Sharmila Mhamulkar from Mumbai sobbed uncontrollably in the witness box as she recounted the events of her son's disappearance and then again as she identified photographs and clothes of her three-and-half-year-old boy in the courtroom today.

As memories flooded back, the hysterical Mhamulkar told the court that the ``accused should be punished by cutting the accused into pieces''.

The court urged Mhamulkar about four times to control herself and assured that her ordeal in the witness box would not take long. The court also requested both government pleader advocate Ujjwal Nikam and defence counsel Manik Mulik to keep their examination to the minimum by taking her condition into consideration.

During Nikam's examination, the boy'smother recalled the day she, Pankaj and a friend visited the Vitthal temple in Wadala, Mumbai, on the eve of Ashadi Ekadashi on July 27, 1996. She said they were there at around 7.30 pm.Later, they visited a shop near the temple to buy a purse. She recalled holding Pankaj's hand for a while but after about five minutes she suddenly realised that the boy had disappeared.

Mhamulkar and her friend searched frantically for Pankaj till around 9.30 pm but in vain. She immediately informed her mother-in-law at her residence in Naigaon. Later, they were joined by her husband Suhas, mother-in-law and neighbors and continued to search for Pankaj till morning, Mhamulkar told the court. he next morning, her husband lodged a complaint with the Matunga police.

``The first time my husband and I identified Pankaj's clothes were in the Nashik rest house before a magistrate, on October 31, 1996, she said.Today Mhamulkar identified Pankaj from a coloured group photograph of 16 boys. She told the court the picture had beentaken by her husband at a birthday party of a neighbhour's child.

Mhamulkar also identified her son from eight photographs of the child's body and positively identified the clothes worn by Pankaj when he had disappeared.During cross examination conducted by defence counsel Manik Mulik, Mhamulkar told the court that the family had also published advertisements in newspapers hoping someone had seen him after he went missing.

She said she was in a highly disturbed state of mind after the disappearance and therefore was unable to tell the court about a telephone call received in connection with the disappearance.

She also denied that her husband had received a telephone call and that Pankaj had spoken to him over the phone.