Akil Abdul Hamid Kureshi, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the original accused challenging the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana, in Sessions Case No. 103 of 2010.

2. Brief facts are as under:

The appellant, Mehul Patel was a resident of Kadi, Dist. Mehsana and had relations with deceased Mayuri Rameshbhai, a young lady, also a resident of the same village. The relatives of Mayuri had initiated talks for finding out a suitable boy for Mayuri's marriage. The accused had intimate relations with Mayuri and was, therefore, perturbed upon hearing of these developments. On 01.02.2010, Mayuri left her home at about 8 O'clock in the evening for some small errand. She did not return home till quite late. Search by her relatives failed to yield any result. Her dead body was found later near a canal at an isolated place. According to the prosecution, Mehul had taken Mayuri there, subjected her to forcible sexual intercourse and thereafter, killed her by stabbing her several times. Her dead body was set on fire probably to avoid identification. A charge to this effect was, therefore, filed at Exh. 2 against the accused alleging offences punishable under sections 376, 302 and 201 of IPC. The Trial Court acquitted the accused for offences under sections 376 and 201 but convicted him for offence under section 302 and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. Fine was also imposed. This judgment the original accused has challenged in this appeal. The State has not preferred appeal against acquittal.

3. We may record the gist of evidence. P.W. 4, Patel Mahendrabhai Gordhanbhai, Exh. 14, was the uncle of Mayuri and also lived at Kadi. According to his deposition, on the night of incident at about 10 O'clock in the evening, when he was at home, Rameshbhai's son Umang came to his house and informed him that Mayuri had left the house at about 8 O'clock for fetching flour from the village but had not yet returned. He first went to the house of Rameshbhai and then went on the scooter in search of Mayuri but did not find her anywhere. Next day, he had to take his daughter to a doctor at Ahmedabad. While returning from Ahmedabad at about 11:30, he received a call from his nephew to inform that Mayuri had been murdered and her dead body was found near Kadi Jaydevpura Narmada canal. He had gone to the hospital where the dead body was kept. He found that there were multiple stab wounds and the body was also burnt. He then went to the police station and registered his complaint which was produced at Exh. 15. He later on, learnt that it was accused Mehul, who had murdered her. Mehul and Mayuri had a love affair. It was decided to marry Mayuri with Rajeshkumar of Sardhav which Mehul did not like. In the cross examination, he agreed that in the FIR he had stated that Mayuri also had relations with Kalal Haji Usman and Chavda Amit Bhikhubhai alongwith the accused. He clarified that this information was supplied to him by the accused Mehul before he had gone to file FIR. He also agreed that in the FIR, he had not mentioned that Mehul was unhappy about Mayuri's connection with Rajeshkumar of Sardhav.

4. In the FIR Exh. 15, this witness had given similar version of Mayuri going missing from her house after 8 O'clock at night and finding a dead body next day. He had referred to three persons with whom Mayuri had relations and would meet them frequently viz. Kalal Haji Usman, Chavda Amit Bhikhubhai and the accused, Mehul Patel. He had also stated that he had no suspicion about anyone's involvement in the incident. Significantly, in the FIR he had given the mobile number which Mayuri used which was 9904300071.

5. Very similar accounts were given by the other family members of Mayuri, to which, we may make a brief reference.

6. Vasantben Rameshbhai Patel, P.W. 5, Exh. 16, Mayuri's mother also deposed that Mayuri had left the house in the evening