Sanjib Banerjee, J. - (1.) The primary question raised in this appeal is whether merely because the body of the victim was discovered on the basis of the information furnished by the accused while he was in police custody, his involvement with the commission of the offence may be inferred.
(2.) In the afternoon on September 18, 2006, a seven - year old girl was playing with two of her village friends and a sibling at a place close to her family's humble dwellings. The evidence of the two friends is that at or about 3.30 pm the appellant approached the victim and called her away with the promise of offering her a guava fruit. The friends also claimed that when they started to join the victim in the hope of getting guavas for themselves, the victim, at the prompting of the appellant, asked the friends not to follow her since there would be no guava for anyone but her. Another villager claimed in his evidence that he was at Pirtala when he saw the appellant drive away with the victim on a red motorcycle at about 5 pm. One of the girls who was playing with the victim earlier that afternoon testified to have found the appellant alone near where they were originally playing shortly before dusk. It his her evidence that when she approached the appellant or went close to him, she was slapped on the head and asked to go elsewhere. This girl had gone out to the fields to collect the family goats after the day's grazing was done.
(3.) A missing person's complaint was filed by the father of the victim at about noon of the following day, September 19, 2006. Such complaint claimed that the child did not return home and the family could not locate her despite searching the nearby places. The complainant father was away on work on the previous day and he returned on the morning of September 19, 2006. The complaint went on to add that shortly after the complainant's arrival at home he received a call on his mobile telephone informing him that the child was with the caller and the caller would contact him again. The complaint also spoke of a second call at about 9 am on September 19, 2006 when the caller demanded a ransom of Rs.20 lakh in exchange for the child. The complainant asserted in the complaint that someone had kidnapped his daughter. The telephone numbers from which he got the two calls were indicated in the complaint. The complaint concluded with a reference to a statement of one Sanatan Murmu that at 5 o' clock on the previous evening the child was "taken away on the red colour motor cycle having two persons i.e. one driving motor cycle and other is pillion rider towards Bhagabantapur. ";