State of Himachal Pradesh v. Chander Sharma & Ors.

confirmed the presence of Tejinder Pal Singh and Vikrant Bakshi at Navbahar. Flat No.22 also falls within the range of the tower. The accused had shown every place where the child was taken by them. Chander Sharma represented himself to be an Advocate and Member of the International Human Rights Commission, so he became aware of the various steps being taken by the police. 17 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:33005 ) The accused had thrown the child alive into the water tank, which was confirmed by the report of the post-mortem examination, therefore, the police filed the charge sheet against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 364-A, 347, 302, 201,202, 506 and 120-B of IPC before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, who committed it to the Court of Sessions for Trial.

20. The learned Trial Court charged the accused with the commission of offences punishable under Sections 364-A, 347, 302, 201, 202, 506 read with section 120-B of IPC, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

21. The prosecution examined 105 witnesses to prove its case. Constable Rajiv Patial (PW1) carried the statement of Pinki Gupta to the Police Station. Inspector Kamaldeep (PW2) registered the FIR based on the statement of Pinki Gupta. Umashankar (PW3), Arun Kumar Gupta (PW4) and Ashok Kumar (PW5) deposed about the fact that Yug was missing, the steps taken by the family members to search for him, the involvement of Chander Sharma during the search and various inquiries made by him. Vimal Rattan (PW6) is a friend of Vikrant Bakshi who had visited Flat No.22 to celebrate the birthday party of Vikrant 18 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:33005 ) Bakshi. He also deposed that Chander Sharma used to proclaim himself as an employee of the International Human Rights Commission. Akash Gupta (PW7) deposed about the purchase of luxury cigarettes by Chander Sharma from his shop and the missing of Yug. Himanshu Khanna (PW8) deposed about the behaviour of Chander Sharma and that he had gifted a mobile phone worth ₹ 50-55 thousand to Vikrant Bakshi on his birthday. ASI Nag Dev (PW9) and Inspector Babu Ram (PW10) conducted the initial investigation. Vikram Nanda (PW11) proved the sale of a mobile phone to Chander Sharma. Janesh Kumar (PW12) proved the purchase of a secondhand mobile, the Micro Max, from the shop of Gaurav (PW13). Jaspreet Singh (PW14) proved the seizure of the bill book from Vikram Nanda. Ankush (PW15) handed over the information sought by the police regarding Chander Sharma. Mangla Sood (PW16) proved the bank account statements of Amit Pal Singh. Rohit Bhardwaj (PW17) proved the accounts statement of Chander Sharma. Amit Grower (PW18) is the witness to the recovery of the admission register and assignment notebook of Chander Sharma. Sudarshan Kumar Saini (PW19) submitted the account statements and transaction statements of Vikrant Bakshi and the transfer of an amount to 19 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:33005 ) Amit Pal Singh. Saroj Kumar (PW20) proved the seizure of the water sample from the tank located at Keleston. Sunder Singh (PW21) proved the sale deed in favour of Amrit Pal Singh and his wife. Sanjay Kumar (PW22) is the witness to the seizure of the sale deed. Sanjeev Gupta (PW23) proved that the Photostat paper and tracing paper were sold by him. Hanumant Rai (PW24), Devender Verma (PW25), and Ankur Pathak (PW26) proved the customer application form and call details record. Sandeep Kumar (PW27) developed the photographs. Shweta (PW28) proved the FIR No. 6/15. HHC Prem Chand (PW29) handed over the attested copy of the register numbers 19 and 21 of FIR No. 77 of 2014 to the police. Constable Piyush Raj (PW30) and HC Ranjeet Singh (PW31) carried the case property to SFSL Junga. HC Umeshar Singh (PW32) was posted as MHC with whom the case property was deposited. ASI Chet Ram (PW33) witnessed the recovery of the laptop and the vehicle. Deepak Kumar (PW34) is the witness to the search of Sanjeevan Jaiswal. He also prepared the geographical location chart of the cell IDs. Bal Krishan (PW35) is the neighbour of Vinod Gupta, whose