Sanjiv Khanna, J.

1. We are inclined to grant leave to appeal against Arvind Kumar Jaiswal @ Thakur. However, we are not inclined to grant leave to appeal against Pramod Kumar and Sohan Singh for the reasons set out below.

2. Against Arvind Kumar Jaiswal, the prosecution version relies upon:-

(i) Statements of Mohd. Salim (PW1), Vijay Kumar (PW2), father and Sheela (PW19), mother of the deceased Ritik, to the effect that respondent Arvind Jaiswal was their tenant for about two years.

(ii) Vijay Kumar (PW2) and Sheela (PW19) had recognized voice of Arvind Kumar on the ransom calls made on telephone. These calls were made on 4th February, 2006 at 10 AM onwards.

(iii) Arvind was arrested as per arrest memo (Ex.PW2/F) on 4th February, 2006 at 2.00 PM from ISBT, Anand Vihar. Thereupon, he made disclosure statement (Ex.PW12/A).

(iv) As per deposition of Vijay Kumar (PW2), Subhash Chand (PW5), Ct. Ashok (PW12), ASI Kuldeep Singh (PW13), ASI Raj Bahadur (PW14), SI Raghubir Singh (PW23) and ACP Rajender Singh (PW24) dead body of Ritik, son of Vijay Kumar (PW2) aged about 3 years was recovered from a gutter in DTC Colony, Hari Nagar, in a gunny bag and seized vide seizure memo, Ex