Judgment RAM CHAND GUPTA, J. 1. By this common judgment two appeals, i.e., Criminal Appeal Nos. 174-DB of 2004 (Madan Lal alias Ghudu v. State of Punjab) and 497-DB of 2006 (Manohar Lal alias Gugga v. State of Punjab), are being decided, as they have arisen out of one and the same judgment passed by the then Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, dated 23.9.2003, vide which present appellants were convicted for offences under Sections 364-A/302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be referred as IPC) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for offence under Sec. 364-A, IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each and, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each. Both the accused were also sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.l000/-and, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each. No separate sentence was passed for offence under Section 201 IPC. It was ordered that substantive sentence of the imprisonment, awarded to the accused, shall run concurrently. 2. Briefly put, the case of the prosecution is that Mohan Lal son of Bansi Lal, Caste Brahmin, resident of Marajpur, i.e., the complainant, used to work in sugar mill, Paniar. He was married with Smt.Krishana Devi in the year 1987. Out of the wedlock, a female child, namely, Bharti Sharma, was born after seven years of the marriage. On the day of occurrence, i.e., on 17.2.2001, she was about four and half years of age. On that day, at about 10.00 a.m., she went out of the house to play in the street, but, however, did not return. Complainant had been searching her in the village, in the nearby villages and in his relations, but she was not found. 3. On 18.2.2001 at about 7.00 a.m., Mohan Lal received a letter to his address, which was found in the courtyard of his house, wherein it was mentioned that he should reach with Rs.2,00,000/- on 19.2.2001, on the outskirt of his village, near culvert at about 1.00 a.m. (night) and that he should wait at a distance of about one killa from the culvert and should place the money at that place. It was also mentioned in the letter that he should give a signal with the torch light and his daughter would be released by the accused. After going through the contents of the letter, complainant became suspicious that his daughter was kidnapped by Madan Lal alias Ghudu, and Manohar Lal alias Gugga, the present appellants-accused, along with Rinku son of Kamal Raj of his village and the suspicion was also raised on Thura Devi accused as well as Dev Raj, Dharminder Kumar and Subhash. 4. Mohan Lal, the complainant got recorded his statement, Exhibit PE with Dev Dutt, Station House Office, Police Station Dina Nagar, PW10, who was present on a bridge of Nango Nangal along with other police officials on 20.2.2001, on which he made his endorsement, Exhibit PE/1 and sent the same to the Police Station, on the basis of which formal First Information Report, Exhibit PE/2 was recorded. He had also taken into possession the letter, Exhibit PF, which was produced before him by the complainant-Mohan Lal, vide memo Exhibit PG. 5. Present appellants-accused, Madan Lal and Manohar Lal were arrested by the police in this case and were interrogated in the presence of Bodh Raj, Member Panchayat, Village Marajpur and Joginder Pal. Accused Madan Lal, disclosed vide statement Exhibit PK, in the presence of Bodh Raj and Joginder Pal, that he had kept concealed dead body of Bharti Sharma in the sugarcane field of Roshan Lal Brahmin. The statement was thumb marked by the accused and attested by the witnesses. Appellant-accused Manohar Lal also suffered disclosure statement Exhibit PL that he had kept the dead body of Bharti Sharma concealed in sugarcane field of Roshan Lal and that he could get the same recovered. The said statement was also thumb marked by Manohar Lal, the accused and attested by the witnesses. The Investigation was then joined by Subhash Padam, Tehsildar, on an application, Exhibit PD, moved by the Investigation Officer, before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, in this regard. Both the accused, in pursuance of their disclosure statements, got recovered dead body of the child Bharti Sharma. The dead body was taken into possession by the Investigating Officer vide memo Exhibit PH, which was also attested by the witnesses. He also prepared inquest report Exhibit PC and sent the dead body for post mortem examination vide application Exhibit PB. Both the accused, in pursuance of their disclosure statements, got recovered dead body of the child Bharti Sharma. The dead body was taken into possession by the Investigating Officer vide memo Exhibit PH, which was also attested by the witnesses. He also prepared inquest report Exhibit PC and sent the dead body for post mortem examination vide application Exhibit PB. He also prepared rough site plan of place from where the dead body was recovered as Exhibit PN/1. Photographs of the place of occurrence were also taken and a movie of the proceedings of recovery of dead body was also got prepared, which were taken into possession vide Exhibit PG. 6. After recording statements of the witnesses, and after completion of the investigation, report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as Cr. PC) was filed against the present appellants-accused and accused Thura Devi. 7. The case was committed to the Court of Session by the then Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur, vide order dated 17.5.2001, after supplying copy of challan and the accompanying documents to the accused, as provided under Section 207, Cr. P.C. 8. The then learned Additional Sessions Judge found, prima facie, case for offences punishable under Sections 364-A, 302 and 201, IPC against all the three accused and, hence, they were charged accordingly, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 9. In order to substantiate the allegation against the accused, prosecution has examined, as many as 10 PWs. 10. PW1 is Dr.H.S.Kaler from Civil Hospital , Gurdaspur, who deposed that on 21.2.2001, while he was posted in Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur, he along with Dr.Vasdev Sharma and Dr.Jagjivan Lal had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Bharti Sharma, daughter of Mohan Lal, Caste Brahmin, R/o Mehraj Pur, Police Station Dina Nagar, at 1.30 P.M., and completed the same at 2.40 P.M.. He further deposed that the body was brought by Jaswinder Singh, Head Constable 714 and Harbir Singh, Constable 798 and the same was identified by Mohan Lal and Raj. He further deposed that the length of the body was 38" inch and there was a ligature mark of size 4 cm x 1-1/2 cm on anterior side of neck in midline and that on dissection subcutaneous hemorrhage was present. He further deposed that on further dissection mocous embrane of trachea was found congested. He further deposed that the length of the body was 38" inch and there was a ligature mark of size 4 cm x 1-1/2 cm on anterior side of neck in midline and that on dissection subcutaneous hemorrhage was present. He further deposed that on further dissection mocous embrane of trachea was found congested. He again deposed that body of female child was well built and well nourished, wearing a shirt, sweater, banian, trouser red colour, pair of socks and shoes. He further deposed that body was also wearing plastic bangles, 6 in number, on right fore arm. He again deposed that post -mortem staining was present on back and that the face was congested and suffused and that the clothes were smeared with mud and sand. He further deposed that rigour mortis was nil. 11. He again deposed that except ligature mark, no other injury was present anywhere on the body and that on dissection of body pleurae, right lung, left lung, liver, splean, all were congested. Stomach contained semi digested food. Small intestines was congested. In large intestines faceal matter was present and it was congested. Urinary bladder was empty. Organs of generation, both external and internal were normal. 12. According to him the cause of death in this case was asphyxia due to throttling, which was ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. He again deposed that probable duration between death and post-mortem was about three days. He had proved that correct carbon copy of post-mortem report is Exhibit PA, on which he recognized his signatures and those of Dr.Vasdev Sharma and Dr.Jagjivan Lal. He further deposed that post mortem examination was conducted on police request Exhibit PB, on which order, Exhibit PB/1, was passed by the then Senior Medical Officer for constituting the Board of Doctors to conduct autopsy on the dead body of Bharti Sharma. He deposed that Exhibit PC, the inquest report, was also signed by him and other members of the Board. 13. PW2 is Sukhdev Singh, Senior Assistant from the office of Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur, who was posted as Reader to then SDM on 20.2.2001. He had proved the order of the SDM Exhibit PD/1 on police application, Exhibit PD. 14. PW 3 is Mohan Lal, complainant and father of deceased Bharti Sharma. 13. PW2 is Sukhdev Singh, Senior Assistant from the office of Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur, who was posted as Reader to then SDM on 20.2.2001. He had proved the order of the SDM Exhibit PD/1 on police application, Exhibit PD. 14. PW 3 is Mohan Lal, complainant and father of deceased Bharti Sharma. He deposed that his daughter, aged about 4½ years had gone out of the house for playing on 17.2.2001 at about 10.00 a.m., and, however, when she did not return, he conducted search for her but she could not be found. He further deposed that on 18.2.2001 at about 7.00 a.m., he found a letter in the courtyard of his house in which a demand of Rs. 2,00,000/- was raised and that he was directed to come along with the money near a bridge of the village. He further deposed that further direction was given in the letter that he should place the money there and return and on receiving torch signal, his daughter would be handed over to him. He also deposed that he was directed to bring the money at about 1.00 a.m., on the night of 19.2.2001. He further deposed that on receipt of the letter he suspected that his daughter was abducted by Madan Lal, Manohar Lal, Kurro Devi, Rinku, Dharminder Kumar, Subhash and Dev Raj. He had proved his statement Exhibit PE in this regard and deposed that letter Exhibit PF and the envelope Exhibit PF/1 were also handed over by him to the police, which were also taken into possession vide recovery Memo Exhibit PG. He also deposed that accused Madan Lal was arrested by the police in his presence from his house on 20.2.2001 and that accused Manohar Lal was also arrested from his house on the same day. He further deposed that the dead body of his daughter was recovered in the evening of 20.2.2001 from the field of sugarcane of Roshan Lal and that inquest report, Exhibit PC was prepared in his presence, which was signed by him, and that he identified the dead body of his daughter. 