house was used by the police to keep a watch on the shop of Vinod Gupta. Kundan Singh (PW36) brought the record of FIR No. 6/15 from the Police 20 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:33005 ) Station, New Shimla. Puran Dass (PW37) was posted as a Junior Engineer with the Municipal Corporation, Shimla. He was present at the time of the recovery of the bones and concrete slab from the tank. Pratap Thakur (PW38) prepared a Jamabandi of the water tank. Santosh Kumari (PW39) produced the birth certificate of Yug. Deepak Kumar (PW40) did not support the prosecution's case. Ravinder Kumar (PW42), Hari Ram (PW41), and Amar Singh (PW43) were working in the water supply department of the Municipal Corporation, Shimla. They proved that the bones were recovered while cleaning the tank, which were thrown away near the tank. Arvind Kumar (PW44) is an employee of Vinod Gupta, who had found the initial ransom notes. Hari Om (PW45) is another employee of Vinod Gupta, who carried the ransom money to Ambala. HC Santosh Kumar (PW46) proved the notice issued by the police for tracing Yug. Anup Vaid, Ward Member (PW47), witnessed the recovery of various articles on 17.8.2016. Harish (PW48) is the caretaker of Flat No.22. He witnessed various recoveries made on 18.7.2016. Pradeep Kumar Gupta (PW49) accompanied Vinod Gupta when the photographs of Yug were handed over to the police. He also proved the recoveries of different articles made by the police. Dr Amar 21 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:33005 ) Chand (PW50) obtained the blood samples of Pinki and Vinod Gupta for DNA analysis. Dr. Sangeet Dhillon (PW51) examined the bones recovered by the police. Amit Pal Singh (PW52) is the owner of Flat No.22. Krishan Dutt (PW53) is the Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Bhont, who witnessed the recovery of the bones from the water tank at Keleston. Constable Rohit Sharma (PW54) and Constable Ravinder Kumar (PW55) proved the entries in the daily diary. HC Sita Ram (PW56) was posted as MHC, who entered the contents of the statements of Pinki Gupta into the official computer. Dila Ram (PW57) was the In-charge of Malkhana, Police Station, Sadar, with whom the case property was deposited. Sunil Kumar (PW58) witnessed the recovery of the vehicle bearing registration no. HP-03D-8080. HHC Gopal Singh (PW59) was posted in the Police Station, CID, Bharari, and carried the case property to SFSL Junga. HC Sahi Ram (PW60) carried the case property to SFSL Junga. ASI Prakash Chand (PW61) was posted as MHC, CID Bharari, with whom the case property was deposited. HC Balbir Singh (PW62) witnessed the recoveries. Satya Prakash (PW63) videotaped the demarcation given by the accused. Pinki Gupta @ Krishna (PW64) is the mother of Yug. Mr. Ranjeet Singh, Chief Judicial Magistrate, 22 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:33005 ) Shimla, recorded the statements of the accused. Amardeep Singh (PW66) was posted as Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, in whose presence the specimen handwritings were taken. Gurleen Kaur (PW67) is the wife of Amit Pal Singh, and she handed over the keys of Flat No. 22 to Chander Sharma. Rajat Kapoor (PW68) printed the missing posters of Yug. Dr Neeta Sharma (PW69) examined the jaw recovered from the water tank. Vinod Kumar Gupta (PW70) is the father of Yug. Hanumat Rai (PW71) produced the customer application. Meenu Rana (PW72) was posted as a Nodal Officer with Tata Docomo. She produced a customer application form of Chander Sharma. Devender Verma (PW73) issued the report regarding the tower location/signal of the Bharti Airtel Tower. Ankur Pathak (PW74) submitted a report regarding the tower location of Reliance Communications. Yuv Raj Saxena (PW75) prepared the tower location of Aircell. Dr. Arun Sharma (PW76) and Dr. Jagjeet Singh (PW77) are the Forensic Experts who issued different reports. Anil Chandel (PW78) provided the mobile number of Tejinder Pal Singh. Sunder Singh (PW79) brought the record of the registration of the sale deed in favour of Amit Pal Singh and Gurleen Kaur. Arvind Padam (PW80) supplied the information regarding the 23 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:33005 ) ration card. HHC Suresh Kumar (PW81) carried the case property to SFSL Junga. Dy.SP Vijay Kumar Sharma (PW82) was a Member of the Special Investigation Unit (SIU) and conducted a partial investigation. Inspector Virender Chauhan (PW83) is the witness to the recovery of the ransom letters and the envelopes. Visheshwar Sharma (PW84) is the handwriting expert who examined the disputed, specimen and admitted handwriting. ASI Bhagirath Sharma (PW85) is another witness to the recovery of the ransom letters. Balwant Singh (PW86) proved various recoveries made from the accused, Tejinder Pal Singh. HC Nika Ram (PW87) was posted as MHC in the Police Station, New Shimla. The mobile phones were deposited with him. Rahul Sharma (PW88) conducted the partial investigation. Nasib Singh Patial (PW89) is the Forensic Expert who visited the spot and issued the report. He also issued other reports of analysis of material objects submitted to him. Vivek sehaj pal (pw90) is the forensic expert who issued the reports of DNA analysis. Sonal Thama (PW91) was posted as Judicial Magistrate before whom an application for transferring the case property in FIR No. 6/15 to the present case was filed, and which was allowed by her. LHC Shanta (PW92) produced the case property in FIR No. 6/15 before 24 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:33005 ) the Judicial Magistrate, Sonal Thama. Ram Lal (PW93) issued the Jamabandi of Muhal Keleston. Rahul Chatterjee (PW94) proved that the transit accommodation was allotted to Narinder Kumar Bakshi. HC Ramesh (PW95) recorded the statement of Pinki under Section 154 of the CrPC. Jai Prakash (PW96) issued the bill regarding the purchase of the mobile phone of Chander Sharma. Inspector Maneesh Chauhan (PW97) investigated FIR No. 6/15 and proved the recovery of the mobile phones from the accused. Ishant Sharma (PW98) proved the account opening form and bank statement of Vikrant Bakshi. ASI Subhash Kumar (PW99) is the witness to the disclosure statement and consequent recoveries. Meer Bashim (PW100) proved the cheques. SI Rajesh Kumar (PW101) conducted the investigation partially. ASI Anil Kumar (PW102) is a witness to various recoveries. He also recorded the statements of some of the witnesses. SI Suresh (PW103) witnessed various recoveries. Bhopinder Brakta (PW104) and Dhansukh Datta (PW105) conducted the investigation partly.

22. The accused, in their statements recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., denied the prosecution's case in its entirety. Accused Chander Sharma stated that he was innocent 25 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:33005 ) and falsely implicated. The witnesses deposed against him as they were relatives of Yug and the police officials. Accused Tejinder Pal Singh stated that the case could not be solved by the police; therefore, the police falsely implicated him. Similarly, accused Vikrant Bakshi stated that he was falsely implicated in the present case as well as in FIR No. 6/2015.

23. The Learned Trial Court held that Vinod Gupta was residing with his family, consisting of his wife, his mother, two daughters and one son, namely, Yug in the Dwarkagarh building. He had a flourishing business in Shimla. His financial condition was good. Chander Sharma was residing in the same building. House No. 22 Housing Board Colony, Jakhu, Shimla, was owned by Amit Pal Singh. His wife, Gurleen Kaur, handed over the key to this house to Chander Sharma, who paid ₹ 10,000/- to her. The birthday of Vikrant Bakshi was celebrated in this house, and an expensive mobile was gifted to Vikrant Bakshi by Chander Sharma. Chander Sharma was living a luxurious lifestyle before the incident. He proclaimed himself to be an Advocate and an employee of the International Human Rights Commission. He used to consume luxurious cigarettes. He and Tajinder Pal Singh took an extraordinary interest in the search for Yug. Accused 26 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:33005 ) Chander Sharma, Tejinder Pal Singh, Vikrant Bakshi and Gaurav were arrested in FIR No. 6/15. The police seized their mobile phones, which were transferred to the present case. The mobile phones of Chander Sharma, Tejinder