JUDGMENT Joshi, J. -- 1. This appeal under section 374 of the CrPC has been filed by the appellant assailing the judgment dated 29.12.1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior and Special Judge, NDPS Act, Gwalior in S.T. No.176/1997, whereby appellant was convicted and sentenced under section 364A/34 of the IPC to undergo life imprisonment, under section 302/34 of the IPC to undergo life imprisonment and under section 201/34 of the IPC to undergo seven years’ RI and it was also directed that all the jail sentences of appellant to run concurrently. 2. Undisputedly, two other alleged co-accused persons Asharam and Shishupal were also tried before the trial Court with present appellant. Both of these co-accused persons Asharam and Shishupal were acquitted by the trial Court and their acquittal has not been challenged by the prosecution. Another coaccused Dhanna alias Dharmnarayan is still absconding. 3. Prosecution’s case, in brief, is that on 16.3.1997 in noon, complainant Girendra Singh’s (PW6)’ son Upendra Singh aged about 11 years got missing from his residence situated at Urwai Gate, Gwalior. Thereafter, complainant and his family members searched missing Upendra within relatives and acquainted people, but as nothing could be traced out, complainant lodged missing person’s report (Ex.P-12) on same day at 23:50 hours at Police Station Bahodapur, Gwalior, which was recorded at sanha No.1076 of the Rojnamcha and missing person’s case No.6/97 was registered. Head Constable Ramdas (PW12) conducted enquiry in missing person case and recorded statements of Girendra Singh (PW6), his wife Usha Tomar (PW9), Babu Singh (PW5), Ram Singh (PW3) and Kamal Singh (PW11). Head Constable Ramdas (PW12) conducted enquiry in missing person case and recorded statements of Girendra Singh (PW6), his wife Usha Tomar (PW9), Babu Singh (PW5), Ram Singh (PW3) and Kamal Singh (PW11). Later on, on 20.3.1997, SHO, Sub-Inspector Rajendra Singh (PW15) inquired from present appellant Karu @ Shivdatt and took his statement wherein it was found that appellant Karu @ Shivdatt with his companions Dhanna @ Dharmnarayan, Shishupal and Asharam abducted Upendra Singh for recovery of ransom money from family of complainant on 16.3.1997, at about 3:00 p.m., they took Upendra Singh nearer to his residence into an ambassador car bearing registration No.MP07E1002 driven by appellant Karu @ Shivdatt and took Upendra Singh to Dabra- Bhitarwar Road, but in the way nearer to village Magrouni, they set a trap upon the neck of Upendra Singh and committed his murder and thereafter took out clothes from his dead body and his dead body was put in a drainage of Forest Department nearer to Chinnor-Nayagaon Road and his dead body was covered by stones and bushes and clothes of deceased were burnt. Thereafter, Rajendra Singh Yadav (PW15) on 20.3.1997 at about 11:30 a.m. registered FIR (Ex.P-17) against accused persons of relating crime. Rajendra Singh arrested present appellant on 20.3.1997 at about 11.45 a.m. vide arrest memo (Ex.P-1) and thereafter on same day at 11:50 a.m. recorded disclosure statement (Ex.P-2) of present appellant under section 27 of the Evidence Act, wherein present appellant gave information regarding place where dead body of the deceased was concealed. 4. On same day at 13:15 pm, from Nayagaon-Mau Raod adjacent to talaiya, at the instance of the appellant, after removing the stones and bushes, dead body of Upendra Singh was recovered, which was identified by panch witnesses Babu Singh and Yogendra Pal. On 20.3.1997 at 14:10 p.m., Rajendra Singh prepared spot map (Ex.P-20) at the instance of appellant Karu @ Shivdatt regarding the place, wherefrom dead body was recovered. After seeing the recovered dead body, by Babu Singh (PW5) and Yogendrapal Singh (PW7) it was identified to be of Upendra Singh, in this regard identification memo (Ex.P-3) was prepared. From place of the recovery of dead body, blood stained three pieces of stones, blood stained soil and blood stained head’s hair of the deceased, which was lying at the recovery place, and separately plain soil were seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P-4). 5. From place of the recovery of dead body, blood stained three pieces of stones, blood stained soil and blood stained head’s hair of the deceased, which was lying at the recovery place, and separately plain soil were seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P-4). 