JUDGMENT :

Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.

1. Heard Sri Noor Mohammad, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 26.4.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Etah in Sessions Trial No.804 of 2007 convicting and sentencing him under Sections 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') for life imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/-, Section 364 for rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and under Section 201 of I.P.C. for seven years rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently.

3. The fact is not in dispute that the dead body of the deceased was found in the agricultural field. It is also not in dispute that the original accused was apprehended by the police, it is also not in dispute that during the period when the accused was in the police station, he volunteered to show the place where he had committed the act.

4. Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet to the competent court and as the accused was facing charges which were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, hence the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. On being summoned, the accused pleaded not guilty and wanted to be tried.

5. The prosecution examined about 9 witnesses which are as follows:

6. In support of ocular version following documents were filed:

7. On the witnesses being examined and the prosecution having concluded its evidence, the accused was put to question under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants as mentioned aforesaid. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgement and order passed by the Sessions Court the appellants have preferred the present appeal.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the incident alleged to have taken place on 26.1.2007; neither the Gumshudgi Report nor any information regarding the missing of the victim was lodged against the appellant and only after four months of the occurrence, the appellant and the other co-accused persons were named in the F.I.R only on the basis of suspicion and no plausible reason was given for the delay in lodging the F.I.R.

9. He has contended that the entire conviction has been made by the learned Trial Judge only on the basis of confession and on the theory of last seen together. He has submitted that the skeleton which was recovered at the instance of accused was not sent for D.N.A. profile which can be said to be not of the deceased in absence of D.N.A.

10. He has submitted that the accused though had confessed before the police authority that he has committed the murder of the deceased by means of Gadasa but the recovery of the same was not made at the instance of the accused.

11. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that dead body of the deceased though was recovered at the instance of the accused, it was a case of admission of evidence, hence, conviction only under Section 201 of I.P.C. could have been made. In support of his argument, he has relied on the decision in Laldeep Bhagat Vs. State of Bihar, more par