Pal Singh and Vikrant Bakshi were sent to SFSL, Junga and data was retrieved from them. The data retrieved from the memory card of the mobile phone of Vikrant Bakshi included the video and photographs of Yug. The accused made disclosure statements, which led to the recovery of bones. These were identified to be belonging to Yug based on the DNA analysis. The papers containing similar handwriting, as was used in the ransom note, were recovered from House No.22. The handwriting of Chander Sharma and Vikram Bakshi matched some of the disputed handwriting. The decor of house No.22 matched the decor shown in the photographs and the video of Yug. Slippers of Yug were also recovered from House No.22, which could lead to an inference that Yug was kept in House No.22. The concrete slab was recovered as per the statement made by Chander Sharma. This concrete slab matched the slab found in the water tank. The statements made by the accused leading to the recovery of the bones were admissible in evidence. The diatoms found in the 27 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:33005 ) water sample taken from the tank matched the diatoms found in the bones. The motive of the accused persons was to demand ransom from the father of Yug. The accused were in constant touch with each other, which established the conspiracy between them, hence the accused were convicted and sentenced as under:- (i) Accused Chander Sharma: Under Section 302 read with Sentenced to death. Section 120-B of the IPC. Under Section 364-A, read Sentenced to death. with Section 120-B of the IPC. Under Section 347 read with To suffer rigorous imprisonment Section 120-B of the IPC. for three years, pay a fine of ₹20,000/- (₹Twenty Thousand only), and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Under Section 201 read with To suffer rigorous imprisonment Section 120-B of the IPC. for seven years, pay a fine of ₹50,000/- (₹Fifty Thousand only), and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment 28 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:33005 ) for six months. Under Section 506, read with To suffer rigorous imprisonment Section 120-B of the IPC. for one year, pay a fine of ₹10,000/- (₹Ten Thousand only), and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The accused was directed to be hanged by his neck till he was dead. (ii) Accused Tajender Pal Singh: Under Section 302 read with Sentenced to death. Section 120-B of the IPC. Under Section 364-A, read Sentenced to death. with Section 120-B of the IPC. Under Section 347 read with To suffer rigorous imprisonment Section 120-B of the IPC. for three years, pay a fine of ₹20,000/- (₹Twenty Thousand only), and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. 29 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:33005 ) Under Section 201 read with To suffer rigorous imprisonment Section 120-B of the IPC. for seven years, pay a fine of ₹50,000/- (₹Fifty Thousand only), and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Under Section 506, read with To suffer rigorous imprisonment Section 120-B of the IPC. for one year, pay a fine of ₹10,000/- (₹Ten Thousand only), and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The accused was directed to be hanged by his neck till he was dead. (iii) Accused Vikrant Bakshi: Under Section 302 read with Sentenced to death. Section 120-B of the IPC. Under Section 364-A, read Sentenced to death. with Section 120-B of the IPC. Under Section 347 read with To suffer rigorous imprisonment Section 120-B of the IPC. for three years, pay a fine of ₹20,000/- (₹Twenty Thousand 30 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:33005 ) only), and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Under Section 201 read with To suffer rigorous imprisonment Section 120-B of the IPC. for seven years, pay a fine of ₹50,000/- (₹Fifty Thousand only), and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Under Section 506, read with To suffer rigorous imprisonment Section 120-B of the IPC. for one year, pay a fine of ₹10,000/- (₹Ten Thousand only), and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The accused was directed to be hanged by his neck till he was dead.

