M. CHOCKALINGAM, J.

1. The Sessions Division, Mahila Court, Cuddalore, has sought for confirmation of the sentence of death penalty imposed in S.C.No.23 of 2010 whereby the appellant/A-1 who stood charged and on trial, found guilty under Sections 364(A), 302 and 201 of IPC and awarded death penalty along with a fine of Rs.1000/- each on the first two charges and also 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1000/- on the third charge, in the referred trial, while the appellant/A-1 has sought for setting aside the said judgment of conviction and sentence.

2. Thecase of the prosecution can be stated thus:

(a) P.W.1 is the mother of the deceased child Suresh, aged 7. She was living in Karkudal Village within the jurisdiction of the respondent police. Her husband was in the foreign parts. The child was doing his II Standard at Sakthi Matricualtion School at Vridhachalam. The child used to leave for school every morning at about 8.00 A.M. and come back in the afternoon at about 4.30 P.M. On the date of occurrence that was on 27.7.2009, as usual the child returned from the school by a van which was meant for the purpose of the students, and got down at Karkudal along with P.W.2, his colleague by name Kamali, aged 10. When P.W.2 and the deceased child Suresh got down from the van, the appellant/A-1 was waiting nearby along with the motorbike, came near the child, called him by name and informed the child that both her mother and grandmother were not doing well and so that, he wanted to take the child. With that false reason, he took the child from that place. This was witnessed not only by P.W.2, but also by P.W.3, a Villager of the place, who was actually coming on his way.

(b) Since the child did not come back, P.W.1 made a search along with others. She also enquired P.W.2. P.W.2 furnished the facts that the deceased child Suresh was intercepted by a person, and on the reason that both the mother and grandmother of Suresh were not doing well, he took Suresh in a motorbike. Then P.W.1 went to the respondent police station and gave a complaint to P.W.18, the Sub Inspector of Police, who on the strength of Ex.P1, the complaint, given at about 7.00 P.M., registered a case in Crime No.106/2009 under Sec.366 of IPC. The printed FIR, Ex.P14, was despatched to the Court. He took up investigation, proceeded to the spot and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P2, and also a rough sketch, Ex.P15. Then he examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.

(c) At about 9.22 P.M., a call was received by P.W.8 in her cellphone No.9943020435 from a person calling himself as Shankar, and it was made to know the cellphone number of P.W.1. Again a call was made by him to P.W.8 at about 9.25 P.M. and P.W.8 furnished the cellphone number of P.W.1. After the cell number was furnished, within a short span of five minutes at about 9.39 P.M., a phone call was made to the cellphone of P.W.1 by the appellant/A-1, who demanded a ransom of Rs.5 lakhs in order to release the child. Immediately, P.W.1 rushed to the respondent police station and gave that information to the Station House Officer who was on duty at that time, and the Investigation was taken up by P.W.19, the Inspector of Police. He arrested both A-1 and A-2 on 30.7.2009, and along with P.W.13, the Village Administrative Officer, he proceeded to the house of P.W.7, where during the relevant time, A-1 and A-2 were staying. P.W.7 identified A-1 and A-2. In the presence of P.W.13, the confessional statement given by A-1 voluntarily, was recorded. The admissible part of the said confessional statement is marked as Ex.P9, pursuant to which A-1 first produced three cell phones, one with SIM card and the other two without SIM card and also M.O.5, motorcycle, which were all recovered under a cover of Ex.P10 mahazar.

(d) A-1/appellant took the police party to Meerankulam within which the dead body of the child was thrown after the commission of Murder. Then the fire squad was inf