5. On 20.3.1997, Rajendra Singh Yadav (PW15) recorded another disclosure memorandum of appellant (Ex.P-5) under section 27 of the Evidence Act regarding used ambassador car and on same day at 17:30 pm in Gwalior, from Vivek Vihar Colony nearer to Guddu Chauhan’s house at the instance of appellant, an ambassador car bearing registration no.MP-07-E-1002 was seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P-6). Dead body of Upendra Singh was sent for post-mortem after preparing inquest memo (Ex.P-18). On 20.3.1997, Dr. J.N. Soni (PW10) at 4:00 p.m. started post-mortem of deceased Upendra Singh at Gajra Raja Medical College and J.H. Hospital, Gwalior and after completing post-mortem, recorded his postmortem report (Ex.P-10). 6. During investigation, acquitted co-accused persons Asharam and Shishupal were arrested and on disclosure statement of Asharam, a tap recorder of relating above mentioned car was recovered vide seizure memo (Ex.P-13) and on the basis of disclosure statement of Shishupal, a cotton safi (cloth) was recovered vide seizure memo (Ex.P-16). The seized safi was sent to FSL Sagar with a letter (Ex.P-21) dated 29.3.1997 drafted by Superintendent of Police, Gwalior, whose report (Ex.P-22) was received later on. The Regional FSL Gwalior’s report (Ex.P-20) regarding blood stained stones, soil and hairs was also received. After completing the formalities of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Court of CJM, Gwalior, who committed the arisen criminal case to the Sessions Court, Gwalior, who transferred the relating Sessions Trial to the above mentioned trial Court. 7. The trial Court framed charges for above mentioned offences against each of the tried accused Karu @ Shivdatt (present appellant), Asharam, Shishupal and Dhanna @ Dharmnarayan. During trial, Dhanna @ Dharmnarayan was declared absconder. Fifteen prosecution witnesses were examined before the trial Court. It was the defence of present appellant, Asharam and Shishupal before trial Court that they have been falsely implicated. No defence witness was examined. After hearing, the trial Court acquitted the co-accused persons Asharam and Shishupal but convicted and sentenced present appellant Karu @ Shivdatt as aforesaid. 8. Fifteen prosecution witnesses were examined before the trial Court. It was the defence of present appellant, Asharam and Shishupal before trial Court that they have been falsely implicated. No defence witness was examined. After hearing, the trial Court acquitted the co-accused persons Asharam and Shishupal but convicted and sentenced present appellant Karu @ Shivdatt as aforesaid. 8. Appearing counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the prosecution’s case was totally based on circumstantial evidence and chain of various circumstances was not complete and not established by the prosecution witnesses and each circumstance was also not proved beyond reasonable doubt and even the alleged motive for murder and abduction was not proved, as there was no evidence regarding the demand of ransom from the complainant or any of his family members and the alleged recovery of dead body of Upendra Singh, on the basis of disclosure statement of present appellant was totally doubtful and on this point the evidence of Investigating Officer, Rajendra Singh Yadav (PW15), Babu Singh (PW5), Yogendra Pal (PW7) was contradicted by the unchallenged evidence of Head Constable Ramdas (PW12), who clearly deposed that in the intervening night of 19.3.1997 and 20.3.1997, it was learnt that where Upendra Singh’s dead body was lying and in the same midnight, he had gone to the relating place and saw the dead body of Upendra Singh, but they did not prepare any recovery memo and after seeing the dead body, he returned and informed at Police Station that the dead body is lying on the relating spot. It is also argued that evidence of witness Ram Singh (PW3) regarding last seen of the deceased with the present appellant in running above mentioned ambassador car at Takenpur’s bus stand in the evening of 16.3.1997 was also not reliable as it was not supported by his alleged companion Kamal Singh (PW11). Placing reliance on some citations, it is argued that recovery of the dead body on the basis of the disclosure statement of present appellant is totally doubtful, therefore, only on the sole circumstance of last seen of the deceased with appellant in above mentioned car driven by the appellant could not be the basis of conviction of present appellant. Therefore, it is prayed that appeal be allowed and appellant be acquitted from the above mentioned offences. 9. Therefore, it is prayed that appeal be allowed and appellant be acquitted from the above mentioned offences. 9. Per contra, the above mentioned prayer has been strongly opposed by learned Public Prosecutor on the grounds that the trial Court has recorded its reason for disbelieving the evidence of Head Constable Ramdas (PW12) regarding seeing of dead body prior to recording of disclosure statement of present appellant Karu @ Shivdatt. It is also argued that the chain of circumstances was complete and proved beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, trial Court did not err in convicting and sentencing the present appellant. Hence, dismissal of appeal is prayed. 