24. Since the death sentence was imposed, therefore, a reference was made to this Court for confirmation.

25. The accused have also preferred separate appeal against the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court. It was asserted that the learned Trial Court failed to consider the legal arguments raised by the defence. The 31 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:33005 ) investigating agency falsely implicated the accused when they could not solve the sensational and hyped crime for more than two years. The evidence was not appreciated as per the well- defined parameters. The chain of circumstances should be unbroken and lead to the guilt of the accused. Various links in the chain do not add up and point towards the guilt of the accused. The child was found missing on 14.6.2014, and no clue was found in this case for almost one year. An FIR No. 6/15, dated 22.1.2015, was registered for theft in a courier company. The accused, Gaurav, was arrested in the FIR. The involvement of the accused was suspected after their arrest. However, it was not explained what led to the suspicion against the accused. The family members of Yug unanimously deposed that they became suspicious after the arrest of the accused in the theft case without explaining the basis for their suspicion. The Investigating Officer had taken the call detail about the case, which was more than one year old. The house was searched on different occasions in the presence of a scientific expert. Some articles were recovered on 18.7.2016. Another search was conducted on 17.8.2016 in the presence of scientific officers of the forensic laboratory, and incriminating articles were 32 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:33005 ) recovered. It was not explained why the articles found subsequently were not recovered during the earlier search. The articles were lying in accessible places, and their recovery was suspicious. It was proved on record that the tank was cleaned in January and July 2016. There is no explanation of how the bones could have been recovered on 25.8.2016. As per the prosecution, the deceased was thrown alive into the tank. The body would have decomposed in the water tank, and the foul smell could not have gone unnoticed. These aspects were overlooked by the learned Trial Court. Sanjeevan Jaiswal had made a ransom call. Police arrested him, and he was let off without any reason. The accused, Chander Sharma, was a neighbour of the deceased. The sisters of the deceased were taking tuition from Chander’s mother. His conduct of searching for the child is natural. The child was stated to have been killed on 21.6.2014, and the first ransom letter was sent on 27.6.2014. It is highly improbable that a person is kidnapped to get the ransom and thereafter he is killed before the ransom is demanded. The accused were declared unfit to undergo a narco-analysis test; however, they were not again taken for the narco-analysis test. Therefore, it was prayed 33 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:33005 ) that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court be set aside.

26. We have heard Mr Sartaj Singh Narula, Arshdeep Singh Cheema and Prince Chauhan, learned counsel for the appellants/accused, and Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by M/s. J.S. Guleria and Priyanka Chauhan learned Deputy Advocates General for the respondent/State.

27. Mr Sartaj Singh Narula, learned counsel for the appellants/accused, submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The police investigated the matter to implicate the accused rather than finding the actual culprits. The learned Trial Court held that Chander Sharma and Tejinder Pal Singh had taken a keen interest in the search for Yug. They were neighbours of Yug and concerned with his safety. Tejinder Pal Singh had even offered the search of his godown, which shows his bona fides. The prosecution could not trace Yug and falsely implicated the accused. The integrity of the mobile phones is not established. The photographs and the video recording were found on the memory card of the mobile phone, as per the prosecution. The memory card is not mentioned in the 34 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:33005 ) recovery memo prepared in FIR No. 6/15, which makes it highly doubtful that the memory card was present in the mobile phone. The ransom letter initially received by Vinod Gupta mentions that the audio of Yug’s voice was sent with the ransom letter; however, that audio was never produced before the Court, and it was claimed that no such audio was received. There is a reasonable doubt that the memory card stated to have been recovered from the mobile phone of Vikrant Bakshi is the same memory card which was attached to the first ransom letter. The police had interrogated various persons and had also conducted their narco-analysis test. Police traced Sanjeevan Jaiswal as the caller, who had demanded the ransom. He had even refused to undergo a narco-analysis test. The police did not probe