Arun B. Saharya, J. ( 1 ) BY this common judgment, we would dispose of the Appeal filed by Lalit Kumaragainst judgment and order dated 31st of August 1994 passed by the Additional Sessionsjudge, Delhi convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for aperiod of four years under Section 365 Indian Penal Code and to death under Section 302 Indian Penal Code andthe above-noted Murder Reference made by the Sessions Court for confirmation ofthe death sentence under Section 302 IPC. ( 2 ) THE charge against Lalit Kumar was that on 17th of January 1992, he kidnappedanil, aged about 9 years, son of Om Parkash, resident of P2-175, Sultanpuri, Delhi;and during the period 17th of January 1992 to 24th of January 1992 committed murderof the child in the forest of Avagarh in Distt. Aita, U. P. ( 3 ) THE prosecution case is that on 17th of January 1992 Om Parkash (PW-10)lodged a report (EX. PW- 1/d) at Police Station Sultanpuri, Delhi, that his son Anilhad gone out to ease himself at about 4 p. m. and was missing. Same day, at about 5,30p. m. , Rajinder Singh (PW-2), Sarvan Kumar and Bir Singh saw Lalit together withanil at the Azadpur bus stand. Thereafter, on 22nd of January 1992, at about 6. 15p. m. , the accused was last seen together with the boy by Pokh Pal (PW-3), Rampal,puran Singh and some others, in Village Bachakar. Later, at about 7. 45 p. m. , whengeetam (PW-4) met him, the accused was alone at Village Nangla Bakhti. The accused had asked at both these places for the way to go to Village Misa Khurd. On23rd of January 1992, early in the morning, abandoned dead body of a child was foundlying in a pit in the forest area between Village Bachakar and Village Nangla Bakhti,within the jurisdiction of P. S. Avagarh, Distt. Aita, U. P. A large number of villagersfrom the neighbouring villages gathered there. Pokh Pal (PW-3), who also reachedthere, recognised the dead body and told those present that on the previous day, aftersunset, he had seen the child along with a man who wanted to go to Village Misakhurd. Manpal singh (PW- 5), a resident of Village Nangia Bakhti, was also therewhen Pokh Pal (PW-3) gave this information. Pokh Pal (PW-3), who also reachedthere, recognised the dead body and told those present that on the previous day, aftersunset, he had seen the child along with a man who wanted to go to Village Misakhurd. Manpal singh (PW- 5), a resident of Village Nangia Bakhti, was also therewhen Pokh Pal (PW-3) gave this information. On his return to Village Nangla Bakhti,in the evening, he met Geetam (PW-4), who told him that only the previous day, latein the evening, he too had met some-one, who had a chat with him about his relativeheera Lal Dhobi and asked him to show the way for going to Village Misa Khurd, Inpursuance of the clues so gathered from Pokh Pal (PW-3) and Geetam (PW-4), on24th of January 1992, Manpal Singh (PW-5) along with 10 to 15 companions from Village Nangla Bakhti, embarked upon search of the suspicious stranger and proceededto the next Village Misa Khurd. There, they located the house of Heera Lal and foundthe accused standing at the gate. On inquiry, a local resident pointed towards him andrevealed that he was the one who had come the night before last very late. Theycaught hold of the accused and brought him back to Village Nangla Bakhti, wheregeetam (PW-4) identified him as the person who met him and talked about going tovillage Misa Khurd. The accused was then conducted to Village Bachakar. Here,pokh Pal (PW-3) and others also identified him and confirmed that he was the onewho was seen together with the deceased child on 22nd of January 1992. Thus confronted, the accused admitted that he had brought the child from Delhi and that. hehad killed the child. Thereafter, he cunningly took to his heels. Finally, he was arrested on 28th of January 1992 at Delhi. ( 4 ) IT would be appropriate to note some of the other facts also at this stage. On23rd of January 1992, the puzzled villagers sent information through Chandrapal top,s. Avagarh that the dead body of a child had been found in the forest. Head Constable Ram Dev Sharma (PW-7) recorded it in the daily diary at 1730 hrs. as Reportno. 26 (Ex. PW-7/a ). Station Officer Jaspal Singh, along with other police personnel,arrived at the spot and drew up the Inquest Report (Ex. Head Constable Ram Dev Sharma (PW-7) recorded it in the daily diary at 1730 hrs. as Reportno. 26 (Ex. PW-7/a ). Station Officer Jaspal Singh, along with other police personnel,arrived at the spot and drew up the Inquest Report (Ex. PW-5/a), which was witnessed, among others, by Manpal Singh (PW-5) and Constable Vimal Kant (PW-8), Itwas recorded that the dead body of an unknown boy, was lying in the desolate jungle,that the death appeared to have occurred in suspicious circumstances but the actualposition was not clear, and that the cause of death could be be ascertained after postmortem. Hence, the dead body was covered,sealed and seat at 2000 hrs, to the mortuary, through Constable Vimal Kant (PW-8) and another Constable Narain Pandey,for post-mortem. ( 5 ) ON 24th of January 1992, Dr. S. S. Gahlot (PW-9) conducted the post-mortemat 2 p. m. at the District Hospital, Aita and submitted his report (Ex. PW-9/a ). Heexternal, the following injuries:- "1. Contusion mark size 3 cm x 2 cm. on the right side of the neck belowthe mandible near the angle. On dissection underlying muscles werehaving blood. 2. Contusion mark 5 cm x 3 cm. on the left side the neck below mandibleabove the level thyroid, on the side of wind pipe. On dissectionunderlying muscles were conjected. 3. Abrasion mark in an area size 6 cm x 4 cm on the right side forehead. 4. Abrasion size 3 cm x 2 cm on the right side head. ( 6 ) ALSO that membrane of brain and walls of the chest pleura both the lungs larynxand trachea, walls of abdomen, peritoneum, lever and gall bladder, pancreas, spleenand kidney all were conjected and that the stomach contained about one ounce of undigested liquid material. The time between death and post-mortem was about twodays. He opined:- "the death was due to asphysixa as a result of A. M. I on account of throttling. " ( 7 ) IN Court, in his cross-examination, Dr. Gahlot (PW-9) explained that generallyin strangulation cases, ligature marks in the shape of contusions are present, the samewere also present in this case and on one side of the neck there were finger contusionsand on the other side the contusions were caused by pressing the thumb. " ( 7 ) IN Court, in his cross-examination, Dr. Gahlot (PW-9) explained that generallyin strangulation cases, ligature marks in the shape of contusions are present, the samewere also present in this case and on one side of the neck there were finger contusionsand on the other side the contusions were caused by pressing the thumb. He justifiedhis opinion that death in this case was caused due to asphyxia because force was applied on the trachea and larynx and the underlying tissues were also having blood. ( 8 ) ON 24th of January 1992 itself, Om Parkash (PW-10), came to know from hisbrother Bir Pal, who had come to Delhi, that dead body of a child had been recoveredin the area of P. S. Avagarh. Immediately, he along with Bir Pal and some others,reached Avagarh and from there they went to dead house Aita. There, Om Parkash (PW-IO) identified the dead body of the child to be that of his missing son Anil. Then,on 25th of January 1992, he submitted a complaint at P. S. Avagarh, narrating the circumstances in which he had reached there and stated, inter alia, that on 17th ofjanuary 1992, he had lodged a missing report about his son Anil at P. S. Sultanpuri,delhi, that on 18th of January 1992, Rajinder Singh (PW-2), Sarvan Kumar andanother had disclosed to him that they had seen Lalit Kumar taking his son at Azadpur bus stand, and that Anil had kidnapped his son from Delhi for ransom and committed the murder. This complaint EX. PW-IO/a was recorded as FIR No. Nil undersection 365/302 Indian Penal Code at P. S. Avagarh and was forwarded through Constable Mahesh Chand to P. S. Sultanpuri, Delhi, where it was received by Head Constable Balwansingh (PW-1) on 25th of January 1992 vide report No. 26-A recorded in daily diary (EX. PW- 1/b ). On receipt of this information, a case under Section 365/302 Indian Penal Code