10. It is clear from the total evidence of Dr. J.N. Soni (PW10) and his post-mortem report (Ex.P-10) that on 20.3.1997 at 16:05 p.m. he started post-mortem of dead body of totally naked boy aged about 11 years, whose dead body was in decomposed state. He found three lacerated wounds on head and face of the deceased and nasal bone, the bone beneath right ear, were fractured and in dissection of the dead body, it was found that on muscles of neck, blood was clotted which was more on right side and thyroid was broken on middle in right side and in his opinion, deceased had died due to strangulation and other injuries were caused after his death and mode of his death was homicidal and he opined that deceased had died within few days more or less than one week from starting of his post-mortem. The evidence of Dr. Soni has not been challenged by the present appellant and there appears no reason to disbelieve his evidence. Therefore, it was proved from evidence available on record that deceased boy Upendra Singh died due to strangulation and mode of his death was homicidal. 11. It is clear that there is no eye-witness regarding offences of abduction and murder. The trial Court in para 43 of its judgment has recorded its findings that each of the following circumstances was proved by prosecution evidence available on record beyond reasonable doubt : (i) Upendra Singh got missing in the noon on 16.3.1997 from his residence. (ii) Ram Singh (PW3) on 16.3.1997 at about 5:30 pm at village Takenpur’s bus stand saw Upendra Singh seated in the above mentioned ambassador car with present appellant and car was going towards Jhansi. (ii) Ram Singh (PW3) on 16.3.1997 at about 5:30 pm at village Takenpur’s bus stand saw Upendra Singh seated in the above mentioned ambassador car with present appellant and car was going towards Jhansi. (iii) Present appellant Karu @ Shivdatt in the morning of 16.3.1197 took from Upendra Singh’s (PW1) the above mentioned ambassador car. (iv) On disclosure statement of present appellant Karu @ Shivdatt, recovery of dead body of deceased Upendra Singh. 12. In the light of cases of Kamta Tiwari v. State of M.P., (1196) JLJ 694 and Kaushal Prasad v. State of M.P., [(1996) JLJ 738], it is clear that it is the duty of prosecution to prove each circumstance against the relating accused beyond reasonable doubt. 13. It is clear from the evidene of father Girendra Singh (PW6) and mother Usha Tomar (PW9) of deceased child Upendra Singh that Upendra Singh got missing after the noon of 16.3.1997 and thereafter he was searched among the relatives and acquainted people. On this point, their evidence is corroborated by evidence of Babu Singh Tomar (PW5), neighbour Usha Devi (PW2) and by the original rojnamcha report (Ex.P-12) which was lodged by Girendra Singh (PW6) about missing of his son Upendra Singh and Head Constable Ramdas (PW12), who at the time of recording of his evidence has brought the original rojnamcha register from the relating Police Station Bahodapur, who has also conducted the missing person enquiry. Ramdas (PW12) deposed that under missing person’s enquiry he recorded statements of Girendra Singh, his wife Usha Tomar and Usha Devi (PW2) wife of Mangal Singh, but he clearly deposed in para 11 that during missing person enquiry he did not meet with present appellant Karu @ Shivdatt, but in same para he deposed that on the basis of statement recorded by him under missing person’s enquiry, SHO of Police Station Bahodapur recorded the FIR. 14. According to prosecution’s case regarding the circumstance of last seen of deceased with present appellant, three prosecution witnesses namely Usha Devi (PW2), Ram Singh (PW3) and Kamal Singh (PW11) were examined, but Kamal Singh (PW11) did not support the evidence of Ram Singh (PW3) on this point and he was declared hostile. 