JUDGMENT :

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, J.

      These two appeals are directed against the common judgment dated 21.12.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Kota (for short ‘the trial court’) whereby the trail court convicted the accused-appellants for offences under Sections 120-B, 364-A and 302 IPC and sentenced each of them as under:

Section 120-B IPC: Imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default whereof, to further undergo one month’s rigorous imprisonment. Section 364-A IPC: Imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default whereof, to further undergo two months’ rigorous imprisonment.

Section 302 IPC: Imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default whereof, to further undergo three months’ rigorous imprisonment.

Factual matrix of the case is that complainant Subrato Mukherjee (P.W.3) submitted a written report (Exhibit P-9) to S.H.O., Police Station Vigyan Nagar, Kota on 11.03.2005 inter alia alleging therein that his son Abhishek @ Akash aged nine years, who was student of Class III, had gone for playing with his friends at 5.30 P.M. on 10.03.2005 and did not return back. The police, on that basis, registered a missing person report No. 707 and entrusted the investigation to Harji Lal Yadav (P.W.22), Sub Inspector of Police, who after investigation, submitted a written report (Exhibit P-49) stating that his enquiry has revealed that certain unknown persons with intention to extract ransom have abducted Abhishek @ Akash, which attracted offence punishable under Section 364-A IPC. Police Station Vigyan Nagar, Kota therefore lodged regular FIR No. 123/2005 (Exhibit P-50) for the aforesaid offence and commenced investigation. During investigation, dead body of Abhishek @ Akash was recovered at 8.00 P.M. on 14.03.2005. Police, after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet against accused-appellants. Charges were framed against them under Sections 120-B, 364- A and 302 IPC. The accused-appellant denied charges and claimed trial. The prosecution produced 24 witnesses and exhibited 72 documents. Thereafter, the accused-appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they pleaded innocence. Defence produced only one witness and exhibited five documents. The trial court on conclusion of the trial vide impugned judgment and order dated 21.12.2006 convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants in the manner as indicated hereinabove. Hence, these appeals.

We have heard Mr. V.R. Bajwa, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-appellant Sunil Panchal; Mr. Asgar Khan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-appellant Arif Khan; Ms. Sonia Shandilya and Mr. Aladeen Khan, learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. Rinesh Gupta, learned counsel for the complainant.

Mr. V.R. Bajwa, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-appellant Sunil Panchal argued that entire prosecution case hinges on circumstantial evidence, there being no direct evidence against the accused-appellants. Chain of circumstances against accused-appellants is having various missing links and is not so complete as to point to the guilt of the accused-appellants, especially accused-appellant Sunil Panchal alone. Conviction of the accused-appellant has been recorded by the trial court on the ground that the deceased was lastly seen talking to two young men on the evening of 10.03.2005 and he, thereafter, went missing. The prosecution has miserably failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt the identity of those two young men, who were allegedly seen speaking to the boy in the evening of 10.03.2005. Devi Singh (P.W.1), domestic help of Subroto Mukherjee (P.W.3) has stated about the said fact, but no test identification parade was conducted of the accused-appellants at the hands of Devi Singh, so as to ensure that whether he saw the accused-appellants or some other persons talking to the abducted boy. Devi Singh has not identified the accused-appellants in the trial court also. On the contrar