The court affirmed that mutual suicidal intent was not established, holding the appellant solely responsible for the victim's murder, as the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.

1. The Appellant has challenged the Judgment and order dated 26.09.2017, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Nashik, in Sessions Case No.257 of 2016. The learned Judge, convicted the Appellant for commission of the offence punishable U/s.302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default to suffer S.I. for two months. The Appellant was also convicted for commission of the offence punishable U/s.309 of the I.P.C. and he was sentenced to suffer S.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default to suffer S.I. for 15 days. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. He was acquitted from the charge U/s.135 of the MAHARASHTRA POLICE ACT . He was granted set off U/s.428 of the Cr.P.C. for the period he had spent as an undertrial prisoner from 28.06.2016.

2. Heard Mr. Ramesh Dube Patil, learned counsel for the Appellant and Ms. Kranti Hiwrale, learned APP for the State.

3. The prosecution case is that the Appellant was having a love relationship with the victim. They had even given a notice for registration of their marriage. The victim’s family came to know about this notice. They persuaded her to withdraw that notice. They promised her that they would get her married with the appellant once her elder sister’s marriage was performed. However, after the elder sister got married, the victim’s family did not take any steps in getting the appellant and victim married. According to the prosecution case, they continued meeting each other.

4. On 18.05.2016, at about 8:30p.m. the appellant and the victim met in a classroom in a school. The Appellant inflicted blows with a cutter on her throat. He also caused some injuries on her hands and other parts. Some boys in the vicinity heard the shouts. They reached there. They saw the scene. They got frightened. They rushed outside the school and informed others. The victim’s mother was also informed. She rushed to the spot. She saw that her daughter was lying in a pool of blood. The Appellant was lying nearby. The murder weapon i.e. the cutter was also at the spot. Somebody informed the police. The police came there. The victim had already died. The Appellant was taken to the hospital. The victim’s mother lodged her F.I.R. The investigation was carried out. After the Appellant was discharged from the hospital, he was put under arrest. In the meantime, the police had recorded the statements of various witnesses. They had conducted the spot panchanama. The Appellant showed the place from where he had purchased a cutter from a lady. He took the police and panchas to that spot, however, that lady was not found. The articles were sent for C.A. examination and on conclusion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed. The case was committed to the Court of Session.

5. During trial, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses including the mother, the sister and the brother in law of the deceased, the Medical officer who had conducted the postmortem examination, the panchas and the investigating officer.

6. The Appellant had taken a specific defence. He also filed his statement elaborating his defence. According to him, he and the victim were in love since about 6 to 7 years. They were studying in the same class in school. They had given an application for registration of their marriage. The victim’s family came to know about it. They told her that, after her elder sister was married