his role to determine his complicity. The specimen handwritings of various persons were taken, and these were sent to SFSL Junga for analysis as per the initial report issued by SFSL Junga. The specimen handwriting of Chander Sharma did not match the disputed handwriting. The Forensic Expert asked that the specimen handwriting be taken on the same type of paper and with the same pen with which the ransom notes were written. The material to be written in the specimen handwriting was 35 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:33005 ) shown to the accused, and they were asked to copy it. This is contrary to the procedure of taking the specimen handwriting. The handwriting expert matched the handwriting of Chander Sharma with the disputed handwriting. He had initially compared the specimen handwriting of Chander Sharma with the disputed handwriting and had issued a report that these could not be matched. However, he subsequently stated that the same handwriting matched the disputed handwriting. This makes the authenticity of his report highly doubtful. Flat No.22 was stated to have been rented to the accused Chander Sharma. Owner Amit Pal Singh claimed that the payment was made online; however, no online payment to Amit Pal Singh was found. The only payment which was proved on record was made by Vikrant Bakshi, that too in October. The statements of the witnesses who claimed that the birthday of Vikrant Bakshi was celebrated in Flat No.22 are not reliable. The recoveries made from Flat No.22 are also suspicious. Amit Pal Singh stated that when the rent was not paid to him, he broke the lock and cleaned the Flat. The search of the Flat was conducted on 18.7.2016 in the presence of the SFSL Team, and some articles were recovered. Thereafter, the search was again conducted on 17.8.2016, and other articles were 36 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:33005 ) recovered. It is highly suspicious that the house was cleaned by the owner, recoveries of some articles were made in the presence of a Forensic Expert, and thereafter, some other incriminating articles were recovered. The key remained with the police, and the possibility of the police putting the articles in the house could not be ruled out. The recovery of the bones is also suspicious. The tank was cleaned twice a year. The officials from the Municipal Corporation, Shimla, categorically stated that they had cleaned the tank. It is highly unbelievable that the bones could still be recovered in August. The concrete slab, stated to be tied to Yug, was proven to be a stepping stone for the ladder by the statements of the officials. A diatom test conducted by Forensic Experts is not a reliable test, and in the absence of the details of the diatoms, the same cannot be used to conclude that yug was thrown alive into the tank. A decomposing body would leave traces in the water, which could be detected in the water supply. No complaint was made by any person about the remains of the dead body or the foul smell. The requirements of Section 364A of the IPC were not satisfied. The statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act describing the various steps taken by the accused was held to be inadmissible by the learned Trial 37 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:33005 ) Court. The call details record was not proved as per the law, as no certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act was filed. The tower location was found with the help of private software. The Investigating Officer assumed that the signal of the tower was unidirectional, whereas the signal is circular and cannot fix the location of a person with certainty. The learned Trial Court has not given any cogent reason for imposing the death penalty. Merely because a young child has died is no reason to impose the extreme penalty of death. The case was based on circumstantial evidence, and the death penalty should not have been imposed upon the accused in a case of circumstantial evidence. Therefore, he prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the accused be acquitted, or in the alternative, the death penalty imposed by the learned trial court be reduced. He relied upon the following judgment in support of his submission: -  Magan Bihari Lal Vs. The State of Punjab 1977(2) SCC 210;  Murarilal Vs. State of M.P. 1980(1) SCC 704;  Shashi Kumar Banerjee & others Vs Subodh Kumar Banerjee since deceased & after him his LRs & others 1964 AIR (Supreme Court) 529  Tulsiram Kanu Vs State 1954 AIR (Supreme Court) 1 38 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:33005 )  State of Rajasthan Vs. Talevar 2011(11) SCC666  Raj Kumar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan 2013(5) SCC 722  Inspector of Customs Vs. Yashpal and Anr. 2009(4) SCC 769  Vishwanath Gupta Vs. State of Uttaranchal (2007)11 SCC 633  Shaik Ahmed Vs State of Telangana (2021) 9 SCC59  Suman Sood alias Kamaljeet Kaur Vs. State of Rajasthan(2007) 5 SCC 634  Hardayal Vs. State of U.P. (1976)2 SCC 812  C. Muniappan Vs. State of Tamil (2010)9 SCC 567  Bachittar Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2002)8 SCC 125  Bachan Singh & Ors Vs. State of Punjab (1980)2 SCC 684  Suresh Vs. State of U.P. (1981) 2 SCC 569  Harnam Singh Vs State (Delhi ADMN) (1976) 2 SCC 819  Dagadu Vs. State of Maharashtra (1981) 2 SCC 575

