The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for circumstantial evidence to form a complete chain of evidence, excluding every hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused, as well as the application of the 'last seen theory' and the burden of proof on the prosecution in cases based on circumstantial evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Rajiv Sharma, J.

1. This criminal revision is instituted against the judgment dated 24.3.2017 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2016, upholding the judgment and order dated 22.8.2016 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Amritsar in FIR No. 87 of 13.6.2012.

2. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that complainant Sunil Kumar lodged a report to the effect that on 12.6.2012 at about 11.00 a.m. his elder son Karan @ Sushant aged about 11 years was playing in the street outside his house. He did not come back to his house. His mother Komal thought that he might have gone along with other children to their house. At about 1.45 P.M., the complainant received a call on his mobile phone no. 98550-17279 from mobile no. 81467-26215. The caller told the complainant that his son was in his custody and if he disclosed this fact to the police, he would kill his son Karan and also kill him (complainant). The complainant discussed the matter with his wife and other family members. The complainant did not inform the police. They kept on searching for their son. Later on he along with his wife Komal informed Inspector Manjit Singh. His statement was recorded. IO inspected the spot. On 16.6.2012, Sanjeev Kumar brother of the complainant received a ransom call on his mobile no. 98153-18061 from mobile no. 96466-91879. The caller demanded a sum of ` 1 crore. On 20.6.2012, the police party met Sarwan Singh. He got recorded his statement that he was an agriculturist and while he was going towards his fields, he saw some birds flying over something on the way. On going near that place, he found a dead body of an unidentified person lying there. The body was sent for post-mortem examination. The cause of death was fracture of Hyoid bone and thyroid cartilage, which was found ante-mortem and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. On 21.6.2012, statement of Vijay Kumar was recorded to the effect that on 12.6.2012 at about 9.00 P.M. he was heading towards Chabal Road for some personal work. When he reached near Fatahpur, he saw juvenile Gagandeep Singh @ Joti and Kulwinder Singh @ Kinder going on a motorcycle. He saw a boy sitting in between the two. Vijay Kumar asked Gagandeep Singh and Kulwinder Singh about the boy. They told that he was their son. They told him that he was being taken for treatment as he was suffering from fever. On the next day i.e. on 13.6.2012, he went out of station for personal work. On return, he came to know about the kidnapping. Police recorded the statement of Tarsem Kumar son of Mohan Lal. According to him, he saw a boy being taken away by Prince. They were going towards Khazana Gate. He was sure that Karan had been kidnapped by Prince. Police recorded the statement of Gauri son of Ramesh Kumar to the effect that on 16.6.2012, he saw two clean shaven persons talking on mobile phone and demanding a sum of ` 1 crore. On 21.6.2012, the police arrested accused Harpreet Singh and Sukhchain Singh. On search of accused Harpreet Singh one mobile phone make Samsung was recovered. On search of accused Sukhchain Singh, from the pocket of his shirt, one mobile phone make Samsung dual sim was recovered. Accused Kulwinder Singh was also arrested. Petitioner Gagandeep Singh was also taken into custody. Accused Sarabjit Kaur was also arrested. Inquest papers were prepared. Shirt was also taken into custody. The silver chain was also got recovered by petitioner Gagandeep Singh. The police arrested accused Prince on secret information. Accused Sarabjit Kaur got recovered one chunni. Auto was taken into possession. The cricket bat was recovered at the instance of accused Sukhchain Singh. The motorcycle was also taken into possession. The investigation was completed and challan was put up after completion of all the codal formalities. The petitioner being juvenile was tried by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Amritsar, in