JUDGMENT

Vani, J. -- 1. This judgment shall govern the disposal of all the three appeals.

2. These appeals have been preferred by the appellants against the judgment dated 24.9.2013 passed by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior (M.P.) in S.T.No.18/2012, whereby the appellants have been convicted under sections 364-A/34, 302/34 and 201/34 read with section 13 of the MPDVPK Act and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- each under sections 364-A/34 and 302/34 of IPC and 3 years RI with fine of Rs.1,000/- under section 201/34 read with section 13 of the MPDVPK Act with default stipulations.

3. Prosecution case, in brief, is that deceased Rohit was the son of Dharmendra Singh (PW-1) and was residing at Shatabdipuram, Gwalior along with his parents. On 19.3.2012 at about 6 pm he was playing in the park and thereafter he went missing and could not be traced. On 20.3.2012 at police Station Maharajpura his missing person report was recorded. On 27.3.2012 on the mobile number of father of the deceased 9893139206 one call was received from mobile number 07566602381 and the caller said that Rohit is in his possession and demanded Rs.20,00,000/- in lieu of his release. On 30.3.2012 also father of the deceased received the ransom call. During investigation, police arrested accused Devendra on 1.4.2012 and recorded his memorandum statement under section 27 of the Evidence Act in which he disclosed that he along with his son Dinesh and Pankaj Sharma and Rahul after abduction of Rohit committed his murder and buried his body in the forest of Raun. At his instance, on 1.4.2012 from the rugged in between Mangarh Mehra Khurd 32 pieces of bones, hair, torn pant, shirt, undergarment, towel, shoe, blood stained soil were seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/19. The father of the deceased identified the pant & shirt of the deceased. Remaining accused persons were arrested and vide seizure memo Ex.P/8, Ex.P/10 and Ex.P/12 mobile has been seized from their possession. Blade of iron by which deceased Rohit was killed was seized vide Ex.P/17 from accused Devendra.

4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed. Charges were framed against the accused persons, which they denied pleading false implication and claimed for trial.

5. In order to prove the charges, prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses and placed 42 documents on record. The accused persons in their defence chose not to examine any witness.

6. The learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence available on record, convicted and sentenced the present appellants, as mentioned above by the impugned judgment.

7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence on record in correct perspective. The case is based on circumstantial evidence and the chain of circumstances must be connected with each other unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused, however, the prosecution has failed to connect the chain of circumstances. The mobile phones were recovered from some shop, but name of that shop has not been disclosed. There was an inordinate delay in the conduction of identification parade and Gaurishankar (PW-9), who was the witness of the test identification parade, is a police personnel and he had an opportunity to see the accused persons before such parade as the accused persons were not kept under cover before conduction of TIP and by their photographs affixed on remand form. Photographs of accused persons are also affixed on the counter copy thereof annexed with the case diary. The bones, other body parts and clothes of the deceased were scattered in an area of around 100 Gaj, hence, the place of such seizure cannot be said to be within the exclusive knowledge of the accused. The learned trial Court has erred in convicting the appellants. Therefore, prayed for allowing the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

8. Learned counsel for t