15. PW4 is Dwarka Dass son of Anant Ram, resident of village Hemrajpur, who deposed that the accused were known to him as they belong to his village. 15. PW4 is Dwarka Dass son of Anant Ram, resident of village Hemrajpur, who deposed that the accused were known to him as they belong to his village. He further deposed that on 15.2.2001 at about 7.30 p.m., he was going to ease himself and was sitting on the western side of the road when he observed that all the three accused along with Rinku were coming from the side of the village and were talking that the business of brick kiln is in bad shape and that if they abduct the daughter of Mohan Lal, they would earn some money and that they would demand Rs.2,00,000/-from him and that, however, he returned to his house without taking note of the talk and went to Jammu due to some urgent work and returned from Jammu on 20.2.2001 and came to know about the abduction of daughter of Mohan Lal. He further deposed that he told Mohan Lal about the talk of the accused and that his statement was also recorded by the police. 16. PW5 is Hira Lal, Patwari Halqa Raulpur, who has prepared scaled site plan Exhibit PH of the place of recovery of dead body of Bharti Sharma. 17. PW6 is Pooja Rani daughter of Thurra Ram, resident of Lakhanpal. She deposed that she was student of 8th standard and that on 17.2.2001, Madan Lal and Manohar Lal, both the accused came to her house. She further deposed that Madan Lal is son of sister of her father and Manohar Lal is cousin of Madan Lai and both of them used to visit their house. She further deposed that at that time she was alone in the house as other family members had gone out of the house with their respective work. She further deposed that Madan Lal and Manohar Lal asked her to write a letter and however, she refused, but on threat being given to her by them, she wrote a letter, our of fear, on their dictation, which is Exhibit PE, which is in her hand. 18. PW7 is Hari Kishan, photographer, who had taken photographs of the place of recovery of the dead body on 20.2.2001. The photographs are Exhibits PF/1 to Exhibit PF/4 and negatives are Exhibits PF/5 to Exhibit PF/8. 18. PW7 is Hari Kishan, photographer, who had taken photographs of the place of recovery of the dead body on 20.2.2001. The photographs are Exhibits PF/1 to Exhibit PF/4 and negatives are Exhibits PF/5 to Exhibit PF/8. He further deposed that he also prepared a movie film regarding recovery of dead body and that all the photographs and movie film were taken into possession by the police vide memo Exhibit PG. 19. PW8 is Subhash Padam, Tehsildar, Pathankot. He deposed that on 20.2.2001, he was posted as Tehsildar, Gurdaspur and that as per direction of then SDM, Gurdaspur, he had joined police party headed by Inspector Dev Dutt and the accused Madan Lal and Manohar Lal were already in police custody and that they led us to village Satana and pointed to the place where dead body of a girl child was lying, which was a sugarcane field. He further deposed that the said place was dug out by the villagers, the police officials and the accused and the dead body of a girl child was taken out, which was taken into possession vide memo Exhibit PH. He also deposed that the photographs were taken and a video film was also prepared regarding recovery proceedings. 20. PW9 is Gurmukh Singh, Ahlmad of Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gurdaspur, who had brought summoned file titled State v. Madan Lal, etc. under Sections 457 and 380, IPC and deposed that the next date fixed in that case was 5.4.2001. 21. PW10 is Dev Dutt, SHO, Police Station, Sujjanpur, who investigated the case, arrested the accused, recorded the statements of witnesses and also recorded the disclosure statement of both the accused and recovered dead body of the deceased child Bharti Sharma. 22. Statement of accused in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which they denied the version of prosecution witnesses and claimed false implication in this case. 23. None of the accused led any evidence in defence. 24. Vide impugned judgment, learned trial Court convicted and sentenced both the present appellants-accused, as aforementioned, and however, acquitted accused Thura Devi. 25. We have heard learned counsel for the accused and learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab and have gone through the whole record carefully. 26. 23. None of the accused led any evidence in defence. 24. Vide impugned judgment, learned trial Court convicted and sentenced both the present appellants-accused, as aforementioned, and however, acquitted accused Thura Devi. 25. We have heard learned counsel for the accused and learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab and have gone through the whole record carefully. 26. It has been argued by learned counsel for the appellants-accused that the case of prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence only and that however, evidence relied by the prosecution is not sufficient to connect the accused with the crime, without any shadow of reasonable doubt. She also argued that no reliance can be placed upon deposition of PW4-Dwarka Dass. It is contended that the alleged disclosure statements, on the basis of which alleged recovery of dead body was effected, are also fabricated and the recovery of body was planted upon the appellants-accused and that the conviction of accused could not be based on solitary statement of Pooja Rani-PW6. 