14. According to prosecution’s case regarding the circumstance of last seen of deceased with present appellant, three prosecution witnesses namely Usha Devi (PW2), Ram Singh (PW3) and Kamal Singh (PW11) were examined, but Kamal Singh (PW11) did not support the evidence of Ram Singh (PW3) on this point and he was declared hostile. Usha Devi (PW2) deposed that on the date of incident at about 3:30 p.m. in the mohalla of the deceased, she asked to the deceased after seeing him that where is he going, then Upendra Singh replied that he is going for wandering with appellant Karu @ Shivdatt and at that time nearby a white coloured Maruti car was standing, wherein four persons were seated and she saw that Upendra Singh went with the appellant by that car and appellant is her neighbour and she clearly deposed that after 9:30 p.m. after returning to her house, she intimated this fact to the complainant Girendra Singh that his son Upendra Singh had gone with appellant but this fact is missing in rojnamcha report lodged by the complainant at 11:30 p.m. 15. Complainant’s wife Usha Tomar (PW9) deposed that after lodging the missing person’s report by her husband in the same night at 1:00 am i.e. in the intervening night of 16.3.1997 and 17.3.1997, Usha (PW2) intimated her that she saw in the noon Upendra Singh seated with appellant Karu, Dhanna and two other in an ambassador car, but Usha Tomar (PW9) in her police statement (Ex.D-4) stated under ‘A’ to ‘A’ marked portion that on 19.3.1997 her neighbour Usha intimated her that on last Sunday, she saw Upendra in an ambassador car with appellant. Though Usha Tomar denied from giving this portion of her statement to the Investigating Officer, but Investigating Officer Rajendra Singh Yadav (PW15) stated that said portion was written in accordance with Usha Tomar’s statement. The trial Court had not rightly believed on Usha Devi (PW2)’s evidence as it was contradicted by the evidence of complainant and his wife. 16. Though Usha Tomar denied from giving this portion of her statement to the Investigating Officer, but Investigating Officer Rajendra Singh Yadav (PW15) stated that said portion was written in accordance with Usha Tomar’s statement. The trial Court had not rightly believed on Usha Devi (PW2)’s evidence as it was contradicted by the evidence of complainant and his wife. 16. Ram Singh Kushwaha (PW3) r/o of Scindhiya Nagar, Gwalior deposed that on 16.3.1997 with Kamal Singh (PW11) he reached to Takenpur by a motorcycle at about 5:00 pm as his brother was serving and residing at Takenpur and after fifteen minutes, when he was standing at Takenpur’s bus stand, then he saw that from the side of Gwalior, an ambassador car passed from the road towards Jhansi and at that time ambassador car was being driven by appellant Karu and in the car, by the side of Karu, Upendra Tomar was seated and three persons were also seated at the car on back seat who were unknown to him. Ram Singh (PW3) deposed that thereafter he went to Bhitarwar with Kamal Singh (PW11) and stayed there for two days at the house of Kamal Singh’s maternal uncle (mama) and on Wednesday he returned to Gwalior and when he heard about the incident, he intimated complainant Girendra Singh that about two days before, he saw Upendra Singh going towards Jhansi in a car driven by appellant Karu at Tekanpur. 17. Appellant’s learned counsel gave much emphasis on the fact that Kamal Singh (PW11) has not supported the evidence of Ram Singh and evidence of Ram Singh regarding identification of missing boy with Karu in a running car appears to be totally unnatural and unbelievable. 18. On the point of alleged circumstance regarding last seen of deceased by Upendra with appellant Karu, the evidence of Ram Singh Kushwaha (PW3) is not supported even by his alleged companion Kamal Singh Rajput (PW11). Though Kamal Singh Rajput was declared hostile by the prosecution, but Ram Singh Kushwaha (PW3)’s evidence on this point is not corroborated even by the evidence of parents Girander Singh (PW6) and Usha Tomar (PW9). The evidence of close relative of the deceased Babu Singh Tomar (PW5) also makes Ram Singh Kushwaha’s evidence totally unbelievable and unnatural. Though Kamal Singh Rajput was declared hostile by the prosecution, but Ram Singh Kushwaha (PW3)’s evidence on this point is not corroborated even by the evidence of parents Girander Singh (PW6) and Usha Tomar (PW9). The evidence of close relative of the deceased Babu Singh Tomar (PW5) also makes Ram Singh Kushwaha’s evidence totally unbelievable and unnatural. Neither father of the deceased Girander Singh (PW6) nor his wife Usha Tomar (PW9) deposed that on 19.3.1997 Ram Singh Kushwaha (PW3) intimated them about his seeing deceased Upendra in an ambassador car driven by appellant Karu at Tekanpur Bus Stand. These important facts are also missing in the missing person enquiry statements of mother of deceased Usha Tomar (PW9) and father Girander Singh (PW6) of the deceased. If Ram Singh Kushwaha (PW3) has intimated above-mentioned fact to parents of the deceased, then this fact would have been mentioned by parents of the deceased to police in their relating statements. Therefore, it is clear that on this point Ram Singh Kushwaha (PW3)’s evidence is not corroborated by the evidence of parents of the deceased and his companion Kamal Singh Rajput (PW11). Thus, it was not safe to rely on the evidence of Ram Singh Kushwaha (PW3)’s evidence on abovementioned point. 