wasregistered in the form of FIR No. 34/92 dated 25th of January 1992 at P. S, Sultanpuri,delhi, which is EX. PW-1/a. ( 9 ) THE case was entrusted for investigation, vide report No. 27-A dated 25th ofjanuary 1992 (EX. PW- 1/c), to S. I. Manohar Singh (PW-12 ). PW-1/a. ( 9 ) THE case was entrusted for investigation, vide report No. 27-A dated 25th ofjanuary 1992 (EX. PW- 1/c), to S. I. Manohar Singh (PW-12 ). He examined the documents received from P. S. Avagarh and immediately recorded statements of some ofthe local witnesses, including Om Parkash (PW-10) and Rajinder Singh (PW-2), undersection 161 Criminal Procedure Code On 27th of January 1992, he proceeded to Avagarh and collectedphotograph of the dead body along with the negatives (Ex. PW-12/a and EX. PW-12/b), recorded statements of the concerned police personnel, went to the placewhere the dead body was found, prepared site plan (Ex. PW-12/c) and also recordedstatements of witnesses Pokh Pal (PW-3), Geetam (PW-4) and Manpal Singh (PW-5 ). On 28th of January 1992, he arrested the accused, on the pointing out of Udey Vir Singh (PW-6) from a park near the Inter-State Bus Terminus at Delhi. Thereafter, on12th of February 1992, Om Parkash (PW-IO) handed over to the Investigating Officeran inland letter Ex. PA demanding from him payment of Rs. 1,70,000. 00 as ransom,which was taken into possession, vide Memo Ex. PW-6/c. ( 10 ) AFTER the prosecution witnesses were examined in Court, the accused in hisstatement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code denied the entire incriminating evidence. Heeven denied that Anil was missing and that his father had made a report on 17th ofjanuary 1992. He pleaded that he was not there at Bachakar, Nangia Bakhti or Misakhurd. He stated that he did not write the letter Ex. PA demanding ransom. He setup the defence that he used to love Sonia, the daughter of Sarvan Kumar; that 0mparkash (PW-10) was having a weakness for the wife of Sarvan Kumar; that Sarvankumar and Om Parkash did not approve of his love affair with Sonia; and that inorder to take revenge, in connivance with Sarvan Kumar, Om Prakash (PW-10) falselyimplicated him in the case. In the end, he stated: "i did not strangulate the deceased. I loved the deceased child most as he was my nephew (bhanja ). This is a false caseagainst me. I am innocent. The witnesses of U. P. have been procured by Om Parkashin connivance with the police". He, however, did not produce any evidence in defence. In the end, he stated: "i did not strangulate the deceased. I loved the deceased child most as he was my nephew (bhanja ). This is a false caseagainst me. I am innocent. The witnesses of U. P. have been procured by Om Parkashin connivance with the police". He, however, did not produce any evidence in defence. ( 11 ) THE trial Court found that prosecution has proved by evidence on record that: (a) the accused was seen together with the deceased boy on 17th of January 1992 atazadpur bus stand and then on 22nd of January 1992 in Village Bachakar and later onthe same day alone at Village Nangia Bakhti; (b) extra-judicial confession was madeby him before the residents of Village Nangla Bakhti and Village Bachakar on 24th ofjanuary 1992; (c) conduct of the accused was unnatural before and after commissionof the murder as he declined the suggestion of Pokh Pal (PW-3) to stay back at Villagebachakar as night had fallen on 22nd of January 1992, and, after admitting his guilt, heran away from Village Bachakar, when he was told that he would be handed over tothe police on 24th of January 1992; and (d) demand for ransom by letter Ex. PA appeared to be the motive. Consequently, the trial Court held the accused guilty of commission of the charged offence under Section 365/302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him toundergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years for the offence under Section 365 Indian Penal Code, and the sentence of death, subject to confirmation by the High Court,under Section 302 Indian Penal Code Death, instead of life sentence, has been recommended forthe reasons that the accused brutally murdered the boy at a place far off from Delhi, inthe jungle, where there was nobody to protect the helpless child; and because the accused used to call the deceased his nephew (bhanja) and yet he betrayed the confidence of the family in kidnapping and brutally killing the child. ( 12 ) COMMISSION of the offence of kidnapping and murder of the minor boy Anil issufficiently proved on record, inter alia, by the missing report EX. PW-1/d, reportex. PW-7/a regarding dead body of the child found lying in the jungle of Village Misakalan registered at police station Avagarh. Inquest Report Ex. PW-5/a, Post-mortemreport Ex. PW-9/a, report of Om Parkash Ex. PW-10/a recorded at P. S. Avagarh,registration of the case Ex. PW-1/d, reportex. PW-7/a regarding dead body of the child found lying in the jungle of Village Misakalan registered at police station Avagarh. Inquest Report Ex. PW-5/a, Post-mortemreport Ex. PW-9/a, report of Om Parkash Ex. PW-10/a recorded at P. S. Avagarh,registration of the case Ex. PW-l/a at P. S. Sultanpuri, Delhi, and by the oral evidenceof Rajinder Kumar (PW-2), Pokh Pal (PW-3), Geetam (PW-4), Manpal Singh (PW-5)and Om Parkash (PW-10 ). It has been conclusively established by the Post-mortemreport Ex. PW-9/a and the evidence of Dr. S. S. Gahlot (PW-9) that death of the childwas caused by throttling. This part of the case is beyond the pale of controversy, andno dispute about it was raised at the time of hearing of the appeal. ( 13 ). The vital questions urged are: whether accused Lalit Kumar is guilty of commission of the crime, and, if so, what is the appropriate punishment. ( 14 ) THERE is no direct evidence to prove that murder of the child was committed bythe accused, in the sense that there is no eye witness of the actual commission of thecrime. But, there is sufficient evidence on record showing movements of the accused,proximate in time and situation, pointing with reasonable definiteness to his culpability. It is truly a case of circumstantial evidence. ( 15 ) THE law applicable to cases of circumstantial evidence is now well settled. For example, see Khashaba Maruti Shelke V. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 2474 ,mohan Lal Pangasa V. The State of U. P. , 1974 Crl. LJ. 800, Sharad Birdhichand Sardav. Stale of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 , Padala Veera Reddy V. State of Andhrapradesh and others, AIR 1990 SC 79 and Balwinder Singh V. State of Punjab, JT 1995 (8) SC 81. The five cardinal principles, described as panchsheel , have been crystalised by the Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra), in the followingterms:- (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawnshould be fully established. The circumstances must or should andnot may be established. (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis ofthe guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainableon any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. The circumstances must or should andnot may be established. (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis ofthe guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainableon any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to beproved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave anyreasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence ofthe accused and must show that in all human probability the act musthave been done by the accused. ( 16 ) THE circumstances from which conclusion of guilt of the accused is sought tobe drawn are enumerated below:- (1) On 17th of January 1992, at about 5. 30 p. m. , Rajinder Singh (PW-2) had seen Lalit and Anil together at Azadpur bus stand in Delhi; (2) On 22nd of January 1992, at about 6. 15 p. m. , the accused was last seen together with the boy Anil at Bachakar, when the accused talked to Pokh Pal (PW-3) and others and asked for the way to go to Misa Khurd; (3) On the same day, i. e" 22nd of January 1992, later, at about 7. 