JUDGMENT Hon’ble Shri Narayan Shukla, J.—Heard Dr. Abida Syed, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant as well as Mr. Nagendra Bahadur Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. 2. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 20.1.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Bareilly, in Session Trial No. 994 of 2002, whereby the appellant was convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to undergo six months additional rigorous imprisonment, under Section 364 I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs. 3000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and under Section 201 and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. All sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The facts of the case, as set up by the prosecution, are that the complainant (Jitender Kumar) son of Mohan Prasad, resident of Ram Nagar, Colony Road No. 1, Izzat Nagar, lodged a First Information Report at Police Station Cant, District, Bareilly, against two unknown persons. In his first statement, he stated that his two children namely Nikhil aged about Eight years and Golu aged about Four years had gone to study in Sailja Bal Vidyalaya, behind DRM Office, Izzat Nager. While he went to school to carry them, the school had been closed and his younger child Golu met him at the place out of school, when he had asked about Nikhil, he told that just he was here, then the complainant searched him here and there, but could not trace out him. He further stated that at about 1:45 p.m. Shri Gajendra Singh, (husband of his wife’s sister), who was living in his house, had rung up him and told that he had seen the two persons who had been carrying Nikhil (deceased) through motor cycle from Cant Sadar to Dhiriya, the boy was crying, he chased them, but failed to catch hold them. Then, the applicant went to Dhiriya to search his boy and also got announced from Maszid about his missing, then he came to know that the dead body of one child is lying in the Kamalpur forest area. Then, the applicant went to Dhiriya to search his boy and also got announced from Maszid about his missing, then he came to know that the dead body of one child is lying in the Kamalpur forest area. He alongwith other people of village rushed to the forest and saw that the dead body was of his son Nikhil. He stated that his son was kidnapped from Sailja Bal Vidyalaya, Izzat Nagar and murdered, thereafter his dead body was thrown in Kamalpur forest area. 4. The First Information Report was registered in Chick No. 74 of 2002, on 22.4.2002 at about 21:05 hours, he had told that the date and time of occurrence was 22.4.2002, at about 1:45 p.m., the distance of the place of occurrence from the Police Station was as 9 kilometers. 5. After Registration of the First Information Report, the Investigating Officer (PW-7) had recorded the statement of the complainant (PW-1), Anita Devi (PW-2), son Golu and some other persons of the village. On 28.4.2002, he again recorded the statement of complainant and his wife and Sajan (PW-3). On 7.5.2002, the accused Gajendra Singh, was arrested by the Police and at his instance the book and pencil of the deceased was got recovered from his school and recovery memo was prepared accordingly. 6. Pursuant to the said First Information Report, Investigating Officer reached the spot and prepared the inquest report in presence of his sub-ordinate officers and sent the dead body of the deceased for postmortem examination. 7. The Medical Office conducted the autopsy of the dead body of the deceased (Nikhil) and expressed his opinion about the cause of death as under : “cause of death ‘Asphyxia’ due to ante mortem injuries” He described the ante mortem injuries as follows : 1. A ligature mark on front of neck, which is in form of clock wise contusion of 10 cm x 1.5 cm on front of neck 3.0 cm above the sternal notch. Subcutaneous tissue under the mark is ecchymosed. Fracture of larynx and front of upper trachea rings present. 8. After investigation, the Police charge-sheeted him for commission of offence punishable under Sections 364, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Sessions Judge framed the charges against him for commission of offence punishable under Sections 364, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. As far as seven prosecution witnesses were examined. 