JUDGMENT

BISWAJIT MOHANTY, J. - The present Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Koraput at Jeypore in Criminal Trial No. 416 of 2004 convicting the appellant under Sections-364A/302/201, I.P.C. Vide the impugned judgment, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in default, further to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years under Section -302, I.P.C. No. separate sentence has been awarded for the offences under Sections- 364 A & 201, I.P.C.

2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 19.5.2004, P.W. 4, who happens to be the mother of the deceased, received a phone call at 9.30 A.M. to send someone to collect rice sample from the shop of P.W. 5. Accordingly, she sent her deceased son to the shop of P.W. 5 and the deceased, who is aged about 14 years, went to the shop of P.W.5 by his bicycle. When the deceased son did not return, P.W.4 rang to the shop of P.W. 5, who denied to have called over phone. Accordingly, P.W. 4 asked him to send her son back. At 12.00 Noon, another call was received by father of the deceased, namely, P.W. 6 and the caller disclosed himself to be one Mishra calling from Pottangi and demanded ransom of Rs. 5,00,000/- for release of the deceased son, otherwise he (deceased son) would be murdered. The caller instructed P.W. 6 to pay the aforesaid money to him in Semiliguda Engineering College premises. P.W.6 became extremely alarmed and started searching for his deceased son along with P.Ws. 1, 2 & 3. They went to the telephone exchange to ascertain the telephone number from which calls came to his residence. On enquiry, he came to know that the phone call came from Lucky Pay Phone Booth of Russian Market, Sunabeda. Accordingly, he went to the said telephone booth. There , one Prasanta Maharana (not examined), the owner of the telephone booth told him that the appellant booked a telephone call to his residence in the morning regarding the rice sample. On 20.05.2004, P.W.6 reported the fact before Sunabeda Police Station vide F.I.R. under Ext. 8. Accordingly, P.W. 11 (Investigating officer) registered a case, took up investigation and took the appellant into custody. While in custody, the statement of the appellant was recorded vide Ext. 1 as per which he confessed to have conspired with late accused Simanchal Naik and accused Chandrasen Takri to kidnap the deceased for ransom. In the statement, the appellant gave out details of the plan and how the deceased was killed. Pursuant to the statement of disclosure, the appellant led P.W. 11 accompanied by P.Ws. 1, 2 3 & 6 and gave recovery of the dead body, the stone over dead body, wearing apparels of the deceased, a plastic rope (M.O. VIII) and a Hercules Bicycle. In course of investigation, seizures were made, inquest report was prepared, post mortem examination was held and witnesses were examined. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. During course of trial, accused Simanchal Naik died and accordingly, the learned Sessions Judge on 31.8.2006, ordered that the case of the accused Simanchal Naik stood abated.

3. The prosecution in order to bring home charges, examined 12 witnesses including the Doctor, two I.Os. and exhibited 21 documents. From the side of the defence/appellant, none was examined.

4. P.W.6, who is the informant, is the father of the deceased, P.W. 4 is the mother of the deceased. P.Ws. 1 to 3 are co-employees and neighbours of P.W.6. P.W. 5 is the owner of grocery shop in the Russian market complex. P.W.7 is the telephone booth owner, whose telephone booth was styled as “OMM SHANTI”. P.W. 8 is the Doctor, who conducted autopsy. P.W. 9 is the Junior Telecom Officer, Telephone Exchange, Sunabeda, P.W. 10 is the lady, who was managing a shop on 19.5.2004. P.Ws. 11 and 12 are the Investigating Officers.

5. In the examination under Section 313, Cr.P.C., the appellant answered most of the questions