JUDGMENT : Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. Ramavtar present appellant along with co-accused Kamlesh s/o Ramjilal was tried by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur for having kidnapped on 29.10.2007 Sunil, aged 9 years, from lawful guardianship of his parents and for further having demanded Rs. 5 Lacs as ransom and for committing murder of Sunil so kidnapped and thereafter having caused disappearance of the dead body. The trial court acquitted coaccused Kamlesh s/o Ramjilal, but convicted appellant Ramavtar for offences under Sections 363, 201, 364A and 302 IPC. The trial court having convicted the appellant vide judgment dated 3.11.2008, sentenced him vide a separate order of even date as under:- "U/s. 363 IPC: Seven years rigorous imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default thereof to undergo two months simple imprisonment. U/s. 201 IPC: Seven years rigorous imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-and in default thereof to undergo two months simple imprisonment. U/s. 364-A IPC: Life imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default thereof to undergo five months simple imprisonment. U/s. 302 IPC: Life imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default thereof to undergo five months simple imprisonment." All the sentences were to run concurrently. 2. Prosecution to secure conviction of the appellant has proved following incriminating circumstances against the accused:- (a) Prosecution examined Narayan (P.W.3) and Suresh (P.W.11) to prove that due to financial difficulties appellant had motive to commit crime and demand ransom. (b) Prosecution examined three witnesses namely Satish Gupta (P.W.1), Jeetendra (P.W.6) and Suresh (P.W.11) to prove that the deceased child aged nine years, was last seen with the accused. (c) Prosecution also proved extrajudicial confession made by the appellant before Radha Kishan (P.W.5). (d) Recovery of dead body at the behest of accused in pursuance of the disclosure statement (Ex.P.36). (e) Recovery of blood stained clothes of the accused. 3. Shri Rohan Jain, learned counsel for the appellant, has vehemently argued before us that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the above said circumstances and the witnesses examined by the prosecution are not trustworthy and they are convenient witnesses introduced by the complainant and furthermore, it is contended that the prosecution has failed to complete the chain of circumstances to arrive at the conclusion that the appellant alone has committed the offence. 4. 4. On the other hand, Shri Aladeen Khan learned Public Prosecutor has defended the impugned judgment by stating that the testimony of the witnesses examined by the prosecution inspire confidence and their deposition in court cannot be brushed aside lightly. 5. To examine rival contentions raised, we shall notice brief facts of the case. 6. On 1.11.2007 Ramjilal (P.W.4) father of the deceased submitted a written report (Ex.P.6) before Joga Ram (P.W.16) who was then posted as SHO, Police Station Malviya Nagar, Jaipur. On the basis of written report (Ex.P.6), formal FIR (Ex.P.5) bearing FIR No.920/2007 was registered at Police Station Malviya Nagar, Jaipur. In the written report (Ex.P.6), Ramjilal (P.W.4) stated that since 29.10.2007 his son Sunil, aged 9 years, was missing. He had already lodged a missing report at the police station. It was further stated that since the date the child was missing, Ramvatar Koli resident of the Basti was also missing. Furthermore, the child was seen in his company. Complainant further stated that he had received a telephonic call demanding ransom of Rs. 5 Lacs. The complainant expressed his suspicion that anything can happen with the child. Therefore, immediate action be taken. 7. After registration of the case, appellant Ramavtar was arrested on the very same day i.e. on 1.11.2007 vide memo (Ex.P.25). The investigating agency after through investigation came to the conclusion that the offence has been committed by the appellant Ramavtar along with acquitted coaccused Kamlesh. 8. Prosecution in the present case has examined 16 witnesses and has proved on record documents, Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.50. 9. The present appellant has denied all incriminating circumstances put to him in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and claimed trial. 10. Appellant has examined no witness in defence and has only placed reliance upon the statements of Radha Kishan (P.W.5), Jeetendra Tak (P.W.6) and Suresh Mahavar (P.W.11) recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. being Exhibited as D.1 to D.3 respectively. 