JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Kamal Krishna, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ghanshyam Das, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Vikas Goswami, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 15.5.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Khurja, District Bulandshahr, in Sessions Trial No. 440 of 2016 (State of U.P. vs. Arun Chand), arising out of Case Crime No. 124 of 2016 under Sections 302, 364A, 379, 411 and 201 I.P.C. Police Station Chhattari, District Bulandshahr, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Section 302 I.P.C. with life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in case of default in payment of fine, he has to undergo additional one year imprisonment; under Section 364A I.P.C. he has been convicted and sentenced with life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in case of default in payment of fine, he has to undergo additional one year imprisonment; under Section 379 I.P.C. he has been convicted and sentenced for three years imprisonment; under Section 411 I.P.C. he has been convicted and sentenced for three years imprisonment and under Section 201 I.P.C. he has been convicted and sentenced with seven years imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in case of default in payment of fine, he has to undergo additional six months imprisonment.

3. As per prosecution case, informant, father of the infant victim, aged about four months, alleged that on 16.6.2016, he and his wife had gone to their agricultural field; at about 9:30 a.m., he received an information that appellant-accused who had come to his house on 15.6.2016 had taken the infant and his mobile phone bearing number 976.....602 alongwith him. It was further alleged that his neighbours, Khempal Singh and Umesh Kumar had seen the appellant-accused taking the infant. It was further stated that at about 3:00 p.m., a resident of the village Girish Kumar received a call on his mobile number i.e. 976.....332 from the mobile number of the informant i.e. 976....602 demanding 5 lakhs towards ransom in lieu of the life and safety of the infant. The First Information Report (FIR) came to be lodged at 5:00 p.m. The scribe of the F.I.R. is Shiv Kumar. After investigation, the accused came to be charged under Sections 302, 364A, 379, 411 and 201 I.P.C.

4. The prosecution to prove the charge in all examined 12 witnesses, namely, (PW-1) Reshampal Singh/Informant; (PW-2) Khempal Singh and (PW-3) Umesh Kumar Verma, last seen witnesses (both the witnesses were declared hostile); (PW-4) Azeem, who has assigned the motive; (PW-5) Shivkumar, scribe of the F.I.R. (PW-6) Satyadev, (PW-7) Murarilal, (PW-8) Jitendra Kumar, are witnesses to inquest; (PW-9) Dr. Dinesh Kumar, who conducted autopsy on the body of the infant deceased; (PW-10) Shyampratap Patel, Inspector, who proved recovery of the mobile; (PW-11) Gulab Singh Head Mohrir proved the F.I.R. and other entries in the G.D. and (PW-12) Brajmohan Singh, Sub Inspector who is witness of recovery of the dead body.

5. The following documents were exhibited i.e. Written Report (Exhibit Ka-1), Panchayatnama (Exhibit Ka-2), Post-mortem Report (Exhibit Ka-3), Site Plan of incident (Exhibit Ka-4), Recovery Memo of Nokia Mobile (Exhibit Ka-5), Site Plan (Exhibit Ka-6), Charge-sheet (Exhibit Ka-7), Chik FIR (Exhibit Ka-8), Photocopy of G.D. (Exhibit Ka-9), Letter of C.M.O. (Exhibit Ka-10), Photo Naash (Exhibit Ka-11), Challan Laash (Exhibit Ka-12) and Namuna Mohar (Exhibit Ka-13).

6. The accused on being confronted with the prosecution evidence, in statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the allegations stating that he has been falsely implicated, accordingly, demanded trial. No defence witness was produced.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution failed to prove the chain of events pointing to the guilt of the accused. He further submits that prosecution failed to prove t