The prosecution must establish all allegations beyond reasonable doubt, and circumstantial evidence should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt, of a conclusive nature, and exclude every possible hypothesis except guilt.

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

1. The appellant challenges a judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 13.04.2011 in SC No.1078/2009 by which he was convicted for committing offences punishable under Sections 363/302/364A IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. He was also sentenced to pay fine. The hearing of this appeal was expedited, since the convict/appellant has been in custody for over 7 years and 4 months.

2. The prosecution case is that on 18th January 2005, one Jitender Pal went to the Police Post, Khayala and recorded that his nephew Deepak @ Noni went missing. The next day i.e. 19th January, 2005, the boy’s father Anil Kumar (who also deposed as PW-1) went to the Police Station Tilak Nagar and recorded his statement. In that statement he told the police that on 18.01.2005, his 10 year old son, Deepak left home to purchase sugar and had not returned thereafter. The case was accordingly registered; the offence alleged in the FIR was under Section 363 IPC. After the registration of the FIR, the police went to Anil Kumar’s house and recorded the statements of various people. It was alleged that the present appellant, Arvind Kumar and another individual, co-accused Rajesh, who were tenants of Anil Kumar, were not present and their room was locked. In the morning of 21st January, 2005, the body of the child was found near House No. 221/175; it was wrapped in a bed-sheet and tied with insulated wire. After the body was cremated and PW-1, the complainant returned home, he came across a ransom note near the electric meter. In this note, a demand for Rs. 2 lakh had been made. It is alleged that on 21.01.2005, pursuant to secret information, Arvind Kumar and co-accused Rajesh were apprehended near a hospital at Khayala. They were arrested. The prosecution alleged that the arrest of Arvind Kumar led to his disclosure statement being recorded; he led them to the room of co-accused Amit Kumar (Proclaimed Offender), i.e. House No. S-221/175, Gali no.4, Vishnu Garden where he pointed to the cutting plier with which he had cut the electric wire used to tie the body of Deepak after wrapping him in a bed sheet. It was also alleged that other articles, such as plastic can containing some kerosene oil, an exercise book or copy from which he had torn a page used to write the ransom note and one stone with which he had delivered a blow on Deepak’s head, were seized. They were taken into custody by the police.

3. After the completion of investigation, a chargesheet was prepared and filed in Court. The accused were charged with committing the offence. The co-accused, Amit could not be apprehended and he was declared a P.O. by an order 10.09.2005. The co-accused Rajesh died on 20.03.2005; he committed suicide while in Judicial Custody. The present appellant denied his guilt and claimed trial. During the proceedings before the Trial Court, the prosecution relied on the testimonies of 28 witnesses. It also placed on record documentary evidence in the form of exhibits, Postmortem Report, Forensic Science Laboratory Reports etc.

4. After consideration of these and after considering all the submissions made on behalf of the parties, the Trial Court delivered the impugned judgment and convicted the appellant. He has, therefore, appealed against that judgment.

5. The Trial Court held that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court held that the testimony of eye witnesses had proved the “last seen circumstance” and that the ransom note had been made by the Appellant. It was also held that the tenancy of the premises where the kidnapped boy was murdered had been proved and that the stone used to kill him, and the cable used to tie the body were seized and linked with the accused. All the circumstances alleged were proved conclusively; also each link forming the chain was equally proved and all the evidence irresistibly pointed to the accused’s guilt.

6. Counsel for the appellant argued that t