28. Mr. J.S. Guleria, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence proved the accused's location at the Dwarkagarh building and thereafter at Flat No.22. They were in constant touch with each other. The experts from mobile companies deposed about the reach of the signal, and this establishes the location of the accused with 39 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:33005 ) certainty. The involvement of the accused was indicated in the narco-analysis test of Arvind and Hariom conducted in Gujarat. The police obtained the call details record and found that the location of the accused was commensurate with their presence at Flat No.22. Gurleen Kaur categorically stated that she had handed over the keys to Chander Sharma, who had paid ₹ 10,000/- as an advance amount. Various persons had visited Flat No.22, and the birthday of Vikrant Bakshi was celebrated in the same Flat. Chander Sharma was leading a luxurious lifestyle. He showed keen interest in the investigation being conducted by the police. He was scolded for the same by the uncle of Vinod Gupta. He had expressed his anger at this. The involvement of the accused is duly proved by the data recovered from the mobile phone. The décor in the photographs of Yug and the video matched the décor of Flat No.22. It was duly established by the DNA analysis that the bones recovered from the tank at Keleston belonged to Yug. These circumstances show that the accused were aware of the fact that the bones of Yug were lying in the water tank. They did not provide any explanation for their knowledge. They denied the prosecution's case in its entirety. False denial is a circumstance which strengthens the chain of circumstantial evidence. The 40 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:33005 ) accused had a motive to kidnap Yug, as Chander Sharma was leading a luxurious lifestyle and required money to sustain it. He had falsely proclaimed himself to be an employee of the International Human Rights Commission. He had forged the identity card to establish this fact. He had even offered to pay money to the Investigating Officer during the investigation. The links in the chain of circumstance unerringly pointed towards the guilt of the accused, and the learned Trial Court had rightly held that the accused had kidnapped Yug for ransom. The deceased, Yug, was a neighbour of the accused, Chander Sharma. His sisters were taking tuition from his mother. He reposed confidence in the accused. The accused breached this confidence and kidnapped the child to satisfy his desire for money. This is a reprehensible crime, and the death penalty was the appropriate punishment for it; therefore, he prayed that the death penalty imposed by the learned Trial Court be confirmed and the appeal preferred by the accused be dismissed. He relied upon the following judgment in support of his submission: -  Kishore Bhadke Vs. State of Maharashtra 2017(3) SCC 760  State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu 2005 (11) SCC 600 41 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:33005 )  State of Karnataka Vs. David Razario 2002 (7) SCC 728  Charandas Swami Vs. State of Gujarat 2017 (7) SCC 177  Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC 1622  Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharashtra (2006) 10 SCC 681  Kehar Singh Vs. State of Delhi Administration. (1988) 3 SCC 609  Murari Lal Vs. State of H.P. 1980(1) SCC 704  Sapan Haldar and others Vs. State 2012 STPL Page 164431  Mohd. Khalid Vs. State of W.B. (2002) 7 SCC 334  Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade Vs. State of Maharashtra 1973 (2) SCC 793  Munna Kumar Upadhyay Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 2012 (6) SCC 174  Suresh Chandra Bahri Vs. State of Bihar 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 80  Sambhubhai Raisangbhai Padhiyar Vs. State of Gujarat (2025) 2 SCC 399  Prakash Chand Vs. State (1979) 3 SCC 90  Manoj Pratap Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan 2022(9) SCC 81  Machhi Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1983 (3) SCC 470  Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684 42 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:33005 )  Dhananjay Chatterjee @ Dhana Vs. State of West Bengal 1994 (2) SCC 220  Mukesh Kumar Vs. (NCT) State 2017(6) SCC 1  Mohd. Ajmal Amir Kasab Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012) 9 SCC 1  Umashankar Panda v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1996(8) SCC 110        Kanta Tiwari Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 1996(6) SCC 250 State of Rajasthan Vs. Kheraj Ram 2003 (8) SCC 224 Sushil Murmu Vs. State of Jharkhand 2004(2) SCC 338 Purushottam Dashrath Borate Vs. State of Maharashtra 2015(6) SCC 652 Jagmohan Singh Vs. State of UP 1973 (1) SCC 20 Bantu Vs. State of UP 2008(11) SCC 113 Shivaji @ Dadya Shankar Alhat Vs. State of Maharashtra 2008(15) SCC 269  Ravji @ Ram Chandra Vs. State of Rajasthan 1996(2) SCC 175  Shabnam Vs. State of UP 2015(6) SCC 632