8. After investigation, the Police charge-sheeted him for commission of offence punishable under Sections 364, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Sessions Judge framed the charges against him for commission of offence punishable under Sections 364, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. As far as seven prosecution witnesses were examined. Informant Jitendra Kumar (father of the deceased), who was examined as PW-1, reiterated his version of the First Information Report and deposed that Sajan (PW-3) son of his brother-in-law (sala) was also studying in class-3 of the same school and he had told him that he had seen Gajendra Singh (accused) carrying out Nikhil. He had also witnessed the preparation of inquest report. In cross-examination, he deposed that on the date of incident the accused was living in his house, since about one and half year and the relationship was cordial, he again said that the accused was living in his house alongwith his wife and children. He was told by Golu that (Mausa) Gajendra Singh had carried Nikhil. He further stated the he could not disclose this in the First Information Report due to his sickness. He was rung up by Ganjendra Singh. He told him telephonically that ‘your child is in Sadar’, he went there to search his child, immediately thereafter. He further deposed that in the Forest of Palpur, he found his dead body. Gajendra Singh told him that he had rung up him from Sadar, thereafter, PW-1 (Jitender Kumar) and Gajendra Singh had not met together. Ganjendra Singh also did not participate in the funeral of the deceased. Gajendra Singh was caught by police and after incident his wife and children had also proceeded from his house on the same day. He further stated that he got announced from Maszid about the missing of his child. He further deposed that the accused had told him on phone, he would met him in Sadar, and further said I had lodged the First Information Report for missing of the child. He denied any such allegation that he had got manage to sell out 8.1/2 bigha land of the accused on assurance that he shall got him employed in M.E.S in place of his mother and in his transaction he took Rs. 1.5 lakh from him. 10. He denied any such allegation that he had got manage to sell out 8.1/2 bigha land of the accused on assurance that he shall got him employed in M.E.S in place of his mother and in his transaction he took Rs. 1.5 lakh from him. 10. Smt. Anita Devi wife of Jitender Kumar (mother of the deceased) was examined as PW-2, she, in her deposition, stated that her children Nikhil and Golu had gone to school, while her husband Jitender Kumar reached school at about 12:30 p.m. to carry the children, Golu meet him, but Nikhil did not meet him, then he returned home and asked her whether Nikhil had come, she denied, then he asked from Sajan who was studying in the same school, he replied that his Mausa (Gajendra Singh) had carried him from school. Gajendra Singh had rung up her at about 1.30 p.m. that her boy was being carried by two persons ridden on Bullet in the Cantt. area going towards Dhiriya, thereafter, her husband went Dhiriya, there at, he got announced from Maszid about the missing of his child, then people told him that one dead body of child is lying in the forest. He went there and saw that it was the dead body of his son. Then he lodged the First Information Report at the Police Station. She had also deposed that she had no complaints against the accused and his wife and children. She further stated that the accused lived in her house alongwith his family till the date of incident. 11. Sajan son of Rajendra Kumar aged about 11 years, was examined as PW-3, his level of understanding was tested by the Court by raising some questions which were replied by him correctly. Therefore, the Court proceeded to record his statement. In his examination-in-chief, he stated that about one year ago, it was 12:30 hour, when Gajendra Singh (Mausa) had come to school and lifted Nikhil, but he left over his younger brother Golu. Golu had gone to home with his father, he had told this fact to the Sub-Inspector, when he was interrogated by him. He identified the accused in the Court. He further stated that he had also told this fact to the mother of the deceased. Golu had gone to home with his father, he had told this fact to the Sub-Inspector, when he was interrogated by him. He identified the accused in the Court. He further stated that he had also told this fact to the mother of the deceased. In cross-examination, he stated that they “Sajan, Nikhil and Golu had used to go to school and to come back together.” They also used to take lunch by sitting together and on the date of incident also they had taken lunch together. Nikhil had brought Acchar and Paratha in his tiffin from his home. At that time Nikhil was residing with his grand mother. He further stated that his Mausa (Gajendra Singh) had carried him by foot, since he had been carrying Nikhil oftenly, he did not challenge him, the accused carried the deceased comfortably. He further stated that he and Golu asked the accused to not carry him. He further deposed that he had met Jitender and Anita Devi at 2:00 p.m. and told her that Nikhil was carried by his (Mausa). He also stated that the person who had carried Nikhil was alone. 12. Ravinder Kumar son of Rajvir Singh, (brother-in-law of the Jitender Kumar) was examined as PW-4, he deposed that Gajendra Singh was living in the house of Jitender Kumar alongwith his family. On 23.4.2002, while he was present at his home, Gajendra Singh (accused) came to him and confessed his guilt. In his cross-examination, he stated that on the date of incident Gajendra Singh, met him at his home at about 7-8 p.m. and again on the next date i.e. 23.4.2002, Gajendra had come, but he had run away. He was suspected by the people for commission of murder of Nikhil (deceased). On the next day, when the accused had came to him, he had tendered his apology for his guilt. 