45 p. m. , the accused alone was seen by Geetam (PW-4) halfway at Nangla Bakhti. There too he enquired about the way for going to Misa Khurd; (4) On 23rd of January 1992, dead body of the boy was found lying in the forest area between Bachakar and Nangla Bakhti; Pokh Pal (PW-3) recognised the deceased and told the others present there, including Manpal Singh (PW-5), about what had transpired on the eve at Bachakar; and by the late evening, Manpal Singh (PW-5) and the other residents of Village Nangia Bakhti got from Geetam (PW-4) additional clues indicating that the assailant had moved on to the next Village Misa Khurd. (5) On 24th of January 1992, villagers of Nangla Bakhti, led by Manpal Singh (PW-5),traced out and nabbed the accused at Village Misa Khurd; trekked him back to Nangla Bakhti and then to Bachakar, where Geetam (PW-4) and Pokh Pal (PW-3) respectively identified him as the very same person each of them had met. (5) On 24th of January 1992, villagers of Nangla Bakhti, led by Manpal Singh (PW-5),traced out and nabbed the accused at Village Misa Khurd; trekked him back to Nangla Bakhti and then to Bachakar, where Geetam (PW-4) and Pokh Pal (PW-3) respectively identified him as the very same person each of them had met. (6) The accused confessed to Manpal Singh (PW-5) (extra-judicial confession) that he had brought the child from Delhi and killed him. Thereafter, he took to his heels. (7) The conduct of the accused, persisting in taking the child into the forest area after sun-set, on the 22nd January, despite Pokh Pal (PW-3) suggesting otherwise; and then, after being fully exposed, absconding from Bachakar on 24th January. (8) On 28th of January 1992, after his unexplained truancy during the intervening period, the accused was arrested from a park near the Inter-State Bus Terminus at Delhi; and (9) Ultimately, letter EX. PA also was received by post demanding from father of the deceased ransom, which confirmed motive for the crime. ( 17 ) THE first circumstance is proved by the evidence of Rajinder Singh (PW-2 ). He deposed that he was previously employed in the factory of Om Parkash (PW-10 ). He knew the accused, who was related to Om Parkash. He too was working in thesame factory, Om Parkash used to bring his son Anil after school hours and the accused used to take him around. The factory of Om Parkash closed down some timebefore Diwali that year and all the employees then shifted to the factory of Vijaykumar. On 17th of January 1992; after finishing work, he, Bir Singh and Sarvankumar were going to Jahangirpuri, when they saw the accused together with Anil atthe Azadpur bus stand in Delhi. Next day, they told Om Parkash, when he came totheir factory and talked about his missing son, that they had seen Anil with the accused. In cross-examination, a futile bid was made to discredit his testimony by a faintsuggestion that he was related to Om Parkash. He denied the suggestion and maintained that he knew Om Parkash as he was previously employed in his factory. Eventhat relationship was no longer subsisting as he was in the employment of Vijay Kumarat the relevant time. Undoubtedly, he knew the accused as well as the deceased child. He denied the suggestion and maintained that he knew Om Parkash as he was previously employed in his factory. Eventhat relationship was no longer subsisting as he was in the employment of Vijay Kumarat the relevant time. Undoubtedly, he knew the accused as well as the deceased child. He withstood thorough cross-examination on the pertinent aspect of seeing the accused and Anil together. He firmly maintained that on 17th of January 1992 he left thefactory aftercompleting his duty and reached Azadpur at about 5. 30 p. m. He explained that he was sitting in a bus at a distance of two furlongs from the Azadpur busstand at the time when he saw the two of them together. He even described theclothes that the accused was wearing, namely, a jersey, a pant and shoes without laces. Reliability of this witness was sought to be challenged also on the plea that 0mparkash (PW-10) did not fully corroborate his statement, Om Parkash (PW-10) hadmerely stated, in his examination-in-chief: "in the factory of Vijay Kumar, Sarvankumar, Rajinder Singh (PW-2) and Bir Singh told me that they have seen the accusedlalit Kumar at Azadpur bus stand on 17. 1. 92 when they were going to their housefrom the factory after finishing their duty". No doubt, the pertinent part that the accused Lalit Kumar was seen together with Anil was left out. The advantage of thisomission, however, was frittered away by the suggestion in his cross-examination thatrajinder Singh (PW-2) "falsely named the accused that Lalit was seen by them in thecompany of Anil Kumar the deceased". (Emphasis added ). Of course, the suggestionthat the accused was "falsely named" by Rajinder Singh was denied by Om Prakash. The material fact that Rajinder Singh did tell Om Parkash that he and the others hadseen the accused in the company of Anil is very much there in the form of the suggestion, and it is clear that what Om Parkash (PW-10) denied was that he had "falselynamed the accused". Thus, there is no inconsistency in the statement of Rajindersingh (PW-2) and Om Parkash (PW-10) on this aspect and the first circumstance hasbeen established. Thus, there is no inconsistency in the statement of Rajindersingh (PW-2) and Om Parkash (PW-10) on this aspect and the first circumstance hasbeen established. ( 18 ) IN order to properly appreciate evidence of the various witnesses on theremaining circumstances, relating the chain of events that took place immediatelybefore and after the murder in the neighbouring Villages of Bachakar, Nangla Bakhti,misa Khurd and the forest area, all within the jurisdiction of P. S. Avagarh, let us advert to the site plan Ext. PW-12/c. THE site plan Ex. PW-12/c (Trial Court record pages 173 and 174) depicts theavagarh-Jalesar- Sikandara road, laid up from South to the North, on the left handside. Branching off, to the right side, from the said Avagarh-Jalesar Road is shown theentire area of operation, namely. Village Bachakar, the forest (where the dead bodywas found), Village Nangla Bakhti and Village Misa Khurd, connected by an unmetalled pathway (Kacha Rasta) running through each of the said places in the North-East direction. Off the main road on the right hand side, on the Kacha Rasta islocated Village Bachakar. Beyond this point, the pathway turns further North Eastwards. It crosses over a gutter and passes through desolate portion of the forestarea on both sides. Farther on, a narrow path branches off towards the East and leadsto nearby Village Misa Kalan, and the main pathway passes through Village Nanglabakhti and leads onwards to Village Misa Khurd. Six legend notes indicate relativedistance of some of the relevant places marked A, B, C, D and E on the site plan. Mark a depicts the place beyond the gutter, Mark b the pit, two meters North ofthe gutter-dike, and a little distance away towards the East of the Kacha Rasta in theforest area. In between a and b , a pair of shoes was found. Mark c is the placein Village Bachakar, where Ram Pal, Puran Singh and Pokh Pal (PW-3) were sittingwhen the accused talked to them. The distance between place c (Village Bachakar)and place a (where the dead body was found) is stated to be approximately onekilometer and a half. The place marked d indicates Village Nangia Bakhti, wherethe accused is stated to have reached alone and talked to Geetam (PW-4) about hisrelative s house and asked the way for going to Village Misa Khurd. This place also isindicated to be approximately one kilometer and a half away from the place of occurrence. The place marked d indicates Village Nangia Bakhti, wherethe accused is stated to have reached alone and talked to Geetam (PW-4) about hisrelative s house and asked the way for going to Village Misa Khurd. This place also isindicated to be approximately one kilometer and a half away from the place of occurrence. Mark e , at the farthest end of the Kacha Rasta in the North- East, indicatesvillage Misa Khurd. Thus, it appears that walking from the Avagarh-Jalesar Road onthe Kacha Rasta, one would first pass through Village Bachakar (Mark C), then onekilometer and a half upwards, just across the gutter and a little distance away from thekacha Rasta, the place (Mark A) and the water pit (Mark B) where the dead body ofthe child was found abandoned inside the forest area. From that spot, back again onthe Kacha Rasta, at a distance