19. Cousin brother of Girander Singh, Babu Singh Tomar (PW5), who is a panch witness of alleged disclosure statement (Ex.P-2) and recovery of dead body of Upendra on its basis, has clearly deposed that on the date of incident, i.e., 16.3.1997 at 3 pm he had received information that Upendra had gone with appellant Karu and in next morning i.e., 17.3.1997 he himself enquired from appellant Karu, then Karu replied that deceased Upendra had not gone with him. In para 5, Babu Singh Tomar clearly deposed that till arrest of appellant Karu by police on 20.3.1997 he has not disclosed facts regarding appellant Karu, because when he with other family members was searching for missing Upendra, then appellant Karu was also searching for Upendra with them. In para 8, Babu Singh Tomar (PW5) clearly deposed that appellant Karu remained with them till morning of 19.3.1997, but thereafter Karu went away and he has not believed on the fact that Upendra had gone with appellant Karu, therefore, till 19.3.1997 he had not intimated regarding Karu to police. In para 8, Babu Singh Tomar (PW5) clearly deposed that appellant Karu remained with them till morning of 19.3.1997, but thereafter Karu went away and he has not believed on the fact that Upendra had gone with appellant Karu, therefore, till 19.3.1997 he had not intimated regarding Karu to police. It would be significant to mention here that the above-mentioned evidence of Babu Singh Tomar (PW5), a close relative of the deceased, has not been challenged by the prosecution, therefore, in light of the decisions in the cases of Neeraj v. State of Madhya Pradesh [ 1991 JLJ 564 (DB)] and Kishan v. State of MP [ 1995 JLJ 353 ], the evidence of Babu Singh Tomar (PW5) on this point is binding on prosecution, which also indicates that Ram Singh Kushwaha (PW3) is a planted witness, because prior to the alleged information given by Ram Singh to parents of the deceased, the facts regarding going of Upendra with appellant were known to the close relative Babu Singh Tomar (PW5) of the deceased. It is clear that the learned Trial Judge erred in placing reliance on such unbelievable evidence of Ram Singh Kushwaha (PW3) regarding circumstance of last seen. 20. It is the evidence of complainant’s cousin brother Babu Singh Tomar (PW5) and another panch witness Yogendra Pal (PW7) and Investigating Officer Rajendra Singh Yadav (PW15) that appellant Karu was arrested by above mentioned Investigating Officer in their presence on 20.3.1997 and thereafter he was interrogated wherein appellant Karu disclosed that the dead body of Upendra is concealed nearer to road of village Chinnor-Nayagaon in a deep drainage of Forest Department and in their presence, memorandum (Ex.P-2) was prepared regarding disclosure statement and thereafter they reached at the disclosed place wherefrom in their presence, the dead body in decomposed state was recovered. Babu Singh (PW5) deposed that appellant Karu took out the dead body from a pit whereas Yogendra Pal (PW7) deposed that dead body was taken out by the appellant from a drainage of Forest Department and the dead body was kept beneath burnt bushes and these both panch witnesses deposed that they identified the dead body of Upendra and in relation to which, identification memo (Ex.P-3) was prepared by Investigating Officer Rajendra Singh Yadav (PW15) which is also signed by them. It appears that on the point of recovery of dead body of Upendra on disclosure statement of present appellant, the evidence of Investigating Officer Rajendra Singh is materially corroborated by both the panch witnesses namely Babu Singh Tomar (PW5) and Yogendra Pal (PW7), but on this point the unchallenged evidence of police Head Constable Ramdas (PW12) and Ram Singh Kushwaha (PW3) presents a totally different picture of recovery of the dead body. 21. According to present appellant’s arrest memo (Ex.P-1), he was arrested on 20.3.1997 at 11:45 a.m. at Police Station Bahodapur. The memorandum under section 27 of the Evidence Act was prepared on same day at 11:50 am at the same police station and identification memo regarding recovered dead body was prepared on 20.3.1997 at 13:15 p.m. at Nayagaon-Mau raod nearer to Talaiya of Khuvad, but Head Constable Ramdas (PW12), who has conducted missing person enquiry, in cross-examination deposed that it was learnt on 19.3.1997 that Upendra was abducted by appellant Karu, but in para 9 he deposed that on 19.3.1997 he did not enquire from appellant Karu, but he admitted that in the intervening night of 19.3.1997 and 20.3.1997 it was learnt that where Upendra’s dead body is lying. In para 10 of his crossexamination, he clearly deposed