11. Satish Gupta (P.W.1) in court stated that in Jhalana Kachhi Basti he is having a Kirana (grocery) shop. Accused Ramavtar is known to him. A year before on the day of Karwa Chauth, Ramavtar came at his shop accompanied by a child aged 9-10 years. Ramavtar purchased Supari (beetle nut) and cigarette and thereafter, he left along with the child. Satish Gupta (P.W.1) in court stated that in Jhalana Kachhi Basti he is having a Kirana (grocery) shop. Accused Ramavtar is known to him. A year before on the day of Karwa Chauth, Ramavtar came at his shop accompanied by a child aged 9-10 years. Ramavtar purchased Supari (beetle nut) and cigarette and thereafter, he left along with the child. The witness stated that the child which had accompanied the accused can be identified by him by seeing photograph. Photograph of the child was shown to the witness and he said that the child which had accompanied the accused is the one whose photograph has been shown to him. Thus, the witness identified the child as the one who had accompanied accused Ramavtar. 12. Narayan (P.W.3) in court stated that he was doing stitching work at Mahaveer Enterprises for last eight years. He knew Ramavtar accused. He did stitching work for a period of one month. Ramavtar had disclosed him that he has to pay a huge loan and for retiring the loan, he can commit murder or anything else. The witness stated that persons used to come at the place of work to demand loan from accused and therefore, employer had removed appellant Ramavtar from service. 13. Jeetendra (P.W.6) stated that at Jhalana Kachhi Basti he is having a shop named "Family Tailor". He knew Ramavtar as he was doing stitching work with him. 5-6 month before the witness after closing his shop was waiting for Bus at Bypass, when Ramavtar accompanied by a child came. The witness had asked Ramavtar where he is going, Ramavtar told that he is going to ease himself. Photograph of the child was shown to the witness and he identified the child as the one who was seen in the company of the accused. 14. Suresh (P.W.11) in court deposed that he is engaged in the work of white washing and paint and knew Ramavtar who is his neighbour. Two days before festival of Karwa Chauth he was standing in the street when accused came and asked him whether he is in the need of money. The witness replied that he is in need to Rs. 2000/- as he wanted to purchase a mobile phone, upon which accused told him that instead of Rs. 2000/- he can give him Rs. The witness replied that he is in need to Rs. 2000/- as he wanted to purchase a mobile phone, upon which accused told him that instead of Rs. 2000/- he can give him Rs. 5000/-, but he should kidnap the younger child of Chopra Ji so that he can demand ransom. The witness refused to accept the offer of the accused and two days after he learnt that accused had kidnapped Sunil s/o Chopda Ji. 15. Ramjilal (P.W.4) father of the deceased stated that he is father of three sons and one daughter. Name of the kidnapped child was Sunil, he was aged 9 years. On 29.10.2007 his son suddenly went missing. He lodged a missing report. At that time, the child was wearing blue colour pent, blue-white check shirt, underwear, vest and one Tabeej and was also wearing a watch on his hand. During search, Khandelwal shopkeeper (Satish Gupta, P.W.1) informed that accused Ramavtar along with the child came. Ramavtar purchased beetle nut and cigarette. The witness further stated that similar thing was told to him by owner of "Family Tailor". On 30.10.2007 he received a telephonic call wherein it was stated that a ransom of Rs. 5 Lacs be paid for release of the child. The witness stated that on 1.11.2007 he learnt that the child has been recovered. The accused had disclosed the spot where dead body of the child was lying. The witness stated in cross-examination that from 29th to 30th till 12.15 PM he searched for his child at every place. He also searched for him in the village. The witness stated that he had lodged a report on 30th and phone was received by him on the said date at 5.00 PM. 16. Radha Kishan (P.W.5) stated that he was doing job of a tailor and stitching. He was learning work of tailor and stitching. In Jhalana Kachhi Basti there is a Shiva temple and near to that place there is a secret street. Ramavtar and Kamlesh through him got alcohol. He had not consumed alcohol given by the accused. Then the witness stated to Ramavtar that son of his maternal aunt is missing and therefore, they should go for search for him. Upon which Ramavtar stated that he is no more available as he has been murdered. The witness stated that both Ramavtar and Kamlesh had taken alcohol. 17. He had not consumed alcohol given by the accused. Then the witness stated to Ramavtar that son of his maternal aunt is missing and therefore, they should go for search for him. Upon which Ramavtar stated that he is no more available as he has been murdered. The witness stated that both Ramavtar and Kamlesh had taken alcohol. 