of another one kilometer and a half, one would reachvillage Nangla Bakhti (Mark D), and then finally arrive at Village Misa Khurd (Mark E ). INSPECTOR Manohar Singh (PW-12) testified that he had prepared site plan EX. PW-12/c and all the Foot Notes in his hand, that the same were correct, and that he hadprepared the site plan on Manpal Singh (PW- 5) pointing out the various places. Heexplained in his cross-examination also that it would take approximately 15 minutesfor one to walk from Village Bachakar to the place of occurrence, where the deadbody was found. Here, we may set out the explanation given by him in his own words. This is what he said: "to reach from point C to A one will hardly take 15 minutes whilewalking on foot". ( 19 ) NOW, on the basis of the relative position and location of the various placesclearly depicted on the site plan Ex. PW-12/c and explained by Inspector Manoharsingh (PW-12), we may take up for discussion the evidence of Pokh Pal (PW-3),geetam (PW-4) and Manpal Singh (PW-5) in relation to the remaining circumstances. ( 20 ) WITH regard to the second circumstance, Pokh Pal (PW-3), a resident of Village Bachakar, has deposed in the following terms:- (LN Examination-in-Chief) "it was three or four days prior to 26th of January, I do not know the year asi am illiterate. In the evening at about 6. 15 P. M. I along with Ram Pal,puran Singh etc. were sitting at Jalesar, Avagarh Road which is a kacharoad. In the evening at about 6. 15 P. M. I along with Ram Pal,puran Singh etc. were sitting at Jalesar, Avagarh Road which is a kacharoad. We were sitting by the side of burning fire due to winter. Accusedcame from the side of Jalesar along with a child aged about 8/10 years. Accd. asked the way for going to Misakhurd Village. I asked the accusedthat night has fallen and he should stay there, but the accused stated that hewill go and not stay there. I told him the way and the accused went awaywith that child, whose hand the accd. was holding. " (In Cross-examination) "my eye sight is not weak. There is fixed time of working in the fields. I amilliterate. As such I have no knowledge of hours and minutes, as such I cannot say for how long I was sitting by the side of fire. I started sitting with thefire when the sunset and I felt cold. I cannot tell lime in hours for how longi remained sitting by the side of fire. I lit the fire. I do not remember thenames of other persons sitting with me except Ram Pal and Puran Singh. Itis correct that several persons were sitting there. Their number may be10/12. I told the police of Delhi that 10/12 persons were sitting by the sideof the fire along with me. I do not remember for how long Ram Pal andpuran Singh remained sitting with me prior to the time of the incident andthereafter, there was no electricity light at that place. The light was fromthe fire. Houses were just nearby, may be at a distance of about 10/15 feet. That house was mine. It is correct I was warming myself with the fire justnearer to my house, which was in front of my house. At that lime it had notgrown much dark. However, the night started falling. There is noelectricity in my village. I cannot tell of what colour was of the accused sclothes. I did not notice what was the shape of the shoes of the accused, Ionly saw him by face. I never saw them before 22. 1. 92 and saw him for thefirst time on this date when he asked me the way to Village Misakhurd. Theaccused did not stay with me at the place where I was warming with the fire. The accd. I never saw them before 22. 1. 92 and saw him for thefirst time on this date when he asked me the way to Village Misakhurd. Theaccused did not stay with me at the place where I was warming with the fire. The accd. stayed just like a twinkling and after asking the way to Villagemisakhurd he left my company. I do not remember whether anybody elseexcept me talked with the accd. or not. " ( 21 ) NEXT, about the third circumstance Geetam (PW-4), a resident of Villagenangla Bakhti, has deposed as follows:- ( 22 ) THE fourth circumstance consists of three parts. The first two parts are basedupon the evidence of Pokh Pal (PW-3) and Manpal Singh (PW-5), and the third parton that of Geetam (PW-4) and Manpal Singh (PW-5 ). The common factor, connecting the three parts, is Manpal Singh (PW-5 ). His deposition read with that of Geetam (PW-4) clearly brings the third part into proper perspective. The statements of thesethree witnesses may now be read in the given sequence. Pokh Pal (PW-3) stated:- ( 23 ) THE fifth circumstance is a combination of three phases of follow-up actiontaken by inhabitants of the adjoining villages of Nangla Bakhti, Misakhurd and a partof it at Bachakar, who collectively and systematically nailed the accused on 24th ofjanuary 1992. The common factor, who took up the initiative to trace out thesuspected assailant and rendered the complete account of the steps taken at all thestages, is again Manpal Singh (PW-5 ). Geetam (PW-4) and Pokh Pal (PW-3) havenarrated the part played by each of them respectively in establishing culpable involvement of the accused. Manpal Singh (PW-5) narrated the events as follows:- ( 24 ) THE sixth circumstance primarily rests on the evidence of Manpal Singh (PW-5 ). After Pokh Pal (PW-3) confirmed that the accused was the person who was seentogether with the deceased child, Manpal Singh (PW-5) demanded his explanation. Then, he made the confession. Manpal Singh (PW-5) narrated the events as follows:- ( 24 ) THE sixth circumstance primarily rests on the evidence of Manpal Singh (PW-5 ). After Pokh Pal (PW-3) confirmed that the accused was the person who was seentogether with the deceased child, Manpal Singh (PW-5) demanded his explanation. Then, he made the confession. The admission of guilt made by the accused and the attending circumstances come out clearly in the statement of Manpal Singh (PW-5) inthe following words:- ( 25 ) FOR the seventh circumstance on the first aspect of the accused insisting upontaking the child into the forest area after sun set inspite of being asked to stay back atbachakar, the later part of the statement of Pokh Pal (PW-3) in his examination-in-chief reproduced in paragraph 20 (supra) may be read. Regarding abscondence of theaccused from Bachakar, reference may be made again to relevant portions of thedeposition of Pokh Pal and Manpal Singh. Pokh Pal (PW- 3) slated:- ( 26 ) CHALLENGE to the evidence on circumstances No. (2) to (7) may be taken uptogether for discussion. The evidence of Pokh Pal (PW-3), Geetam (PW-4) and Manpal Singh (PW-5) is sought to be discarded as wholly unreliable on the ground thatthey are all got-up witnesses. In addition, it has been contended that no relianceshould be placed upon the testimony of Pokh Pal (PW-3) as he was unable to tell thecolour of the clothes and the shape of the shoes worn by the accused, who is stated tohave "stayed just like twinkling" on 22/01/1992; and he did not tell the localpolice on 23/01/1992 that he had seen the deceased child together with anotherperson on the previous day. The evidence of Geetam (PW-4) is sought to be discounted on the plea, that he did not tell the police in his statement under Section 161cr. P. C. that the accused sat and smoked a bidi in the company of his father and madethis spacious improvement in his deposition in court; and that on 22/01/1992there was no occasion for him to tell anybody, including Manpal Singh (PW-5) aboutthe stranger who had asked him the way to Misa Khurd on the previous day. The testimony of Manpal Singh (PW-5) is assailed on five counts. First, that Pokh Pal (PW-3)did not name him as the person to whom he had talked about the accused. The testimony of Manpal Singh (PW-5) is assailed on five counts. First, that Pokh Pal (PW-3)did not name him as the person to whom he had talked about the accused. Secondly,that Geetam (PW-4) did not state that be told Manpal Singh about the accused s relative Hira Lal Dhobi residing at Misa Khurd, Thirdly, that there was no occasion formanpal Singh and others to go to Village Misa Khurd. Fourthly, that there is noevidenee on record to explain (a) how the search party hit upoa the house of Hira Laland (b) who pointed out the accused at Misa Khurd, Fifthly, that the whole story ofeatching the accused at Misa Khurd and then