1. The appellant in the instant case, assails his conviction for commission of offences under Section 364/302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by the judgment dated 8th February, 2008 and the order of sentence dated 12th February, 2008 whereby he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and imposition of fine of Rs.10,000/- for commission of the offence under Section 364 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. For commission of the offence under Section 302 IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.10,000/- was imposed upon him. Again for default of payment of fine, it has been directed that he shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the benefit of Section 428 of the Cr.P.C. has been granted to the appellant.

2. The case of the prosecution is in a narrow compass and is briefly encapsulated hereafter. It is the case of the prosecution that on 25th December, 2005, Mohd Abdul Qadir, a six years old was playing outside his house no.502, Gali No.6, Ram Ghat, Wazirabad, Timarpur, Delhi. His sister-in-law Smt. Rabia Khatoon (PW 4) called him into the house at about 4.00 p.m. to which Mohd Abdul Qadir responded that he would come within half an hour but after about 5.00 p.m., she found him missing. PW 4 - Smt. Rabia Khatoon searched for him in vain. She called out for him after coming outside the gate and after expiry of half an hour she made inquiries in the neighbourhood when she was told that Mohd Abdul Qadir who was playing, had vanished. PW 4 informed her father-in-law Mohd Hamid (father of Mohd Abdul Qadir) when he returned to the house.

3. The police intervention in the matter commenced with the report Exh.PW1/A attributed to Mohd Hamid, father of the deceased which is a reproduction of his afore-noticed deposition. The endorsement by the police thereon (Exh.PW13/A) has been made at 9.35 p.m. on the night of 26th December, 2005.

4. Upon this information, the Police Station, Timar Pur registered FIR No.690/2005 under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code on 26th December, 2005 at 09.35 P.M.

5. It is in evidence that a total of nine persons of the family of Abdul Qadir were residing in the single room tenement. PW 4 has also given the names of their neighbours as Sajid and Wajid and further stated that her father-in-law Mohd Hamid had returned at about 8.00 p.m. on the fateful night.

6. It is further the case of the prosecution that PW 13 - ASI Virender Singh, and PW 18 - Constable Om Prakash made efforts to trace out the child. In view of the information received from Mohd Mushtaqeen, the police made efforts to locate the appellant.

7. Mr. Sumeet Verma, learned counsel for the appellant has taken us carefully through the record. Mohd Hamid, father of the deceased child, has appeared in the witness box as PW 1 and corroborated PW 4 on these aspects. PW 1 was running a barber shop in the Cycle Market, Chandni Chowk, Delhi and stated that he had lodged a missing report regarding his son on the 26th December, 2005 after frantically searching for him. PW 1 has deposed that Mohd Mushtaqeen, a neighbour as well as his employee, informed him that he had seen Riaz, a carpenter (the appellant herein) “taking away my child”. PW 1 affirmed that he knew the appellant-Riaz who was a visitor to his house. Efforts to trace out the appellant were not successful.

8. Mr. Sumeet Verma, learned counsel for the appellant has contended at some length that there are material contradictions in the testimonies rendering the evidence unworthy of credence. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to notice the deposition of the witnesses. The evidence led by the prosecution on the circumstances leading to the arrest of the appellant are firstly considered.

9. PW 18 - Ct. Om Prakash has deposed that information was received from Mushtaqeen by PW 13