JUDGMENT

V.K. Bist, J.

This appeal is preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.12.2017 passed by learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial No.17 of 2015 State vs. Mukesh Nautiyal and others whereby accused/appellant Mukesh has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and Section 201 IPC read with Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC). Appellant has been sentenced by the Session Judge for life and has been directed to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, appellant has been directed to undergo six months additional imprisonment. He has further been convicted under Section 201 IPC read with Section 120(B) I.P.C. and directed to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and is directed to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he has been further directed to undergo additional imprisonment for a period of three months. It is directed that both the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. We heard Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sahilendra Nauriyal, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Amit Bhatt, Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand.

3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 05.07.2015, one Tota Lal lodged First Information Report in Thana Dharasu, District Uttarkashi stating therein that on 05.07.2015 at about 05:30 p.m. his son Pradeep Bharti, with his few friends, went out for a walk but his son did not return. He searched his son at different places but could not find him. On enquiry, he came to know that his son had some quarrel in the hotel of one Manveer Singh Negi at Nalupani. Thereafter the boys, who accompanied with his son, came back to their home but his son did not come back. His motor cycle no.9290 is standing on road at Nalupani. He apprehended that his son was abducted.

4. The matter was investigated and charge sheet was filed against the accused/appellant-Mukesh, Servesh and Neeraj. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Uttarkashi on receipt of the charge sheet, after giving necessary copies to the accused as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial. The learned Session Judge framed charges against accused/appellant-Mukesh, Servesh Nautiyal and Neeraj Nautiyal. Accused/appellant as well as other accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this prosecution got examined as many as 12 witness. P.W.1 Tota Ram (father of the deceased), P.W.2 Kuldeep, P.W.3 Suman Singh (friend of deceased), P.W.4. Dr. Sovendra Singh Rana (who conducted the medical examination of deceased), P.W.5. Constable Mohan Singh, P.W.6 Pooran Lal (uncle of the deceased), P.W.7, Vipin Gaurav Negi (owner of hotel Gyandeep), P.W.8 Constable Subodh Chandra, P.W.9 Rajpal Singh alias Rajji, P.W.10 Chandra Mohan Kala, P.W.11 Constable Deepak Singh Rawat, P.W.12 S.I. Varu Singh Chauhan. Oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in reply to which he alleged that the evidence adduced against him is false. After hearing the parties, the trial court found accused/appellant guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and Section 201 read with 120(B) IPC and convicted him accordingly. However, other accused namely, Sarvesh Nautiyal and Neeraj Nautiyal were given benefit of doubt and were acquitted. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 21.12.2017, passed by the Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi in Sessions Trial No.17 of 2015, this appeal is preferred by the convict appellant.

5. P.W.1 Tota Lal, complainant/father of Pradeep (deceased) in his statement before the Court stated that on 05.07.2015 at 05:30 p.m. his son went out of house but he did not come back. He thought that he had gone to Uttarakashi. When, on 06.07.2015, he went to Uttarkashi for attending his duty, he did not find his son in his room. He also enquired from the mate