13. Radhey Shyam son of Suraj, was examined as PW-5, he had stated that Jitender Kumar (PW1) and his relative Gajendra Singh (accused) both lived together while on 22.4.2002, he was going to Naktiya for his work, it was about 3 to 3:15 p.m. when he had seen Nikhil together with Gajendra Singh (Mausa) going towards Naktiya, he thought that he was going with his Mausa, he proceeded for his work. Subsequently he came to know that Gajendra had committed murder of Nikhil and thrown his dead body in Kamalpur forest. Subsequently, Jitender Kumar met him and told him about the incident. In his cross-examination, he stated that he had seen Nikhil, while he was going with Gajendra Singh (accused) through scooter, Nikhil was sitting on the back seat, scooter was ridden by Gajendra Singh, Nikhil had not been raising any voice, he was looking normal without having any indication that he was being carried forcibly since they were living in the same house. When he returned at about 7-8 P.M, he came to know that the dead body of Nikhil was found in Kamalpur forest. This fact was told him by Jitendra Kumar. He further stated that since he had no suspicion, he did not stop scooter. 14. Dr. Arvind Agarwal, Physician, District Hospital, Bareilly, was examined as PW-6, he had conducted the Autopsy of the dead body of the deceased (Nikhil), he had verified the ante mortem injuries caused to the deceased. He further expressed his opinion about the caused of death as a result of ante mortem injuries. 15. Rajvir Singh, in charge Inspector, Police Station Bahedhi, District Bareilly, was examined as PW-7, he had conducted the investigation of the case, he had deposed that he had recorded the statement of complainant (PW-1), his wife (PW-2) and son Golu and other witnesses namely Sajan (PW-3) etc. on 23.4.2002. Further on 28.4.2002, he again recorded the statement of complainant’s wife and Sajan. On 7.5.2002, he had arrested the accused and at his instance, he got recovered the book and pencil etc of the deceased from his school. He had got recovered the school bag, books etc. from the place where the dead body was found, at the instance of the accused. He further stated that there was no public witnesses to witness the preparation of recovery memo, since nobody was ready to be the witness of the same, therefore, the recovery memo was prepared in presence of his sub-ordinates. from the place where the dead body was found, at the instance of the accused. He further stated that there was no public witnesses to witness the preparation of recovery memo, since nobody was ready to be the witness of the same, therefore, the recovery memo was prepared in presence of his sub-ordinates. After examination of the prosecution witnesses, the statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he had stated that after the death of accused’s mother, complainant had asked him to sell his land, he would manage his employment in M.E.S, in place of his mother and for that purpose, the complainant had extorted money amounting to Rs. 1.5 lakh since the complainant had assured to get managed the employment for him and when the accused had asked his money from the complainant, he implicated him falsely in the present case so that he could not claim his money further. 16. Learned Court below examined the evidences produced before him and ultimately arrived at conclusion that from the evidences produced by the prosecution, the accused’s guilt was proved and therefore, convicted the accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 364, 302 and 201 I.P.C. and awarded sentences thereto. 17. Dr. Abida Syed, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant has contended that the complainant had lodged the First Information Report on 22.4.2002 at about 21:05 hour in which the date and hour of occurrence reported as 22.4.2002, at 1.45p.m. PW-3 Sajan in his deposition, had stated that he met with Jitender Kumar (complainant) (PW-1) and Anita Devi (mother of the deceased) at 2:00 p.m. and told her that Nikhil was carried by his Mausa, but the complainant had not named him in the First Information Report lodged for commission of crime. She further stated that the accused himself had informed the complainant that somebody had taken away his boy Nikhil, which establishes that he was not involved in commission of offence, rather he was implicated falsely for commission of crime only on the ground that he may not be in a position to demand his money from the complainant. It is stated that accused had taken this defence in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 18. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the statement of PW-4 is based on extra judicial confession of accused. It is stated that accused had taken this defence in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 18. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the statement of PW-4 is based on extra judicial confession of accused. PW-4, in his deposition, had stated that on the date of incident Gajendra Singh met him at his home at about 7-8 p.m. and accepted his guilt and also asked to save him, whereas the extra judicial confession, is a weak piece of evidence. It is to be proved just like any other fact and the value thereof depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it is made. It may be necessary that the actual words used by the accused must be given by the witness, but it is for the Court to decide on the acceptability of the evidence having regard to the credibility of the witnesses. Learned counsel for the appellant has further contended the prosecution has failed to establish the motive for commission of offence of murder, rather PW-1 and PW-2 both had established that there was a cordial relation between the accused and them. 19. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted that apart from statement of PW-1 and PW-2 father and mother of the deceased, there were statements of independent witnesses like Sajan (PW-3), who is resident of the same village. He had supported the case of prosecution. He asserted that Radhey Shyam (PW-5) relative of the complainant, who had been the last seen witness, in his statement, had stated that he had seen Nikhil together with Gajendra Singh (accused) morning towards Naktiya, since he was going with his Mausa, he proceeded for his work. In cross-examination, he had deposed that Nikhil and Gajendra Singh, had been going through scooter, the scooter was ridden by Gajendra Singh and Nikhil had sat behind him silently. Sajan (PW-3) was an independent witness, he was resident of the same village as well as he was studying in the same school, where the deceased was studying. In his deposition, he had stated that there is one Pipal Tree from where he had seen the Nikhil going out, he was carried by the person by foot, who was his Mausa, since he was carrying him comfortably and oftenly, he had earlier used to carry him also he did not challenge him. In his deposition, he had stated that there is one Pipal Tree from where he had seen the Nikhil going out, he was carried by the person by foot, who was his Mausa, since he was carrying him comfortably and oftenly, he had earlier used to carry him also he did not challenge him. He further stated that he had told this fact to the parent of the deceased. PW-1, in his deposition, had stated that accused had rung up him at about 14:05 p.m. and informed that his child was in Sadar, he immediately went there, but the dead body of the child was found in Palampur Forest. Gajendra Singh did not participate in cremation of the deceased and had left his house alongwith his family from the date of incident itself. The accused had told him that he had lodged the report of missing his child at the Police Station. PW-2 Anita Devi (mother of the deceased) in her statement, had accepted that she was told by Sajan that Gajendra Singh had carried his son (Nikhil) from school. She further stated that Gajendra Singh had informed that he had seen two persons in the Cantt. area going towards Diriya carrying his boy. Therefore, all the circumstances indicate towards the accused that he was the person who was seen together with the deceased lastly and thereafter the dead body of the deceased was found in Palampur forest. He further stated that accused had confessed his guilt before PW-4. Thus the learned A.G.A. has submitted that the learned Court below had appreciated the evidences produced before him in correct prospective. 20. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 21. In the present case, the connection of the appellant for commission of murder of the deceased based on last seen evidence produced by PW-3 (Sajan), he is resident of the same locality of the deceased, since the accused had used to carry the children of the complainant from home to school and school to home oftenly, he was known to the deceased colleagues namely Sajan. Sajan was studying in the same school and his closeness with the deceased is established from his statement as he had stated that he used to go school and come back together with the deceased and his younger brother Golu. Sajan is son of his brother-in-law. Sajan was studying in the same school and his closeness with the deceased is established from his statement as he had stated that he used to go school and come back together with the deceased and his younger brother Golu. Sajan is son of his brother-in-law. He further stated that they took lunch by sitting together and on the date of incident also they had taken lunch together. His statement had became more specific, when he had stated that Nikhil had carried Acchar and Paratha in his tiffin from his home. He had deposed that Nikhil was carried by Mausa (Gajendra Singh), since the accused used to carry him oftenly, he did not challenge him. He had told this fact to the parents of the deceased on the same day at about 2:00 p.m. PW-6 Dr. Arvind Agarwal, in his statement, had stated that he had conducted the autopsy of the dead body of the deceased at 3:30 p.m. on the next date of incident and he had stated that the death would have occurred