that in the intervening night of 19.3.1997 and 20.3.1997 he had gone to that place with other members of police force where Upendra’s dead body was lying and he with other members of police force had seen the dead body in the night itself but after looking the dead body, they returned to police station and he did not prepare papers regarding recovery of dead body and he intimated at police station that on the indicated spot, dead body of Upendra was lying and thereafter in the morning of 20.3.1997, SHO, Rajendra Singh Yadav had gone with police force for recovery of dead body. Ramdas has not deposed that at that time Karu was with SHO Rajendra Singh Yadav. Ramdas clearly deposed in para 11 that during missing person enquiry he had not met with appellant Karu. 22. Ramdas has not deposed that at that time Karu was with SHO Rajendra Singh Yadav. Ramdas clearly deposed in para 11 that during missing person enquiry he had not met with appellant Karu. 22. It would also be significant to mention here that SHO Bahodapur, Rajendra Singh Yadav (PW15) recorded FIR (Ex.P-12) on 20.3.1997 at 11:30 a.m., wherein he has clearly recorded the fact that prior to recording of FIR, he took statement of appellant Karu, who disclosed that deceased Upendra was taken by him through ambassador car bearing registration No.MP07E1002 and in the way nearer to village Magroni in between village Mau-Nayagaon by the side of road in a drainage of Forest Department the dead body of Upendra was concealed. FIR (Ex.P-17) was recorded by at 11:30 a.m. and according to arrest memo (Ex.P-1) appellant Karu was arrested thereafter at 11:45 a.m. and his disclosure statement was recorded at 11:50 but prior to it, statement of Karu was taken by SHO Rajendra Singh Yadav, which is clearly recorded by Rajendra Singh in FIR (Ex.P-17). 23. In the light of the decisions in the cases of Neeraj and Kishan (supra), it is also clear that the unchallenged evidence of Ram Singh Kushwaha (PW3) also provides additional reliability to the evidence of Head Constable Ram Das (PW12), who has conducted missing person enquiry regarding child Upendra. 23. In the light of the decisions in the cases of Neeraj and Kishan (supra), it is also clear that the unchallenged evidence of Ram Singh Kushwaha (PW3) also provides additional reliability to the evidence of Head Constable Ram Das (PW12), who has conducted missing person enquiry regarding child Upendra. Ram Singh Kushwaha, who is neighbour of complainant Girander Singh and appellant Karu, deposed in crossexamination (para 3 and para 4) that in the evening of 19.3.1997 he returned to Gwalior and intimated father of Upendra regarding appellant Karu and he also searched for appellant Karu, but he clearly deposed in paragraphs 4,5,7 and 8 that in the intervening night of 19.3.1997 and 20.3.1997, i.e., at 4 am of 20.3.1997 he reached with other persons of mohalla to police station, then he was informed that appellant Karu has been traced out and at that time light of the dawn was not available and at that time in front the police station a bus was standing, wherein appellant Karu and police officials and other persons of mohalla were seated but as at that time appellant Karu was in police custody, he did not enquire from appellant and by that bus they travelled a distance about 10 kilometers towards Shivpuri and police officials told them that they are going for recovery of missing boy Upendra and police officials had gone only with appellant Karu and he with other persons of mohalla had left the bus at a hotel and about an hour later on, driver brought the bus empty near the hotel and intimated to them that police has told that they should reach police station in next morning at 9-30 and missing child would be recovered, thereafter by same bus with other persons of mohalla he reached his house and in next morning in the mohalla at about 9-30 am he was informed that missing boy had been murdered. Therefore, the unchallenged evidence of Head Constable Ramdas (PW12) and Ram Singh Kushwaha (PW3) completely destroys the evidence of Investigating Officer Rajendra Singh Yadav (PW15) and panch witness Babu Singh Tomar (PW5) and Yogendrapal Singh (PW7) regarding alleged arrest of appellant-Karu on 20.3.1997 at 11.45 a.m. It was proved from the unchallenged evidence available on record that the dead body was found in the intervening night of 19.3.1997 and 20.3.1997 before rising of the sun. Therefore, the evidence of Investigating Officer and panch witnesses regarding alleged recovery of dead body of Upendra only on the basis of disclosure statement given by appellant Karu on 20.3.1997 at 11.50 hours could not be believed. 