27. On the other hand, it has been argued by learned State counsel that Pooja Rani- PW6 is the most important witness of this case, as she is relative of the accused and having no concern with the complainant. It is further contended that Pooja Rani has categorically deposed that letter Exhibit PF was written by her on the asking of both the accused as they had given threat to her. She has recognized her handwriting and signature on the said letter. There is nothing as to why deposition of this witness on the point be disbelieved. Accused has failed to assail credit of this witness in the cross-examination. She is respectable witness and relative of the accused and, hence there is nothing as to why she should have deposed falsely against the interest of the accused. It is further argued that the second important circumstance, which the prosecution has been able to prove against the accused, is the recovery of the dead body of Bharti Sharma, at the instance of both the accused. It is further contended that delay in lodging the First Information Report in this case cannot be said to be fatal, as it was natural for the complainant to have searched for his daughter firstly in his neighbourhood, and then in his relations, before approaching the police. 28. The case of prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. It is further contended that delay in lodging the First Information Report in this case cannot be said to be fatal, as it was natural for the complainant to have searched for his daughter firstly in his neighbourhood, and then in his relations, before approaching the police. 28. The case of prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. Law on circumstantial evidence has been well settled by Honble Apex Court in various judgments. In cases, rest squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. Where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances, the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring the offences home beyond any reasonable doubt. 29. Reference can be made to Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1977 SC 1063 : (1977 Cri LJ 639); Edadu and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad (AIR 1956 SC 316) : (1956 Cri LJ 559); Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka, 1983 (1) RCR (Criminal) 292: (AIR 1983 SC 446): (1983 Cri LJ 846); State of U.P. v. Sukhbasi and Ors AIR 1985 SC 1224): (1985 Cri LJ 1479); Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1987 SC 350): (1987 Cri LJ 330); Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P (AIR 1989 SC 1890) : (1989 Cri LJ 2124); and Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab (AIR 1954 SC 621) : (1954 Cri LJ 1645). 30. 30. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. and Ors., 1990 (2) RCR (Criminal) 26: (AIR 1990 SC 79): (1990 Cri LJ 605), it was laid down that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests: "(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence." 31. In the present case the prosecution has relied upon the following circumstances: (I) Extra judicial confession made by both the accused before PW6 Pooja Rani, who wrote letter Exhibit PF, on the asking of the accused. (II) Recovery of dead body of Bharti Sharma as per disclosure statements of both the accused. (III) Medical evidence showing death of Bharti Sharma was homicidal. (I) Extra judicial confession made by both the accused before PW6 Pooja Rani, who wrote letter Exhibit PF, on the asking of the accused. 32. PW6-Pooja Rani is related to the accused and has no concern with the complainant, hence her deposition is very material. Nothing has come on the record that she is having any grudge or enmity against any of the accused. She has categorically deposed that accused Madan Lal is son of sister of her father and Manohar Lal is cousin of Madan Lal and both of them were known to her, as they were on visiting terms to her house. In the cross-examination she deposed that the complainant is not known to her. She was alone in the house when both the accused visited her house and on threat being given by the accused she wrote letter Exhibit PF on their dictation. She admitted that the . letter is in her hand and bears her signature. In the cross-examination she deposed that the complainant is not known to her. She was alone in the house when both the accused visited her house and on threat being given by the accused she wrote letter Exhibit PF on their dictation. She admitted that the . letter is in her hand and bears her signature. In letter Exhibit PF, each and every detail of kidnapping of Bharti Sharma, at the instance of both the accused has been mentioned. It has also been mentioned that Bharti Sharma was kidnapped for ransom of Rs.2,00,000/-. It has also been mentioned that Mohan Lal, complainant, was directed to come on the outskirts of his village near culvert at about 1.00 a.m., on the night on 19.2.2001 along with Rs.2,00,000/-. Hence, the same amounts to extra judicial confession of guilt by both the accused before Pooja Rani. Hence, from the deposition of Pooja Rani and from the contents of letter Exhibit PF, it is duly proved that accused Madan Lal and Manohar Lal had kidnapped Bharti Sharma, aged about four and half years from the lawful guardianship of her father, namely, Mohan Lal Sharma. (II) Recovery of dead body of Bharti Sharma as per disclosure statements of both the accused. 