17. Jeetendra Jain (P.W.2) was having a grocery shop and STD booth at Kishanpole Bazar. The witness had handed over register in which record of telephonic calls made from the STD booth is maintained. In cross-examination the witness stated that he has not identified the accused in court or in Jail. 18. Rajesh (P.W.7) was also having a STD booth in Kishanpole Bazar. The witness stated that he used to maintain the record of the STD calls made from his booth. 7-8 months ago police personnel came accompanied by one or two boys. The boys accompanied by police had stated that they had made telephonic calls from his booth. Police first carried inspection of the spot, then had seized the register maintained by him. In cross-examination this witness stated that he cannot identify the person who had made telephonic call. Witness turned hostile. 19. S.I. Daulat Ram (P.W.8) stated that the investigating officer had kept one mobile phone with him and the same was deposited in the Malkhana. 20. Ramswaroop (P.W.9) was in-charge of Malkhana. He was examined the prove receipt of mobile phone in Malkhana. 21. Constable Rajaram (P.W.10) has proved deposit of sealed packets in Forensic Science Laboratory. 22. Dr. Sanjeev Bansal (P.W.12) had conducted autopsy on dead body of Sunil. He found that unnatural offence was committed with the child. Temporal bone of both sides of skull were fractured. There was fracture of C3 vertebra. As per postmortem report (Ex.P.19), doctor had opined that cause of death was shock due to injuries and final opinion be given after receipt of viscera report. 23. Ram Karan (P.W.14) stated that Ramavtar was arrested in his presence. The witness stated that after accused was arrested vide memo (Ex.P.25) he got recovered from his house a jeans pent, underwear and shirt vide memo (Ex.P.29). This witness also witnessed recovery of blood stained soil and simple soil, stone and other articles. 24. Heeralal (P.W.15) has corroborated the testimony of Ram Karan (P.W.14). 25. Jogaram (P.W.16) being investigating officer has proved various facets of investigation. This witness also witnessed recovery of blood stained soil and simple soil, stone and other articles. 24. Heeralal (P.W.15) has corroborated the testimony of Ram Karan (P.W.14). 25. Jogaram (P.W.16) being investigating officer has proved various facets of investigation. This witness stated that accused had suffered disclosure statement (Ex.P.36) and had informed that he can get the dead body recovered and in pursuance of disclosure statement so made, police had recovered dead body vide memo (Ex.P.8). 26. We have already noticed the contentions raised before us by Shri Rohan Jain learned counsel for the appellant to discard the prosecution evidence. We find in the present case witnesses are natural and on the touchstone of probabilities their evidence is trustworthy. No witness has any animus against the appellant. Admittedly, in the present case the child was kidnapped on 29.10.2007. A missing report (Ex.P.50) was lodged by Ramjilal (P.W.4) father of the deceased. Police in the present case has also recovered mobile phone from the accused and has also proved call details of mobile of accused vide memo (Ex.P.42). Even if we ignore evidence of details of call made from mobile of accused, in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru, 2005 AIR(SC) 3820, we cannot ignore that the accused in pursuance of disclosure statement (Ex.P.36) made by him, got the dead body recovered. 27. Furthermore, Satish Gupta (P.W.1) and Jeetendra (P.W.6) are independent witnesses. They had seen the child along with the present accused-appellant. Radha Kishan (P.W.5) is colleague and friend of the appellant. He has also stated that the accused under the influence of liquor had made a confession that the child is no longer available as he has been murdered. There is settled position of law that extra-judicial confession inspiring confidence without corroboration is sufficient to record conviction of the accused. 28. Taking into consideration primarily recovery of dead body at the instance of the appellant, evidence of last seen and extra-judicial confession made by the accused, we are firmly of the view that the prosecution has succeeded to prove the chain of circumstances to arrive at a conclusion that the offence in the present case was committed by the accused-appellant alone. Taking into consideration primarily recovery of dead body at the instance of the appellant, evidence of last seen and extra-judicial confession made by the accused, we are firmly of the view that the prosecution has succeeded to prove the chain of circumstances to arrive at a conclusion that the offence in the present case was committed by the accused-appellant alone. Thus, we uphold the conviction recorded and the sentence awarded to the appellant by the trial court and dismiss the appeal being devoid of merit.