24. It would be significant to mention here that it is clear from the evidence of Head Constable Ramdas (PW12) that in the intervening night of 19.3.1997 and 20.3.1997, the dead body has been searched by him with other members of police force and in the same night with police force he had seen the dead body and thereafter returned back to police station without making any paper regarding its recovery and on reaching police station intimated that the dead body was lying there, thereafter SHO Rajendra Singh Yadav in the morning of 20.3.1997 proceeded for the recovery of dead body. 25. It is clear from the evidence of head constable Ramdas (PW12) that in the intervening night of 19.3.1997 and 20.3.1997, he was having knowledge that where dead body of Upendra was concealed and lying, whereas according to evidence of Investigating Officer Rajendra Singh Yadav (PW15) and Panch witnesses Babu Singh (PW5), Yogendrapal Singh (PW7) on 20.3.1997 at 11:30 or 11:50 hours for the first time, present appellant Karu alias Shivdatt disclosed the place where dead body of Upendra was concealed and lying. It is clear from the unchallenged testimony of head constable Ramdas (PW12) that much prior to the alleged disclosure statement given by appellant Karu, he was knowing the place where dead body was concealed and in the same intervening night, he had seen dead body and return to police station to inform that the dead body is lying there, thereafter, it is clear from the binding evidence of Ramdas (PW12) that alleged facts, which were subsequently disclosed by the appellant, where already known to the police officials and actually in the intervening night the dead body was searched and seen by the head constable Ramdas (PW12). In such proved and unchallenged facts, it is clear that the facts about the place, where dead body was lying, was known to Ramdas (PW12), andthe same fact was later on disclosed by the appellant Karu alias Shivdatt. 26. In such proved and unchallenged facts, it is clear that the facts about the place, where dead body was lying, was known to Ramdas (PW12), andthe same fact was later on disclosed by the appellant Karu alias Shivdatt. 26. It is held in the case of Sukhvindar Singh and others v. State of Punjab, reported in (1994)5 SCC 152 , that section 27 of the Evidence Act rediscovery of the fact already disclosed and capable of discovery is not contemplated and disclosure statement firstly made in time alone would be admissible in evidence. In para 16 of the judgment of abovementioned case, it has been observed as under : “Therefore, once the fact has been discovered, section 27 of the Evidence Act cannot again be made use of to ‘re-discover’ the discovered fact. It would be a total misuse-even abuse-of the provisions of the section 27 of Evidence Act.” 27. In view of the unchallenged and binding testimony of the head constable Ramdas (PW12), it is clear that the evidence of the Investigating Officer Rajendra Yadav (PW15) and panch witnesses Babu Singh (PW5) and Yogendra Pal (PW7) that the dead body of Upendra was discovered only on the basis of disclosure statement made by appellant on 20.3.1997 at 11:00 a.m. or thereafter, appears to be totally unbelievable. 28. The learned trial Judge on the point of above mentioned inconsistencies between evidence of police departmental witnesses and panch witnesses has observed that in excitement of success during investigation, SHO has sent Head Constable Ramdas in the previous night for confirmation or verification of the disclosure statement given by the present appellant, but such observations are totally against the documents prepared by the Investigating Officer Rajendra Singh Yadav (PW15) himself, who has recorded FIR (Ex.P-17) on 20.3.1997 at 11:30 a.m. and thereafter arrested the appellant at 11:45 a.m. and recorded disclosure statement of appellant at 11:50 a.m. and recovered dead body at 13:15 p.m. on the same day on 20.3.1997. Head Constable Ramdas (PW12)’s unchallenged evidence is binding on prosecution and it makes the alleged recovery of dead body of deceased child Upendra on the basis of alleged disclosure statement of Karu @ Shivdatt totally doubtful and suspicious. Head Constable Ramdas (PW12)’s unchallenged evidence is binding on prosecution and it makes the alleged recovery of dead body of deceased child Upendra on the basis of alleged disclosure statement of Karu @ Shivdatt totally doubtful and suspicious. Head Constable Ramdas’s unchallenged evidence by the prosecution makes all above mentioned documents prepared by SHO Rajendra Singh totally doubtful and unbelievable and we are of the considered opinion that the trial Court erred in recording the finding that circumstance of recovery of dead body of abducted child Upendra on the basis of disclosure statement of present appellant was proved beyond reasonable doubt. 