33. From the deposition of Dev Dutt, SHO, Police Station, Sujanpur, the Investigating Officer of this case, duly corroborated by Tehsildar Subhash Padam -PW8, as discussed above, the prosecution has been able to prove that dead body of Bharti Sharma was recovered, as per disclosure statements of both the accused. The statement of the accused before the Police, which led to recovery of dead body of deceased Bharti Sharma is admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Deposition of both these witnesses is consistent on all the material points. Both of them were acting in discharge of their official duties. Hence, there is nothing as to why their sole testimony on the point be disbelieved. The entire proceedings regarding recovery of the dead body of Bharti Sharma was also filmed by Hari Kishan, Photographer PW7 and photographs and the film were also taken into possession. 34. Hence, prosecution has been able to prove beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt that the dead body of Bharti Sharma was got recovered by both the accused. (III) Medical evidence showing death pf Bharti Sharma was homicidal. 35. 34. Hence, prosecution has been able to prove beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt that the dead body of Bharti Sharma was got recovered by both the accused. (III) Medical evidence showing death pf Bharti Sharma was homicidal. 35. As already discussed above, from deposition of PW1 Dr.H.S.Kaler and from post-mortem examination report, Exhibit PA, it is duly proved that the death of Bharti Sharma was caused due to asphyxia by throttling which was ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Hence, from medical evidence it is proved that the death of Bharti Sharma was homicidal. 36. So far as delay in lodging the First Information Report in this case is concerned, the same is not fatal to the case of prosecution as it was but natural for father and other relatives of the deceased child to have first searched for her in neighbourhood and the neighbouring villages and in the relations, before reporting the matter to the police and hence, they acted accordingly and when Bharti Sharma was not found anywhere, the matter was reported to the police. 37. Though the evidence of extra judicial confession is a weak type of evidence and however, in this case the extra judicial confession of having kidnapped Bharti Sharma by the accused was made before none else than their relative Pooja Rani, who has stood the test of cross-examination as already discussed, above. She was having no concern with the complainant and hence, there is nothing as to why she should have deposed falsely against the accused. 38. The motive for the offence has also been proved from the contents of letter Exhibit PF, as the accused wanted to have ransom of Rs.2,00,000/-from father of the kidnapped child. 39. Further on proof of the fact of kidnaping of Bharti Sharma, by both the accused and on proof of the fact that the dead body of Bharti Sharma, was recovered at the instance of the accused, and in view of medical evidence that the death of Bharti Sharma was homicidal one, only inference which can be drawn is that death of Bharti Sharma by throttling was caused by none else than the accused. 40. 40. Though the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt, however, the doctrine of presumption is not alien to the said rule. When prosecution succeeds in establishing certain facts, the Court has to presume the existence of certain other facts. Presumption of fact is an inference as to the existence of one fact from the existence of some other facts, unless the principle of such inference is disproved. Presumption of fact is a rule of law of evidence that a fact otherwise doubtful may be inferred from certain other proved facts and the said principal has been incorporated in Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act. Even as per Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is for the accused to explain certain facts, which are particularly within his knowledge. 41. On this point reliance has been placed upon State of West Bengal v. Mir Mohammad Omar and others, etc. etc. SLJ 2000 (2) 1679 (AIR 2000 SC 2988 : 2000 Cri LJ 4047), the relevant paragraphs of which read as under: "31. The pristine rule that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused should not be taken as a fossilized doctrine as though it admits no process of intelligent reasoning. The doctrine of presumption is not alien to the above rule, nor would it impair the temper of the rule. On the other hand, if the traditional rule relating to burden of proof of the prosecution is allowed to be wrapped in pedantic coverage the offenders in serious offences would be the major beneficiaries, and the society would be the casualty. 32. In this case, when prosecution succeeded in establishing the afore-narrated circumstances, the Court has to presume the existence of certain facts. Presumption is a course recognized by the law for the Court to rely on in conditions such as this. 33. Presumption of fact is an inference as to the existence of one fact from the existence of some other facts, unless the truth of such inference is disproved. Presumption of fact is a rule in law of evidence that a fact otherwise doubtful may be inferred from certain other proved facts. 