IMPORTANT POINT
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases.

JUDGMENT :

Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.

1. By way of this criminal appeal (from Jail), the accused-appellants laid a challenge to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.03.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Bhilwara, (‘Trial Court’) in Session Case No. 08/2014 (State of Rajasthan vs. Akash alias Jagdish & Anr.), whereby the accused-appellants were convicted and sentenced as below:

2. Brief facts of this case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the accused-appellants, are that Dinesh (PW-5) submitted a written report (Ex. P-13) dated 12.11.2013 at around 8:15 PM before the Police Station, City Kotwali, Bhilwara to the effect that on 12.11.2013 at around 7:41 PM, a call was received by his wife Indra (PW-7) on her mobile phone, from an unknown person, whereby she was informed that her son Hitesh alias Bittu, aged 13 years, is in their custody and that, a ransom of Rs.10 Lacs was demanded so as to enable release of the minor child; however, the said unknown person threatened that in case of failure in fulfilment of the said demand, the minor child would be killed. The said call was heard by PW-9 Vimla Suthar (sister of the complainant), who was also present there at the relevant time and who identified the voice of the unknown person to be that of accused-Ravi, and later the complainant informed about the same to his friends, upon which the complainant alongwith his friends started searching for his son, who was until then not found.

2.1. Upon inquiry, it was informed that Hitesh alias Bittu, was a student of 8th Standard in Mahesh Siksha Sadan, who left at around 6-6:15 PM for his friend’s place from his house, and that he was wearing a yellow coloured T-shirt, a blue coloured lower and slippers; he had a wheatish complexion and was about 4 feet tall, and that did not return home, and was last seen with Ravi Soni while leaving.

2.2. On the basis of the aforementioned report, a case was registered under Sections 365 & 384 IPC, and the investigation commenced accordingly. Thereafter, the accused-appellants were arrested, and on the basis of the information of the accused-appellants, a dead body (unidentified) was recovered from the railway track, which was identified to be that of the complainant’s minor son Hitesh.

2.3. After completion of the investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet before the concerned Magistrate against the accused-appellants under Sections 364A, 365, 342, 384, 302 & 120-B IPC, whereupon, the concerned Magistrate took cognizance against the accused-appellants; owing to the nature of crime involved, the matter was committed to the learned Sessions Judge, from where the matter was forwarded to the learned Trial Court for conducting the trial.

2.4. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court framed charges against the accused-appellants under Sections 342, 364A, 365 read with Sections 120B, 384 & 302 IPC; the same upon being read over to the accused-appellants, were denied by them and they claimed trial, and the trial accordingly commenced.

2.5. During the trial, the prosecution produced 26 witnesses and exhibited documents (Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-84) for examination. The accused-appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein while pleading not guilty, the accused-appellants stated that they had been falsely implicated in this case.

2.6. Thereafter, upon hearing the contentions of both the parties as well as considering the material and evidence placed on re