- (1.)We have heard Ms. Sandhya Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Ratnakar Dash, learned senior counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh.
(2.)The High Court in the impugned judgment has noted the twelve circumstances, which in its opinion form a complete chain which in all probability establish the complicity of the appellant in the offence. The circumstances noted by the High Court are :-
1. The familiarity of the abducted child Chandan with the appellant Ram Chandra and the evidencae that he used to visit Ram Chandra's house freely who was his neighbour.

2. The disappearance of Chandan on 19/2/1995 at about 4 p.m. and the simultaneous disappearance of the appellant Ram Chandra from his house and school.

3. The discovery of the dead body of the child Chandan on 6/3/1995 in an old well in a village neighbouring the village of the appellant Dhansenpur.

4. The apprehension of the appellant on 8/3/1995 by the informant and other persons and his extra judicial confession before them of having committed Chandan's murder and then throwing the corpse in the well.

5. The absence of any suggestion by the appellant that any third degree method were used against him for compelling him to make the extra judicial confession against his will.

6. The admission by the appellant that he had got the ransom note, which was received by the informant on 23/2/1995 written by Arvind and three lines of the note were written by his class fellow Dhanraj.

7. The subsequent apprehension of Arvind immediately thereafter and his admission about this allegation before the informant and other witnesses, and Arvind's subsequent deposition in Court as an approver.

8. The subsequent admission about this fact by the witness PW2 Dhanraj, who explained the circumstances how the appellant Ram Chandra, and one Vishambhar had compelled him to write the three lines on the ransom note.

9. The corroboration by the handwriting expert of the Forensic Science Laboratory that the portion of the hand written note attributed to Arvind was indeed in the handwriting of Arvind, whose specimen writings had been taken by the CJM. 10. The falsity of the suggestion that the police had compelled Arvind and Dhanraj, Pws 1 and 2 write the note after the apprehension of the appellant Ram Chandra on 8/3/5, because the envelope (Ext. Ka 7) containing the ransom note bore a stamp mark of February 2005. 11. The corroboration of the appellant's extra judicial confession by the medical evidence, viz. the presence of a fracture of the hyoid bone in the neck of the deceased, which corroborated the averment in the extra judicial confession that the child had been strangulated with a nylon rope.

12. Absence of any reason whatsoever for the informant to falsely implicate the appellant.

(3.)The High Court opined that the above circumstances provide for sufficient evidence for establishing the complicity of the appellant, Ram Chandra, in commission of crime under Sec. 302 and Sec. 364A of Indian Penal Code.