SANJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of the parties, the present appeal is set down for final hearing and disposal.

(2.) Present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17.05.2014 and the order on sentence dated 26.05.2014 passed by the learned Trial Court in Sessions Case No.128/2010, FIR No.197/2010, Police Station Narela, by which the appellant was convicted under Sections 302 and 364A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo two years simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The appellant has also been sentenced to imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo two years simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 364A of IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(3.) Before the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties can be considered, we may notice in short the case of the prosecution. Six years old daughter of the complainant had gone to the house of the complainant's brother in the same locality on 23.05.2010 at 7:30 P.M. His brother along with his two sons had gone to fetch water at 7:45 P.M. and on return did not find their niece. All efforts to search her were in vain. The complainant received a call on his Mobile no.9899248061 from Mobile no.9654962866 on 24.05.2010 at 1:00 P.M. for ransom. A demand of Rs. 3.0 lakhs was made. On the matter being reported to the Police, an FIR was registered. When the ransom call was again received, the complainant along with his brother were present in the police station but there was no facility of voice recording in the phone of the complainant and thus, the SHO Satish Kumar provided his phone to the complainant who inserted his SIM in that phone and talked with the caller who was ultimately identified as the appellant Sanjay who was the previous neighbour of the complainant. The conversation recorded was sent to FSL after obtaining the voice sample of the appellant and the laboratory came to the conclusion that the voice contained in the CD was of the same person whose sample voice was sent for examination. The appellant got recovered the dead body from the rented house of his father.