29. We have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 43 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:33005 )

30. The learned Trial Court held that there was no direct evidence in the present case and the prosecution has based its case on the following circumstances: (i) Vinod Kumar Gupta (PW-70) was residing with his family consisting of his wife, his mother, his two daughters, one son Yug and mother in Dwarkagarh building, Ram Bazar, Shimla; (ii) Vinod Kumar Gupta (PW-70) was having flourishing business at Shimla, and his financial condition was good, which attracted the accused persons to commit the offences. (iii) The accused Chander Sharma was residing in the seventh floor of Dwarkagarh building along with his parents; (iv) The accused persons, in furtherance of criminal conspiracy hatched between them had taken the House No.22, Housing Board Colony, Jakhu, Shimla on rent from PW-52 Lt. Col Amit Pal Singh in the month of April/May 2014 and the house remained with them for about 5-6 months; (v) The accused Chander Sharma was living a luxurious life prior to the incident. (vi) On 14.062014, between 07.10 to 08.30 P.M., Yug was abducted by the accused Chander Sharma in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy hatched 44 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:33005 ) between accused Chander Sharma, Tejinder Pal Singh and accused Vikrant Bakshi; (vii) Accused Chander Sharma and accused Tejinder Pal Singh have shown extraordinary interest in the search of Yug; (viii) On 22.01.2015, accused Chander Sharma, accused Tejinder Pal Singh and accused Vikrant Bakshi, along with one Gaurav, were arrested in case FIR No. 6/15, PS New Shimla and at the time of their arrest, in their Jamatalashi(s), the mobile phones were recovered; (ix) That the mobile phones of accused Chander Sharma, accused Tejinder Pal Singh, and accused Vikrant Bakshi were transferred, on the application of the police, by PW-91 Ms. Sonal Thama, the then JMIC Court No. (8) Shimla to the I.O. of case FIR No. 77/14 Police Station, Sadar, the inquiry of which was entrusted to CID; (x) In the laboratory, PW-77 Dr. Jagjeet has retrieved the deleted data from the memory card Ext. P-108, which was found from the mobile phone Ext.P-106 of accused Vikrant Bakshi, which was gifted to him by accused Chander Sharma; (xi) The accused persons have made disclosure statements and got identified the tank and got recovered the bones of Yug in their disclosure 45 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:33005 ) statements Ext.PW53/A, Ext.PW53/B and Ext.PW53/C; (xii) After abducting Yug, he was kept confined in House No.22, Housing Board Colony, Ram Chandra Chowk, Jakhu by the accused persons in pursuance to their criminal conspiracy; (xiii) Minor Yug was kept in House No.22, Housing Board Colony, Ram Chandra Chowk, Jakhu, Shimla from 14.06.2014 to the intervening night of 21/22.06.2014 by the accused persons; (xiv) On 21.06.2014, the accused persons, in pursuance to the criminal conspiracy hatched between them had lifted a stone from Chaura Maidan, Shimla and put the same in the vehicle and on the intervening night of 21/22.06.2024, the accused persons had thrown Yug alive in the water tank at Keleston after tying him with stone Ext.P-99 with the rope Ext.P- 100 and killed Yug; (xv) The disclosure statements of the accused persons and recovery of the bones in pursuance of their disclosure statements; (xvi) The accused Chander Sharma and the accused Tijender Pal Singh then started writing ransom letters by procuring the tracing papers through accused Vikrant Bakshi; (xvii) The accused Chander Sharma had written four ransom letters to PW-70 demanding ransom. 46 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:33005 ) (xviii) The motive of the accused persons to kidnap Yug was to demand ransom from his parents; (xix) The bones were proved to be the bones of Master Yug, and it has been proved that he was thrown alive into the tank; and (xx) The accused persons, in pursuance of their criminal conspiracy, had caused disappearance of the evidence.

31. The prosecution's case is based upon the circumstantial evidence. The law relating to circumstantial evidence is well settled and was explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2013) 5 SCC 722 : (2013) 4 SCC (Cri) 812: 2013 SCC OnLine SC 435  at page 732: “23. In Hodge, In re [(1838) 2 Lewin 227: 168 ER 1136] the Court held that before a person is convicted entirely on circumstantial evidence, the court must be satisfied not only that those circumstances were consistent with his having committed the act, but also that the facts were such, so as to be inconsistent with any other rational conclusion other than the one that the accused is the guilty person.