bringing him back to Nangla Bakhti andthen to Bachakar introduced through Manpal Singh is wholly unnatural and unbelievable. For the reasons given below, we find no substance in any of these propositions. ( 27 ) IT is not in dispute that dead body of Anil was fouad abandoned in the forestarea, between Bachakar and Nangla and Nangla Bakhti on the way to Misa Khurd within the jurisdictionof Police Station Avagarh. Pokh Pal (PW-3) is a farmer residing at Bachakarand having his fields, two furlongs away, in Misa Kalan nearabout. Geetam (PW-4)and Manpal (PW-5) are both residents of Nangla Bakhti. Thus, the presence of eachof them at the relevant time and places, where the related events had occurred, isquite natural. They are raw and rustic villagers. Each of them is an independent anddisinterested witness, having no axe to grind one way or the other. There is nothing intheir cross- examination or otherwise on record to suggest even remotely any connection between any of them and the deceased or his family. The testimony of each ofthem is natural, to the point, and free from contradictions and embellishments. Theirdeposition has withstood the test of cross-examination, and has a ring of truth. Wefind no merit in the plea that they are got-up witnesses or that their evidence is unreliable. ( 28 ) NEXT, let us take up for discussion, challenge to the deposition of each of themseparately. Pokh Pal (PW-3) asserted in his cross-examination that his eye sight wasnot weak and there was sufficient light emanating from the fire around which he andthe others were sitting. ( 28 ) NEXT, let us take up for discussion, challenge to the deposition of each of themseparately. Pokh Pal (PW-3) asserted in his cross-examination that his eye sight wasnot weak and there was sufficient light emanating from the fire around which he andthe others were sitting. Naturally, in that position, looking up for the brief conversation, he could only see the face of the visitor, and not his shoes nor could he notice thecolour of his clothes, so as to be able to recall and honestly depose about the same. Indeed, as is common among well-meaning village folk, Pokh Pal (PW-3) did suggestto the hiker that he should stay back at Bachakar rather than going through the forest,and that too with a child, all the way to Village Misa Khurd, at that late hour. Whenhe found the outlander indifferent, he simply pointed out the way and let him go. Hetruthfully stated, without the slightest exaggeration, that he was unable to tell thecolour of the clothes and the shape of shoes worn by the accused as he only saw hisface. The occasion was quite sufficient for him to get a good look at the boy and the man so as to recognise the victim the very next day, and the assailant a day after, and,then, in view of the unusual encounter, to correctly identify the accused arrayed incourt. He was equally candid in his deposition about his limited role on 2 3/01/1992. He was not interested in falsely incriminating the accused. When thelocal police arrived on the spot, only the inquest report was drawn up as requiredunder Section 174 Criminal Procedure Code The opinion formed and recorded in the Report Ext. PW-5/a was that dead body of the unknown boy was lying in suspicious circumstances, andthe cause of death could be ascertained only after post-mortem. Being an illiteratefarmer, he may not have comprehended the importance of the information availablewith him, or may have been too perplexed or initially reluctant to get involved in theaffairs of utter strangers. He did not speak at all to the police personnel. Why he didnot speak out in the presence of the local police was not even put to him for giving anexplanation in cross-examination. He did not speak at all to the police personnel. Why he didnot speak out in the presence of the local police was not even put to him for giving anexplanation in cross-examination. Nevertheless, it clearly emerges from combinedreading of his deposition with that of Manpal (PW-5) that in the course of discussionthat ensued amongst the fellow-villagers, after the police party left, he did disclose thefacts known to him to those present there. Moreover, Pokh Pal (PW-3) promptly related all the facts in his statement, which was recorded by the investigating officer S. I. Manohar Singh (PW-12) under Section 161 Cr. P. C. , and there was no contradictionpointed out between that statement and his deposition in court. In these circumstances, merely because of short stay and brief conversation of accused with Pokh Pal on 22/01/1992, and that Pokh Pal (PW-3) did not tell the facts known to him tothe local police on 23/01/1992, his testimony cannot be discarded. On the contrary, the whole evidence of Pokh Pal (PW-3) appears to be natural and truthful. ( 29 ) COMING to Geetam (PW-4), it is pertinent to point out that his evidence hasnot been challenged on the material facts, namely that the accused was alone when hemet him at Nangla Bakhti; that the accused asked him the way for going to Misakhurd and told him that his mother s parental house of Heera Lal Dhobi was in thatvillage; and that he had accompanied the accused upto the periphery of Villagenangla Bakhti and even saw him off to Village Misa Khurd. That the accused talkedto his father, sat and smoked a bidi by the side of the fire etc. , are details given by thewitness in answer to questions put to him only in cross-examination and not examination-in-chief nor in his statement under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code The same cannot bebranded as improvements to discredit his evidence. On the contrary, these detailsbuttress and reinforce proof of the third circumstance by the earlier mentioned uncontroverted deposition in the examination-in-chief of this witness. The criticism ofhis evidence in respect of the part played by him inevolution of the fourth circumstance also is misconceived. The question raised before us was not put directly tothe witness for giving an explanation. Nevertheless, the occasion for Geetam (PW-4)to give the crucial clue has emerged clearly from the evidence on record. The criticism ofhis evidence in respect of the part played by him inevolution of the fourth circumstance also is misconceived. The question raised before us was not put directly tothe witness for giving an explanation. Nevertheless, the occasion for Geetam (PW-4)to give the crucial clue has emerged clearly from the evidence on record. It has comein Geetam s cross-examination that he did not go to the place where dead body of theboy was found. He came to know about it later in the evening when many of his village-fellows, who had come back from there were talking about it. The tip from Pokhpal (PW-3), that the deceased child was earlier seen together with another personafter sun-set time at Bachakar and that the adult companion was enquiring about theway to Misa Khurd was already known. Surely, that was enough for Geetam to recallhis encounter later in the evening with the accused as narrated by him to Manpal Singh (PW-5) and others. This is quite natural and there is nothing improbable aboutit. On these grounds, the evidence of Geetam (PW-4) cannot be disbelieved. ( 30 ) NEXT, we take up for discussion the five points of challenge to the evidence ofmanpal Singh (PW-5 ). His presence at the place where the dead body was found hasbeen proved beyond doubt on the basis of oral and documentary evidence and is notin question. Pokh Pal (PW-3) stated in general terms that a crowd of many personshad collected, and he told those present there about what had transpired on the previous evening. Simply because in this context he did not specifically name Manpalsingh (PW-5),correctness of the explanation given by the latter, in his cross- examination, that he had come to know about the events that had taken place on the previousevening from Pokh Pal and the other residents of Bachakar, cannot be doubted. Likewise, in relation to the second part also, the probative value of his evidence cannot be eclipsed merely on the ground that Geetam (PW-4) did not state that he toldmanpal Singh (PW-5) that the accused had mentioned to him about his relative Heeralal s house at Misa Khurd. Geetam (PW-4) did depose (paragraph 21 supra) that theaccused told him that his mother s parental house of Heera Lal Dhobi was in Villagemisa Khurd. Geetam (PW-4) did depose (paragraph 21 supra) that theaccused told him that his mother s parental house of Heera Lal Dhobi was in Villagemisa Khurd. Manpal (PW-5) clearly deposed that Geetam (PW-4) had given him theinformation about the accused proceeding to Misa Khurd and even the name of Heeralal. In any event, the name of Heera Lal is a mater of detail. The material part wasthe clue given by Geetam (PW-4) to Manpal Singh (PW-5) and the others on 2 3/01/1992 that on the previous evening at about 7. 