The burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and the accused's explanation, if consistent with the facts, can lead to acquittal.

JUDGMENT

VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.

1. Present Appeal has been filed by the original accused to challenge his conviction in Sessions Case No.21 of 2016 on 13th July 2016 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule after holding him guilty of committing offence under Section 302, 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Present accused himself is the informant who lodged the First Information Report (for short “the FIR”) on 26th November 2015 with Mohadi Police Station, Dhule. He has informed that 15 days prior to the FIR he joined the services on the truck bearing No.MH-18-AA-0696 owned by one Rahulseth Agrawal. Deceased driver Rakesh Badole was also serving with him with the same employer. He as well as deceased loaded wheat for delivering it at Solapur from Palsud in the said truck. They had started 6 to 7 days prior to the FIR. Their truck experienced problem in the starter at Sendhawa and therefore, they had informed the employer about the same. Thereafter, they got the truck repaired and started their journey again. Via Shirpur they came near Dhule but again in Laling Ghat section their truck experienced problem. Again the employer was contacted. The mechanic was called at the spot. Crane was also called and the engine of the truck was shifted for repairing, on 25th November 2015, in the morning. Engine was taken to Dhule and therefore, around 4.00 p.m. they both had prepared food near the truck. Around 8.00 p.m. they finished their dinner and put the seat from the truck on the ground and went asleep while talking. Thereafter another truck belonging to same employer i.e. MH- 18-AA-5396 driven by one Jitendra having cleaner Birju came there and they shouted and therefore, the accused woke up. He asked them as to what has happened. He saw that driver Rakesh Badole was lying on the ground besides him and blood was oozing from his head. They all got frightened and therefore ran towards the other truck. They climbed the other truck and along with Jitendra and Birju, informant went to the police station. Thereafter he lodged the FIR against unknown person stating that said unknown person has committed murder of Rakesh Badole.

3. On the basis of said FIR, offence came to be registered and then panchnama of the spot was executed. The dead body was taken to postmortem after drawing inquest panchnama. The statements of the witnesses came to be recorded. It transpired during the investigation that in fact informant - accused himself has committed the offence and therefore, he came to be arrested. During custody he gave memorandum and discovered tomy from the truck as the murder weapon. It was seized under panchnama. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed.

4. After the committal of the case, trial was conducted. Prosecution has examined in all seven witnesses to bring home guilt of the accused. After considering the evidence on record and hearing both the sides, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule held that the offence under Section 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code has been proved against the appellant. The appellant was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months, for committing offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Further, he has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay fine of Rs.4000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months, for committing offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. This conviction is challenged in the present Appeal.

5. Heard learned Advocate Mr. R.S. Shinde holding for learned Advocate Mr. N.L. Choudhari appearing for the appellant and learned APP Mrs. Choudhari appearing for the respondent – State. Perused the record.

6. It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the appellant that the case is based on the circumstantial evidence and therefore all the parameters to prove those circumstances ought to have been proved by the prosecu