33. Presumption of fact is an inference as to the existence of one fact from the existence of some other facts, unless the truth of such inference is disproved. Presumption of fact is a rule in law of evidence that a fact otherwise doubtful may be inferred from certain other proved facts. When inferring the existence of a fact from other set of proved facts, the Court exercises a process of reasoning and reach a logical conclusion as the most probable position. The above principle has gained legislative recognition in India when Section 114 is incorporated in the Evidence Act. It empowers the Court to presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened. In that process Court shall have regard to the common course of natural events, human conduct etc. in relation to the facts of the case. 34. When it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that Mahesh was abducted by the accused and they took him out of that area, the accused alone knew what happened to him until he was with them. If he was found murdered within a short time after the abduction the permitted reasoning process would enable the Court to draw the presumption that the accused have murdered him. Such inference can be disrupted if accused would tell the Court what else happened to Mahesh at least until he was in their custody. 35. During arguments, we put a question to learned senior counsel for the respondents based on a hypothetical illustration. If a boy is kidnapped from the lawful custody of his guardian in the sight of his people and the kidnappers disappeared with the prey, what would be the normal inference if the mangled dead body of the boy is recovered within a couple of hours from elsewhere. The query was made whether upon proof of the above facts an inference could be drawn that the kidnappers would have killed the boy. Learned senior counsel finally conceded that in such a case the inference is reasonably certain that the boy was killed by the kidnappers unless they explain otherwise. 36. In this context we may profitably utilize the legal principles embodied in Section 106 of the Evidence Act which reads as follows: When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. 37. 36. In this context we may profitably utilize the legal principles embodied in Section 106 of the Evidence Act which reads as follows: When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. 37. The Section is not intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. But the Section would apply to cases where the prosecution has succeeded in proving facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts, unless the accused by virtue of his special knowledge regarding such facts, failed to offer any explanation which might drive the Court to draw a different inference. 38. Vivian Bose, J. has observed that Section 106 of the Evidence Act is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible for the prosecution to establish certain facts which are particularly within the knowledge of the accused. In Shambu Nath Mehta v. The State of Ajmer, 1956 SCR 199 : (AIR 1956 SC 404 : 1956 Cri LJ 794), the learned single Judge has stated the legal principle thus (Para 11 of AIR): This lays down the general rule that in a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution and Section 106 is certainly not intended to relieve it of that duty. On the contrary, it is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible, or at any rate disproportionately difficult for the prosecution to establish facts which are especially within the knowledge of the accused and which he could prove without difficulty or inconvenience. The word especially stresses that, it means facts that are pre-eminently or exceptionally within his knowledge. " 42. Hence, the aforementioned circumstances proved by prosecution against the accused, if taken together are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or guilt of another person and rather the conclusion drawn from such circumstances is only one, which points towards guilt of the accused and none else. The circumstances taken cumulatively form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that even on human probability, the crime was committed by both the accused and none else. The circumstances are incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. The circumstances taken cumulatively form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that even on human probability, the crime was committed by both the accused and none else. The circumstances are incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. The evidence is consistent with the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with their innocence. 43. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that prosecution has been able to prove beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt that both the accused kidnapped the minor child Bharti Sharma from the lawful guardianship of her father Mohan Lal, complainant with a motive to receive ransom of Rs.2,00,000/-and when the ransom was not received, she was killed by them by throt- tling. Hence, they were rightly convicted and sentenced by learned Additional Sessions Judge vide impugned judgment and order. There is no merit in the present appeals. Hence the same are, hereby, dismissed. Appeals dismissed.