The factum of kidnapping of the deceased by the accused-appellant, therefore, stands duly established. [Para 24] 1.2. Having proved the factum of kidnapping, the inference of the consequential murder of the kidnapped person, is liable to be presum..

The factum of kidnapping of the deceased by the accused-appellant, therefore, stands duly established. [Para 24] 1.2. Having proved the factum of kidnapping, the inference of the consequential murder of the kidnapped person, is liable to be presumed. Once the person concerned has been shown as having been kidnapped, the onus would shift on the kidnapper to establish how and when the kidnapped individual came to be released from his custody. In the absence of any such proof produced by the kidnapper, it would be natural to infer/presume, that the kidnapped person continued in the kidnapper's custody, till he was eliminated. The instant conclusion would also emerge from Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872. [Para 26] 1.3. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, there is sufficient evidence on the record on the basis whereof even the factum of murder of the deceased at the hands of the accused-appellant stands established. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it has been duly established, that the deceased was kidnapped by the accused- appellant
the accused-appellant was not able to produce any material on the record to show the release of the deceased from his custody. Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 places the onus on him. In the absence of any such material produced by the accused-appellant, it has to be accepted, that the custody of the deceased had remained with the accused-appellant, till he was murdered. The motive/reason for the accused-appellant, for taking the extreme step was, that ransom as demanded by him, had not been paid. [Para 27] 1.4. The accused-appellant had made a confessional statement in the presence of PW13 stating that he had strangulated the deceased to death, whereupon his body was put into a gunny bag and thrown into a particular tank. It was thereafter, on the pointing out of the accused-appellant, that the body of the deceased was recovered from that tank. It was found in a gunny bag, as stated by the accused-appellant. PW12, the doctor concluded after holding the post-mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased, that he had died on account of suffocation, prior to his having been drowned.

Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Evidence Act, 1872