B.R. Gavai, J.

1. Present appeal takes exception to the Judgment and Order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.661 of 2010, thereby convicting the Appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer Life Imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs 20,000/- and in default to suffer R.I. for one year

2. Prosecution case, as could be gathered from the material placed on record, is thus:

3. Appellant is undisputedly acquainted with deceased Pawankumar Jain. Deceased Pawankumar Jain, on the date of incident i.e. on 02/07/2010, was to close his shop along with his servant Linkeshkumar Jain (P.W.5). At that time, Appellant/Accused No.1 came there and had some talk with deceased Pawankumar Jain. Deceased informed Linkeshkumar Jain (P.W.5) that, he should go home and deceased would shortly follow him. It is the prosecution case that, thereafter, in Maruti800 Car, which was driven by the Appellant, the deceased and the Appellant went away. Thereafter, Linkeshkumar Jain (P.W.5) went home. After reaching home, when he was watching T.V., he came to know about a breaking news of deceased Pawankumar Jain being murdered. He thereafter went to Rajawadi Hospital and identified the body.

4. It appears that, in the meantime, in the jurisdiction of RCF Police Station, it was reported that an accident had taken place near Jyoti Panjab Hotel. When Police Constable Mahadev Shende (P.W.1), on receiving wireless information, went there, he saw that one blue Maruti800 Car was standing there and one person was nabbed by the crowd. He also saw that one another person was running away and a third person was in unconscious condition. P.W.1 Mahadev Shende immediately sent that person to Rajawadi Hospital for treatment. On being inquired about the name of the person who was nabbed by the crowd, Appellant told his name to be Nitin Parab and the name of the other person who had ran away, as Arif Khan. On reaching the Police Station, P.W. 1 came to know that name of the deceased was Pawankumar Jain. He therefore lodged an FIR below Exhibit-19. Appellant was immediately arrested. Accused No.2 came to be arrested subsequently. During investigation, identification parade of accused persons was conducted and it is stated that P.W.1 Mahadev Shende and P.W. 2 Vijay Jadhav had identified Accused No.1 and Accused No.2 in the identification parade. Accused No.1 was identified as a person who was sitting in the Car, whereas Accused No.2 was identified as a person who ran away.

5. At the conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed before the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate. Since the case was exclusively triable by the learned Sessions Judge, it was committed to the Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 392, 397 read with Section 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the accused pleaded not guilty. Present Appellant also filed his Written Statement in addition to the answers given by him in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Trial Judge framed the following two points for consideration and answered them as under:

POINTS	FINDINGS
1. Does the prosecution prove that accused nos.1 and 2 in furtherance of their common intention hatched a conspiracy and committed murder of Pawankumar?	PROVED AGAINST ACCUSED NO.1
2. Does the prosecution prove that accused in furtherance of their common intention had committed robbery at the point of deadly weapon and caused hurt to Pawankumar and thereby committed an offence punishable u/S 392, 397, r/w 34 of I.P.C.?	NOT PROVED

6. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Judge acquitted Accused No.2 of the charges levelled against him. Present Appellant was acquitted of