before 24 hours of postmortem examination. His statement proves that the deceased was murdered between the period of 3:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on the day of missing itself that was 22.4.2002. PW-3, in his statement, had stated that the accused had taken away the deceased at about 12:30 p.m. PW-1 complainant (father of the deceased) in his statement, had stated that on the date of incident at about 1:45 p.m. Gajendra Singh (accused) had rung up him, and told him that he had seen Nikhil in the Cantt. area being carried by two persons on motor cycle. Then the complainant proceeded towards Dhiriya and got announced from Maszid about the missing of his child, then somebody informed him that dead body of one child was lying in Palampur forest. During this period no other factors had intervened which could suggest that the accused was not involved in commission of crime of murder of the deceased. 22. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently laid down that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other persons. 22. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently laid down that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other persons. The circumstances, from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn, have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. 23. In Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab, AIR (1954) SC 621), it was laid down that where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring the offences home beyond any reasonable doubt. 24. The Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the principles of last seen theory in Bodhraj v. State of J & K, (2002) 8 SCC 45 , and held as under : “31. The last-seen theory comes into play where the time-gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. It would be difficult in some cases to positively establish that the deceased was last seen with the accused when there is a long gap and possibility of other persons coming in between exists. In the absence of any other positive evidence to conclude that the accused and the deceased were last seen together, it would be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in those cases. ..” 25. In Ram Gulam Chaudhary v. State of Bihar, (2002) 8 SCC 311, the appellant had carried away the boy who was not seen alive thereafter. The appellant gave no explanation as to what they did after they took away the boy. The question arose whether in such facts Section 106 of the Evidence Act applied. ..” 25. In Ram Gulam Chaudhary v. State of Bihar, (2002) 8 SCC 311, the appellant had carried away the boy who was not seen alive thereafter. The appellant gave no explanation as to what they did after they took away the boy. The question arose whether in such facts Section 106 of the Evidence Act applied. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under : “In the absence of an explanation, and considering the fact that the Appellants were suspecting the boy to have kidnapped and killed the child of the family of the Appellants, it was for the Appellants to have explained what they did with him after they took him away. When the abductors withheld that information from the Court there is every justification for drawing the inference that they had murdered the boy. Even though Section 106 of the Evidence Act may not be intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, but the section would apply to cases like the present, where the prosecution has succeeded in proving facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding death. The Appellants by virtue of their special knowledge must offer an explanation which might lead the Court to draw a different inference.” 26. In Sahadevan v. State, (2003) 1 SCC 534 , the prosecution established the fact that the deceased was seen in the company of the appellant from morning 5-3-1985 till 5.00 pm. and thereafter his dead body was found in the morning of 6-3-1985. In the background of such fact the Court observed as under : “Therefore, it has become obligatory on the appellants to satisfy the Court as to how, where and in what manner Vadivelu parted company with them. This is on the principle that a person who is last found in the company of another, if later found missing, then the person with whom he was last found has to explain the circumstances in which they parted company. In the instant case the appellants have failed to discharge this onus. In their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. they have not taken any specific stand whatsoever.” 27. In the instant case the appellants have failed to discharge this onus. In their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. they have not taken any specific stand whatsoever.” 