29. It would also be significant to mention here that the trial Court has convicted appellant also under section 364A of the IPC for abduction of Upendra for recovery of ransom from the father and other relatives of the abductee child, but in the light of the decision in the case of Birbal Choudhary alias Mukhiya Jee v. State of Bihar [ AIR 2017 SC 4866 ], it is clear that for constituting an offence punishable under section 364A of the IPC, at least demand of ransom from parents or other relatives of the abductee is an essential ingredient, but in case in hand, there is no evidence regarding alleged demand of ransom by appellant Karu or any unknown person. Girander Singh (PW6), father of the abductee child Upendra, deposed in para 7 that accused Karu would have abducted his son Upendra for recovery of money from him, but it is clear from the evidence of Upendra Singh Chouhan (PW1), the-then employer of present appellant Karu that his driver/appellant Karu on 16.3.1997 in the morning at 8 am had taken his ambassador car and on next day, i.e., 17.3.1997 at 11 am he saw his car with appellant Karu at taxi stand situated near railway station, Gwalior. There is no evidence of parents of deceased child Upendra or any prosecution witness regarding demand of any ransom money by any unknown or known person from them, then it is clear that the trial Court erred in convicting and sentencing the present appellant under section 364A of the IPC, as according to the prosecution’s case, on 16.3.1997 in the noon at 3 pm child Upendra was abducted and in the night of same day he was murdered. If Upendra would have been abducted for recovery of ransom amount, then he would not have been murdered on the same day. As prosecution’s case is totally based on circumstantial evidence, in such state, the alleged motive of relating offences was required to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, it is clear that the evidence available on record was not sufficient to prove the alleged motive for the abduction and murder of the relating child. 30. It is clear from the evidence of relating car owner Upendra Singh Chouhan (PW1) that appellant Karu @ Shivdatt was his driver, therefore, by mere taking of the car in the morning of 16.3.1997 by the appellant from its owner Upendra Singh Chouhan (PW1) could not connect the appellant with the alleged offences as Upendra Singh Chouhan (PW1) deposed that from 1.3.1997 appellant was working as his driver and he was paying him Rs.1500/- monthly pay as driver. From the above mentioned seized car no any such evidence was collected, which could establish that this car was used for abduction of deceased Upendra. 31. The evidence of other witnesses is related to the acquitted accused persons Asharam and Shishupal but as pointed out earlier, their acquittal has not been challenged by the prosecution, it has attained finality, therefore, no discussion appears to be necessary in relation to acquitted accused persons. 32. We are of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court erred in inferring that the alleged chain of circumstances is complete against present appellant as pointed out in this judgment that no circumstance was proved against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. On the point of alleged recovery of dead body on the basis of disclosure statement of appellant, the learned trial Court totally overlooked the contradictions between the evidence of Head Constable Ramdas (PW12) and Ram Singh (PW3) on one hand, and Investigating Officer Rajendra Singh Yadav (PW15) on the other hand. In view of all these infirmities and weakness of the prosecution’s evidence, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution was unsuccessful in proving any circumstance against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, appellant’s appeal appears to be worthy of acceptance. 33. In view of all these infirmities and weakness of the prosecution’s evidence, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution was unsuccessful in proving any circumstance against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, appellant’s appeal appears to be worthy of acceptance. 33. Consequently, appeal filed by appellant Karu @ Shivdatt is allowed and his conviction and sentence as recorded by the trial Court are set aside and appellant Karu @ Shivdatt is acquitted from the charge of offences punishable under section 302/34, 364-A/34 and 201/34 of the IPC. Previously his sentence was suspended vide order dated 17.4.2000 passed in this criminal appeal. Appellant’s bail bond and personal bond are discharged. The record of trial Court be sent back immediately with a copy of this judgment.