45 P. M. the accused alone hadproceeded to Misa Khurd. So far as the question about the occasion for Manpal (PW-5) and the others going to Misa Khurd is concerned, composite reading of the wholeof his statement furnishes the answer. It shows that he had taken keen interest andplayed an important role from the beginning to the end, in calling the police, independently mobilising the local people, gathering important clues and catching the assailant. The aim and object of the Samaritan affirmed in his cross-examination was "to verify and trace the accused". This is what prompted him to embark upon the mission to Misa Khurd. Once the search party had reached Misa Khurd, nabbing the accused was not difficult as the name of his relative Heera Lal was already known. Bythat time, news about the abandoned dead body of the child being found in the forest,on the way of everyone living in the adjoining villages, had spread in the entire arealike wild fire. In the common course of natural events, arrival and movement of a nonresident gets generally known in a small village. Manpal Singh (PW-5) has deposedthat on enquiry, initially, the local villagers were frightened and due to fear they werenot inclined to give information about the accused. After he took them in confidence,one of them disclosed that the accused was the person who had come the night beforelast very late. That is how the search party detected the accused. In cross-examination, he explained that he and his companions had gone to the house of Heera Lal andthe accused was found standing there at the gate at about 6 p. m. Lastly, after capturingthe suspected person at Misa Khurd, the exercise of bringing him back to Nanglabhakti and then to Bachakar, and taking him to those who had seen him earlier forconfirmation of his identity was quite logical. On this aspect, deposition of Manpalsingh (PW-5) is fully corroborated by the evidence of Pokh Pal (PW-3) and Geetam (PW-4), which has not been challenged. ( 31 ) WITH specific reference to the sixth circumstance, challenge to the extra judicial confession is based on the plea that it is highly improbable that the accused wouldhave made the confession, and that on this aspect the evidence of Manpal Singh (PW-5) has not been corroborated by Pokh Pal (PW- 3) and no other witness from Villagebachakar has been produced. Further, it has been urged that the alleged admissioncannot be used against the accused as a confession as it does not contain material particulars about the name of the child and when and where the child was killed. We findno substance in any of these pleas also. ( 32 ) THE confession was made by the accused only after he was identified as theculprit, when he stood completely exposed and the mystery about death of the unknown child had been successfully solved. Naturally, at that stage, the accusedthought that his entreaties to be let off would be accepted, rather than the local villagers involving themselves into the dreadful hassles of being dragged to Delhi in connection with the investigation and trial of the case. It is clear from the statement madeby Manpal Singh (PW-5) in his examination-in-chief that on further enquiry, afterpokh Pal (PW-3) confirmed his involvement, the accused confided in him and madethe confession in the fond hope of being let off. The accused admitted his guilt in twoparts: (1) that he had brought the child from Delhi, and (2) that he had killed thechild. However, on sensing that he would be handed over to the police, he managed toescape. It is true that Pokh Pal (PW-3) has not talked about the confession and theprosecution has not produced any other witness to depose about it. Nevertheless, theadmission made by the accused is convincingly proved by the fully truthful evidence ofmanpal Singh (PW-5), which needs no corroboration. Association of the accused withthe dead child, though not named, and the time and place of commission of the crimewere very well established. In the given circumstances, want of these particulars in thewords of the accused would not denude the admission of its probative value as confession of guilt. Association of the accused withthe dead child, though not named, and the time and place of commission of the crimewere very well established. In the given circumstances, want of these particulars in thewords of the accused would not denude the admission of its probative value as confession of guilt. In any event, even if the extra-judicial confession is brushed aside, theearlier discussed circumstances are strong enough to sustain his conviction. ( 33 ) THE unnatural conduct of the accused before and after commission of the offence is also an incriminating circumstance, which is inconsistent with his innocence. Pokh Pal (PW-3) suggested to the accused to stay back at Village Bachakar. He madethe suggestion, obviously, because he thought it would be unwise for a person accompanying by a child to walk down the distance to Village Misa Khurd, through thedesolate forest area, after sunset. But the accused had something else in his mind. Hedecided to proceed further and made use of the otherwise hostile conditions for committing the crime and getting away with it. Such conduct, in the given circumstances,clearly indicates his pre conceived plan to commit the crime. Likewise, his showingthe heels on 24th of January 1992 from Village Bachakar, when he realised that hewould be handed over to the police, has been rightly reckoned by the trial court as anincriminating circumstance against the accused. ( 34 ) IDENTIFICATION of the accused was sought to be assailed by learned counsel forthe accused on the ground that photograph of Lalit Kumar was shown by the Investigating Officer Manohar Singh (PW-12) to Pokh Pal (PW-3), Geetam (PW-4) andmanpal Singh (PW-5 ). Reliance was placed upon decision of the Supreme Court inlaxmipat Choraria and others V. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC 938 , where it wasexplained that if the intention is to rely on the identification of the suspect by a witnesshis ability to identify should be tested without showing him the suspect or hisphotograph for identification; and that showing of a photograph prior to the identification makes the identification of the accused worthless. The proposition of law explained in that case, however, is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of thepresent case. ( 35 ) HERE, the accused was seen by Pokh Pal (PW-3) and Geetam (PW-4) on 22ndof January 1992. The proposition of law explained in that case, however, is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of thepresent case. ( 35 ) HERE, the accused was seen by Pokh Pal (PW-3) and Geetam (PW-4) on 22ndof January 1992. On the basis of clues given by these two witnesses, Manpal Singh (PW-5) and others caught hold of the accused at Village Misa Khurd and brought himback to Nangla Bakhti and then to Bachakar on 24/01/1992, when Geetam (PW-4) and Pokh Pal (PW-3) confirmed that the accused was the suspect they hadearlier met. All this was done by the witnesses on their own, prior to commencementof investigation and without involvement of the police. The investigating officershowed the photograph of the accused to the witnesses on 27th of January 1992 only toconfirm that they were talking about the accused, who was stated to have absconded,and no one else. This is different from showing a photograph to a witness for identification of the suspect by a witness in the sense discussed in the case of Laxmipatcheroria (supra ). In the present case, quite rightly, no test identification parade washeld, and each of the witnesses, namely, Pokh Pal (PW-3), Geetam (PW-4) and Manpal Singh (PW-5) had correctly identified the accused when their statements wererecorded two