnav as D.W.-1.

4. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned trial Court, by its judgment dated 26.12.2014, found the evidence adduced by the prosecution to be trustworthy and accordingly convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court is illegal, arbitrary and based