27. In Rambraksh @ Jalim v. State of Chhattishgarh, (2016) 12 SCC 251 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the last seen theory as under : “It is trite law that a conviction cannot be recorded against the accused merely on the ground that the accused was last seen with the deceased. In other words, a conviction cannot be based on the only circumstance of last seen together. Normally, last seen theory comes into play where the time gap, between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead, is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the perpetrator of the crime becomes impossible. To record a conviction, the last seen together itself would not be sufficient and the prosecution has to complete the chain of circumstances to bring home the guilt of the accused”. 28. In Kavita v. State of Tamil Nadu (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has discussed the principles of extra judicial confession as under : “There is no doubt that conviction can be based on extra-judicial confession but it is well-settled that in the very nature of things, it is a week piece of evidence. It is to be proved just like any other fact and the value thereof depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it is made. It may not be necessary that the actual words used by the accused must be given by the witness but it is for the Court to decide on the acceptability of the evidence having regard to the credibility of the witnesses”. 29. In the case of Shamsher Singh @ Shera v. State of Haryana, (2002) 7 SCC 536 , Hon’ble Apex Court held as under : “Even if there is absence of motive, it would not benefit the accused when there is reliable and acceptable version of the eye-witnesses, which is supported by the medical evidence, pointing against him. “ 30. 29. In the case of Shamsher Singh @ Shera v. State of Haryana, (2002) 7 SCC 536 , Hon’ble Apex Court held as under : “Even if there is absence of motive, it would not benefit the accused when there is reliable and acceptable version of the eye-witnesses, which is supported by the medical evidence, pointing against him. “ 30. In the case of Dharnidhar v. State of U.P. and others, (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 491, Hon’ble Apex Court held as under : “It is not always necessary for prosecution to establish definite motive for commission of crime to secure conviction of accused. It would always be relatable to facts and circumstances of a given case. Absence of motive does not essentially result in acquittal of accused if he is otherwise found guilty by cogent and reliable evidence. However, in cases which are entirely or mainly based upon circumstantial evidence, motive can have greater relevancy or significance”. 31. In view of the aforesaid principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we have examined the present case PW-3 Sajan, colleague of the deceased, in his deposition, had stated that on the date of incident at about 12:30 p.m. he had seen the accused together with the deceased, the accused had carried the deceased comfortably, he did not object, since the accused was relative of the deceased and he used to carry him oftenly earlier also. PW-5 has also been the witness of last seen of the deceased together with the accused, in his statement, he had stated that, he had seen Nikhil (deceased) together with his Mausa Gajendra Singh, going towards Naktiya, it was about 3 to 3:15 p.m. since the deceased was going with his Mausa, he proceeded for his work. Gajendra Singh had carried Nikhil through scooter, Gajendra Singh was driving scooter, Nikhil had sat behind him. PW-4 in his deposition had stated that the accused had confessed his guilt for commission of murder of the deceased (Nikhil) before him after one or two days, he had told this fact to Jitender Kumar (father of the deceased). The extra judicial confession made by the accused before PW-4 is well connected with the fact that the deceased was seen with accused lastly by PW-3 and PW-5 and thereafter the dead body of the deceased was found lying in forest. The extra judicial confession made by the accused before PW-4 is well connected with the fact that the deceased was seen with accused lastly by PW-3 and PW-5 and thereafter the dead body of the deceased was found lying in forest. No other facts had intervened during this period nor was any missing link established between the time of last seen and the commission of murder of the deceased. The whole circumstances for commission of murder of the deceased by the accused indicate that the accused had carried the deceased from his school and committed his murder. 32. In view of the aforesaid facts, the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for commission of murder of the deceased beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the motive of the accused for commission of murder becomes insignificant. 33. Therefore, we are of the view that the trial Court had appreciated the evidences and passed the judgment and order under challenge convicting the appellant for commission of offence under Sections 364, 302 and 201 I.P.C. correctly. 34. Thus, no interference is warranted in the judgment and order dated 20.1.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Bareilly, in Session Trial No. 994 of 2002. 35. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed. Let a certified copy of this order alongwith lower Court record be sent to the Court concerned.