Jasti Chelameswar, J.

1. The sole accused in Sessions Case No. 71(K) of 2000 is found guilty of offence under Section 302and 201 IPC and convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati by judgment dated 14.11.2006. The learned Sessions Judge thought it fit to award capital punishment to the accused obviously for the offence under Section 302 IPC. It is to be mentioned here that the learned Sessions Judge did not record to have awarded any punishment insofar as the charge under Section 201 IPC is concerned, though the accused is also found guilty of the said offence. For the sake of completion of the narration of facts, it is to be mentioned here that though the accused was also charged and tried under Section 377 IPC, the learned Sessions Judge did not record a finding of guilt.

2. In view of the fact that the learned Sessions Judge chose to award the capital punishment, the matter is placed before this Court for confirmation of the punishment as required under Section 366 Cr PC which is numbered as Criminal Death Reference No.4 of 2006. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused also preferred an appeal being Crl. Appeal No. 127(J) of 2006. Both the matters were clubbed together and heard.

3. Facts of the case are as follows:

The unfortunate victim was a boy named Barun Shandillya aged about 10 years. PW-1 is the father of the deceased, who owns a residential house and a commercial complex located in the same piece of land in Guwahati city, both the complex and house being separated only by a distance of 15' ft. The commercial complex is named after the mother of PW-1 as Renuka Commercial Complex. There are 9 (nine) rooms in the ground floor, which were taken on lease by different tenants for running their respective business. Shops were established. Some of them also took some rooms in the first floor of the complex and remaining rooms in the first floor of the complex were taken on lease by others. The accused is also one of the tenants in one of the rooms located in the first floor. It appears from the evidence that the accused was earning his livelihood as an Electrician. He was a tenant of the PW-1 approximately for a period of 4 (four) years and had enough intimacy with the family of the deceased.

4. On 22.01.2000 at about 7.30 AM the deceased got ready to go to school by wearing the school uniform but thereafter he was found missing. As the school time was drawing closer, the PW-1 started searching for the boy around all possible places. As the boy was not found, he made enquiries to his neighbours and close relatives, who live within the vicinity of his house. Unable to trace out, the PW-1 went to the school. On coming to know that the boy did not even reach the school, he returned home. By then the people of the locality came to know about the incident and gathered in the house of PW-1. The accused was also present there. Around 10/10.30AM the PW-1 finally went to Gitanagar Police Station, Guwahati and lodged a report Ext-1 of boy missing. The police initially suspected it to be a case of kidnapping for ransom. Therefore (it appears from the evidence of PW-19, the Investigating Police Officer) the accused was instructed by PW-19 to purchase a caller identification device and fix the same to the telephone of PW-1. While the accused was fixing the Caller Identification Device, PW-1 and PW-19 noticed some injuries on the hands of the accused and on suspicion the accused was taken by PW-19 to Gitanagar Police Station around 12 noon on the same date. Though the evidence is not very clear as to what transpired between 12 noon to 5 30 PM, admittedly around 5.30 PM, PW-19 took the accused to Renuka complex from Gitanagar Police Station. After reaching the complex the accused opened his room, which was by then locked. The PW-19 entered the room and noticed some blood marks on the floor. On search the PW-19 recovered a plastic bundle wrapped by polythene paper. The accused himself opened the bundle expo