B.N. Chaturvedi, J.

1. Tried on charges under Sections 302/34 IPC and 386/511/34 IPC in Sessions case No. 62/2002 arising out of an FIR No. 168/2001 under Sections 364A/302/34 IPC read with Section 120B IPC, PS Kapashera, the appellants stand convicted thereforee by a judgment dated 16.8.2003 of Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi and sentenced to (i) imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine SI for one month under Sections 302/34 IPC and (ii) RI for three years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, SI for three months under Section 386 read with Sections 511/34 IPC.

2. The sentences of imprisonment are to run concurrently.

3. The appellants are in appeal against the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi.

4. The appellants faced trial on the allegations that they committed murder of a 12 year old child and tried to extort Rs. 3 lacs from the father of the child by making a phone call for his safe release. The facts of the case reveal that on 6th of October, 2001 at about 2.00 p.m., Deepak, deceased, left his house telling his mother that he was going to the house of appellant Vijay Kumar to collect payment of Rs. 1,100/-, which he owed to them. He did not return. His parents made an unsuccessful search for him. Around 9.45 p.m. a phone call meant for Devinder Choudhary, father of the child, was received at a nearby provision shop. On Devinder Choudhary attending the phone call, he was asked to arrange for payment of Rs. 3 lacs by Monday in lieu of release of his son. On such a phone call being received, Realizing that his son had actually been kidnapped, Devinder Choudhary went to the Police Station Kapashera at about 10.30 p.m. to lodge a complaint for kidnapping of his child and, accordingly, an FIR under Section 364A IPC was initially registered.

5. On the intervening night of 6/7 of October, 2001, all the three appellants were apprehended together and subjected to interrogation by the police. Each one of them made a disclosure that the dead body of the missing child stuffed in a gunny bag was being kept by them in their room. The appellants led the police to their room No. 11 of House No. 629, Kapashera and got the dead body of Deepak, kept in a gunny bag under a table, recovered.

6. In the absence of direct evidence for commission of murder, the prosecution based its case on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances that were held by the learned trial court firmly established find mention in para 4 of the impugned judgment. On examining the evidence on record, the learned trial court found that the circumstances taken together formed a chain so complete that there was no escape from the conclusion within all human probability that the crime was committed by the appellants and none else. It found that the circumstances proved were incapable of Explanationn on any reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt against the appellants.

7. A common argument raised on behalf of the appellants against their impugned conviction and sentence was that the room from which recovery of dead body of Deepak was effected was actually not in their occupation and thereforee, recovery of the dead body of Deepak from room No. 11 of House No. 629, Kapashera could not have been an incriminating circumstance to find them guilty of the murder in question. It was further contended that the recovery of the dead body of Deepak from the said room could not be held to have been effected pursuant to alleged disclosures by them as a joint disclosure would not be admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. On behalf of appellants Arvind Kumar and Udaiveer Singh, it was contended that there is no evidence to establish that they were present at the scene of crime at the time when Deepak, deceased, had come to room No. 11 of House No. 629, Kapashera and was done to death. Further argument on their behalf was that n