- (1.)Being aggrieved by acquittal of the respondents by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Buldana, for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, the State has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 1996 and the victim's father has preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 160 of 1995.
(2.)Facts, which led to prosecution of the respondents, are as under :
Victim Vishnu was studying in 11th Standard and was also assisting his family members in agricultural operations. Accused No. 3 Rambhau has a daughter by name Indu. Vishnu had an affair with Indu. Accused No. 1 Bharat is the son of accused No. 3 Rambhau and accused No. 2 Gulab is their relation. About three months before the incident, the accused persons went to Vishnu's father Sahebrao and asked Sahebrao to restrain Vishnu from having contacts with Indu. They threatened that if the contacts did not cease, Vishnu would be killed.

On 03-12-1994, at about7. 30 a. m. near the field of one Saodatkar, three accused persons assaulted Vishnu. Accused No. 2 Gulab and No. 3 Rambhau administered fist and kick blows, whereas accused No. 1 Bharat stabbed Vishnu on his stomach with a knife. Vishnu's screams for help could not secure any help for himself. He stated running, but fell down. Accused Bharat poured kerosene on his person from a plastic can and set him on fire. The accused then ran away.

(3.)Victim's uncle Shriram came to know of the incident and gave a report to the police. Police came to the spot, performed spot panchanama, conducted inquest on the body of the victim and sent it for post-mortem examination. They recorded statements of witnesses, arrested the accused persons, seized incriminating articles, sent the same to Forensic Science Laboratory and on completion of investigation, charge-sheeted the accused before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mehkar. The learned Magistrate committed to the case to the Court of Sessions at Buldana.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge, to whom the case was assigned, charged the three respondents of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. The respondents pleaded not guilty and hence were put on trial. The prosecution examined in all seven witnesses in order to bring home the guilt of the respondents, whereas on behalf of defence, one Kashiram was examined as defence witness. Upon consideration of the entire evidence tendered before him, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the charges were not proved. He, therefore, proceeded to acquit the three respondents. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal and revision application have been filed.