years after the incident in court. The plea regarding identification of theaccused is, therefore, rejected. ( 36 ) MOTIVE for the commission of the offence has been traced to the demand ofransom made from the deceased boy s father by letter EX. PA, which was received soonafter the murder. The learned trial Court has found that the accused strangulated thechild Anil Kumar to death because he did not succeed in extracting ransom and hefeared that the boy, if left alive, would expose his involvement in kidnapping. In thelight of the evidence of 0m Parkash (PW-10), the ransom letter EX. PA was taken asthe motive. ( 37 ) LEARNED counsel for the accused has contended that the letter EX. PA is notproved to be in the handwriting of the accused, therefore, it should be excluded fromconsideration. This plea, at first sight, appears to be attractive; but, on deeper examination of totality of the oral and documentary evidence on record, it has to berejected. ( 38 ) LET us first take up the oral evidence. PA is notproved to be in the handwriting of the accused, therefore, it should be excluded fromconsideration. This plea, at first sight, appears to be attractive; but, on deeper examination of totality of the oral and documentary evidence on record, it has to berejected. ( 38 ) LET us first take up the oral evidence. Udaivir Singh (PW-6) testified about theransom letter in the following words: "one letter was received by my brother Rohtas approximately on 27. 1. 92and he had kept the same with him. Rohtas told me about this letter about8/10 days thereafter. The same was handed over by roe to the police afterwards which was taken into possession vide Ex. PW6/c which is signed byme at point B. " MANOHAR Singh (PW-12) spoke about it in the following terms: "one letter which was received at the address of the complainant and thesame is EX. PA was produced before me by 0m Parkash on 12. 2. 92 and thesame was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW6/c which is signed by meat point C. " THESE statements made by the witnesses were not challenged in cross-examination. Therefore, the same have to be accepted as cogent. ( 39 ) NOW, let us turn to the documentary evidence. Ex. PW-6/c is a memo dated12th of February 1992. It records that the inland letter produced by 0m Parkash (PW-10), who had come to the Police Station along with Udaivir Singh PW-6, wastaken into possession. It is signed by S. I. Manohar Singh PW-12 and witnessed by 0mparkash (PW-10) and Udaivir Singh PW-6. The exact contents of the inland letter,produced and taken into possession, are reproduced in the said memo. Thereafter, anote is made, which reads as follows:- "the words, " (Distt. Eeta, U. P.)" are mentioned in the letter. Name and address of the sender are not mentioned in the letter. There are four cuttingsin the writing of the letter. Two postal stamps are affixed on the letter. Thewords "nangloi 110004 and dated 28" are imprinted on one of the seals. Nothing is legible on the other seal. 0m Parkash revealed about the letterthat the postman had on 31. 1. 92 delivered this letter to my younger brotherstanding in the street near my house. He forgot to tell about the letter toany one because of wailing in the family on that day. Nothing is legible on the other seal. 0m Parkash revealed about the letterthat the postman had on 31. 1. 92 delivered this letter to my younger brotherstanding in the street near my house. He forgot to tell about the letter toany one because of wailing in the family on that day. On receipt of the letterfrom the pant of Rohtas we read it today and produced the letter beforeyou. The photocopy of the letter was detained after getting it prepared andthe original letter having put into white paper -envelope was sealed with theseal of M. S. and the same was taken into police possession. The memo wasduly prepared. " THE original inland letter Ex. PA is on the trial court record at page 205. We haveourselves examined it carefully. We find that it bears out the observations contemporaneously recorded by Manohar Singh (PW-12) in the memo Ex. PW-6/c. Thewords distt. Etah (U. P.) are mentioned in the letter. The name and address of thesender are not stated. There are two postal seal marks. One, cancelling the postalstamp embossed on the inland letter form is on the front side, i. e. the side where thename and address of Om Parkash is written. This seal mark, however, at present, isnot decipherable. The other postal seal mark is affixed on the backside of the inlandletter form. Here only five out of the usual six numerals of the Pin Code 11004 andthe date 28 are discernable. The letter Ex. PA sets out the demand for payment ofransom of Rs. 1,75,000. 00 by 28th of January 1992 at the place described as gola Kuannear the Kacchila Bridge, Distt. Aita Bareilly Road . The other contents of the letter,giving out various threats etc. , need not be stated here. ( 40 ) THE fact that the letter Ex. PA was mailed, delivered and received by post, atthe correctly stated address of 0m Parkash (PW-IO), stand proved by the existence ofthe postal seal marks, raising a presumption that the same had been done in the common course of official acts regularly performed by the postal authorities under Section114 of the Evidence Act. PA was mailed, delivered and received by post, atthe correctly stated address of 0m Parkash (PW-IO), stand proved by the existence ofthe postal seal marks, raising a presumption that the same had been done in the common course of official acts regularly performed by the postal authorities under Section114 of the Evidence Act. The address of 0m Parkash written on the front side of theinland letter specifically mentions Pin Code 41 which corresponds to the Pin Codenumber of Post Office Nangloi, which is 110041 , whereas the first five out of the usualsix numerals of the Pin Code are decipherable from the postal seal marks affixed onex. PA. The figure 28 also marked in the postal seal shows that the said letter Ex. PAwas received in the Nangloi post office on 28th of January 1992 and then the same wasdelivered at the house of 0m Parkash (PW-IO), which is located in Sultanpuri, withinthe jurisdiction of Post Office Nangloi in Delhi. The delay m Om Parkash (PW- 10)handing over the letter to the Investigating Officer only on 12th of February 1992, hasbeen explained in the contemporaneously recorded note appended to the memoex. PW-6/c. The explanation, orally stated by 0m Parkash (PW-10) also, appears tobe quite reasonable and understandable, particularly in view of the grief and traumathat had overtaken the members of the family by the tragic assassination of the child. The genuineness and admissibility of the said letter Ex. PA is, therefore, unquestionable. ( 41 ) THE letter Ex. PA does appear to be linked with the crime. The facts, period oftime and the location of places stated in the letter are all found to be corroboratedwith the actual movements of the accursed that have been fully established by theevidence on record. Merely, the fact that the specimen hand-writing (EX. PB) of theaccused Lalit Kumar dis- agreed with the questioned writing of the letter Ex. PA, asper the CFSL Report Ex. PW-12/j, implying that it was scribed by some one else,would not absolve the accused of his involvement in the crime, especially when thecontents and the tenor of the letter are taken into consideration together with all thecircumstances that have been earlier discussed. In the totality of the circumstances,the only logical and irresistible conclusion is that involvement of the accused in thecommission of the crime is directly connected with the demand for ransom Ex. PA. In the totality of the circumstances,the only logical and irresistible conclusion is that involvement of the accused in thecommission of the crime is directly connected with the demand for ransom Ex. PA. ( 42 ) THE accused has given no explanation whatsoever of his whereabouts from17th of January 1992 to 28th of January 1992. He merely denied that he visited Villagebachakar and Village Nangla Bakhti. He also denied that he was caught at Villagemisa Khurd, that he made the confession, and that he absconded from Villagebachakar. He claimed that he did not even know that the dead body of Anil wasrecovered from the jungle in Misa Kalan. Since the accused has