- (1.) Appellant has filed this appeal challenging the judgment/order of the trial Court dated 16.12.2016, whereby, he was convicted and sentenced qua offence punishable under Sections 302 , 307 , 324 , 341 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and Section 4 / 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 22.4.2012, Mamta wife of the complainant had gone with her sister Santosh to the market for making purchases regarding her (Santosh) wedding. At about 1:00 PM. when they were returning home after getting clothes stitched, appellant caught them on the way and stopped them. Appellant gave knife blows to Santosh and when Mamta intervened to save her sister, she was also inflicted injuries by the appellant. Injured were removed to the hospital. However, Santosh was declared dead by the hospital authorities. Mamta had suffered serious injuries. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the appellant.
(2.) Charges were framed against the appellant under Sections 302 , 307 , 341 IPC and Section 4 / 25 of the Act. Appellant did not plead guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined twenty witnesses. Appellant when examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, after the close of prosecution evidence prayed that he was innocent and had been falsely involved in this case. No occurrence as alleged had taken place. Appellant did not examine any witnesses in his defence. Learned trial Court vide the impugned judgment/order ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Sections 302 , 307 , 324 , 341 IPC and 4/25 of the Act.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been falsely involved in this case. In-fact, appellant was engaged to Santosh about two years prior to the incident. Santosh had visited the appellant in his house. Complainant and his wife did not approve of the same. Due to this reason, appellant has been falsely involved in this case, Assuming that the appellant had inflicted injuries to Santosh as well as Mamta, at the most, it could be said to be a case falling under Section 304 Part 1 IPC. Learned State counsel has opposed the appeal. Present case relates to murder of Santosh. In the incident, Mamta sister of the deceased had also suffered injury. Thus, case rests on eye-witness account. There was talk regarding marriage of appellant with Santosh. However, marriage of the appellant with Santosh did not materialize. Thereafter, marriage of Santosh was fixed with another person and she had gone to make purchases for her wedding on the day of incident. ;