not offered any explanation consistent with innocence regarding the incriminating facts proved againsthim, that by itself is a circumstantial fact against him. ( 43 ) ON the basis of the foregoing discussion, we find that the incriminating circumstances enumerated in paragraph 14 (supra) have been firmly established bycredible evidence on record. Circumstances No. 2 and 3 are vital, being the closest inproximity to the time and place of commission of the crime. Taken together, circumstances No. l to 5 constitute a complete chain of conclusive evidence required toexclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved and fix, with reasonabledefiniteness, the guilt of the accused. The other circumstances No. 6 to 9 serve as additional links in the chain to supplement, strengthen and support the whole of theprosecution case. The same lend assurance to the Court in coming to the firm conclusion that there is no scope for entertaining any reasonable doubt consistent with theinnocence of the accused and that the entire prosecution cadence considered conjointly, consistently and conclusively establishes the sole inreference that in all humanprobability the crime must have been committed by the accused. The finding of thelearned trial court (noted in paragraph 9 supra) regarding the guilt of the accused is,therefore, correct and confirmed. ( 44 ) FINALLY, we come to the most sensitive question of the suitable punishment forthe crime. For the offence of kidnapping under Section 365 IPC, we uphold the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years. For murder, in the case ofsentence of death, instead of life, sub-section (3) of Section 354 Criminal Procedure Code requires special reasons to be stated. Guidelines for this purposes have been laid by the Apexcourt in a number of cases. For murder, in the case ofsentence of death, instead of life, sub-section (3) of Section 354 Criminal Procedure Code requires special reasons to be stated. Guidelines for this purposes have been laid by the Apexcourt in a number of cases. Suffice it to mention a few of them, namely, Bachan Singhv. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898 , Machhi Singh and others V. State of Punjab, AIR1983 S. C. 957, Allauddin Mian and others Sharif Mian and another V. State of Bihar,air 1989 S. C. 1456, Ediga Anamma V. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1974 SCC (Crl) 479,shankar @ Gauri Shankar and others V. State of Tamil Nadu, JT 1994 (3) S. C. 54 andashok Kumar V. State (Delhi Administration), 1995 SCC (Crl.) 1085. In awarding thesentence, we have to take into consideration the circumstances of the criminal, the nature of the crime, the wrong done to the victim, and the impact of the crime on thecommunity, keeping in mind that life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence anexception, and taking a life through law s instrumentality ought not to be done save inthe rarest of the rare cases when the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed. ( 45 ) IT has been pointed out to us that the accused is a young man, his age was 18years at the time of his arrest, his relations with the deceased child and his father werecordial and that he is not a habitual criminal and, therefore, the routine life sentencewould be adequate punishment. On the other side, we should not loose sight of theruthless murder of the kidnapped and helpless 9 years old child, who was apple of theeye of the whole family of 0m Parkash, the vicious breach of faith of the familyreposed in the accused, and that too for no rhyme or reason but lure for ransom, andalso the impact of the commission of crime on the community at large. ( 46 ) IT emerges clearly from the deposition of 0m Parkash (PW-10) that the accused is his wife s cousin, being her mother s sister s son. He was given employmentfor some time by 0m Parkash in his own factory. When 0m Parkash closed down hisfactory, he got him employed in the factory of Vijay Kumar, where the accused wasworking till a couple of days preceding the incident. The deceased child was veryfriendly with him. He was given employmentfor some time by 0m Parkash in his own factory. When 0m Parkash closed down hisfactory, he got him employed in the factory of Vijay Kumar, where the accused wasworking till a couple of days preceding the incident. The deceased child was veryfriendly with him. He used to take the child out off and on, to the market and sometimes even to his sister s house. The deceased was the only male child in the family of0m Parkash and his brothers. The family had provided livelihood and love to the accused and reposed in him full faith. In return, the accused inflicted upon the familyanguish, misery, pain and irreparable loss by kidnapping and killing the child. ( 47 ) AFTER picking up Anil on 17th of January 1992, the accused managed to keepthe child hidden at some undisclosed place for the unexplained period upto 22nd ofjanuary 1992. When he was unable to hold the child away from the family muchlonger, he decided to kill the child. The plan that he made for eliminating the innocent child was deceitful and diabolic. This is evident from the time, place and themanner meticulously chosen by him for the perfect execution of his evil design andhimself getting away to a safe sanctuary. ( 48 ) THE choice of the place for committing the crime and the time for traversingthe distance in the far-flung rural area, and the conduct of the accused, despite beingcautioned by the local farmers, in persisting to proceed through the desolate andotherwise hostile conditions in the forest on the way, all put together, go to show thepre-conceived and unshakable determination of the accused to commit the crime; and,at the same time, keeping open a fair chance of himself getting out of it clean. Ordinarily, the devouring beasts of the forest, would have eaten away the dead bodyduring the night, and he himself would have been safe in his maternal parents home inthe far off and remote Village Misa Khurd. The accused did succeed in the viciousperformance of his part, but providence turned around and paved the way for his trial. 49. The accused committed the crime in cold blood. He showed no anxiety orrestlessness at. all before or after committing the murder. The manner in which hecommitted the crime was ruthless. The accused did succeed in the viciousperformance of his part, but providence turned around and paved the way for his trial. 49. The accused committed the crime in cold blood. He showed no anxiety orrestlessness at. all before or after committing the murder. The manner in which hecommitted the crime was ruthless. It is blood-curdling to think of the child gaspingand writhing for breath when he was throttled to death. Then, the child was dumpedin a pit in the desolate forest and the accused coolly walked away. ( 50 ) THE impact of the crime on society also can be assessed from the evidence onrecord. On hearing about the dead body of the unknown child found in the forest,residents of the adjoining areas came fluttering to the spot and a large number of themremained there throughout the day. Their concern and feeling of resentment wasaroused to such an extent that many of them went out of the way, without support ofthe police, and detected the assailant. . ( 51 ) KEEPING in view interest of the community at large and the fact that cases ofkidnapping and murder for ransom are growing at an alarming rate, it hurts ourhuman conscience when we are told that such crime has now become usual, and wetoo should take a lenient view. At the same time, even if the moralistic aspects are allowed to play a part, we are still unable to say that this particular case falls in thecategory of "rarest of rare cases". Therefore, bound as we are by the criterion laiddown by the Apex Court, we feel compelled by judicial discipline to rule out the extreme punishment of death in this case. ( 52 ) AS a result of the above discussion, conviction of the appellant for committingthe offences under Section 365 and 302 Indian Penal Code is upheld; the sentence for the offenceunder Section 365 Indian Penal Code is also upheld; but, the sentence of death is commuted to imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Accordingly, the referenceis rejected and the appeal partly allowed.