JUDGMENT - Smt. TAHILRAMANI V.K., J.:---Through this appeal, the appellant challenges the judgment and order dated 28th September, 1998 passed by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik in Sessions Case No. 30 of 1998. By the said judgment and order, the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code. For the offence under section 302 of I.P.C., the appellant was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- indefault S.I. for three months. For the offence punishable under section 201 of I.P.C. the appellant-accused was sentenced to R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- indefault S.I. for one month. 2.The prosecution case in brief is as under: The complainant P.W. 1 Ashok Kapse was the resident of Walmik Nagar, Panchavati, Nasik. The appellant Ananda Ramdas Shirsat was having love affair with deceased Deepali daughter of P.W. 7 Baburao Gavand. The appellant Ananda and Deepali were residents of same locality i.e. Walmik Nagar. About 4 to 5 months prior to the incident, P.W. 7 Baburao Gavand the father of the deceased came to know about the love affair between the appellant Ananda and his daughter. Baburao Gavand the father of deceased Deepali, advised Deepali as well as the appellant Ananda that they should not indulge in such a love affair and he settled Deepalis marriage with a boy from Indore. The date of the marriage of the deceased was also fixed. 3.The complainant P.W. 1 Ashok Kapse was working in the Nasik Municipal Corporation as a watchman. In addition, he was attending Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Vyayam Shala in Walmik Nagar locality. In the said Gymnasium he gave training to other boys. On 3-1-1998 his mother Jankibai had gone to Bombay to see her daughter and therefore, there was nobody in the house except the complainant Ashok Kapse. On that day, he returned home from work, thereafter in the evening he went to the Gymnasium. There the complainant Ashok Kapse was giving training to the boys who were attending the Gymnasium. In the evening, the appellant came there and asked him for the keys of his house i.e. the house of Ashok Kapse, saying that he wanted to take rest at his house. P.W. 1 Ashok Kapse gave the keys to the appellant. There the complainant Ashok Kapse was giving training to the boys who were attending the Gymnasium. In the evening, the appellant came there and asked him for the keys of his house i.e. the house of Ashok Kapse, saying that he wanted to take rest at his house. P.W. 1 Ashok Kapse gave the keys to the appellant. The appellant told him that he should come home after he finishes his work. After P.W. 1 Ashok Kapse finished his work, he went home. He found that the door was closed. The light was on inside the house. Therefore, Ashok Kapse knocked on the door and said "Ananda open the door". From inside, Ashok Kapse heard a girl saying "Ashokbhau Mala Wachava". Therefore, Ashok Kapse tried to push the door but he found that it was locked from inside. The shutter of the window was closed. Therefore, Ashok Kapse inserted his hands in the gap between shutter which was from outside, and pulled it forcibly. The window opened. Ashok Kapse saw Deepali lying in the house. Ananda had assaulted her with knife. When Ashok Kapse opened the window. P.W. 5 Raju Dighe and P.W. 8 Jagan Warde also came there. Then Ashok Kapse abused the appellant. The appellant opened the door and dragged Deepali upto the last step of the door. Ashok Kapse saw that Deepali had sustained injuries. The appellant left Deepali on the last step of the door and started running. Ashok Kapse started chasing him. A scuffle took place between them. Many persons gathered there. Two policemen also came there. The policemen asked Ashok Kapse as to why he was quarrelling, Ashok Kapse told them that the appellant had killed the girl in his house. The policemen took the appellant and Ashok Kapse to Katya Maruti Police Chowky. The complaint of P.W. 1 Ashok Kapse came to be recorded. The appellant came to be arrested. At that time, the clothes on the body of the appellant accused i.e. T-shirt and pant (articles 7 and 8) were found to be stained with blood, so also his shoes (article 9) were also found to be blood stained. The said clothes and shoes came to be seized under panchnama (Exhibit-31). Thereafter, a knife came to be recovered at the instance of the appellant. 4.In the meanwhile, the body of deceased Deepali was sent for post-mortem. P.W. 9 Dr. The said clothes and shoes came to be seized under panchnama (Exhibit-31). Thereafter, a knife came to be recovered at the instance of the appellant. 4.In the meanwhile, the body of deceased Deepali was sent for post-mortem. P.W. 9 Dr. Kanchan Wanere conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of Deepali. The post-mortem notes is at Exhibit-15. Dr. Kanchan Wanere found following external injuries on the person of Deepali: "1. Nail marks over face. 2. Stab wound (incised) right arm one and half inch x 1". Same type of wound above this wound. 3. Stab wound over left arm 2 in number 1" x one and half inch. 4. Multiple stab wounds over right mammary area extending inside the chest and the injury in the lungs one and half inch. 5. Stab wound over mammary area one and half inch extending inside injury in the heart. 6. Stab wound over abdomen in umbilical area. 7. Stab wound over back 3 in numbers one and half inch x 1". 8. Stab wound over left knee, one and half inch x 1". Dr. Kanchan Wanere has stated that all the injuries were grievous and the cause of death was due to multiple stab injuries and internal haemorrhage. The knife (article 22) was shown to Dr. Wanare. She has stated that all the stab injuries were possible by the said knife. 5.After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed. In due course, the case came to be committed to the Court of Sessions, where the appellant came to be charged under sections 302, 201 of I.P.C. and under section 135 of Bombay Police Act. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. The defence of the appellant is that of denial and false implication. The learned Additional Sessions Judge relying on the evidence, adduced by the prosecution, convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner stated in para 1. Hence, this appeal. 6.At this stage, we may state here that the Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the appellant of the offence under section 135 of Bombay Police Act on the ground that no notification preventing carrying of Arms at the relevant time, was produced by the prosecution and hence, no case was made out under section 135 of Bombay Police Act. 7.During the course of the trial, the prosecution examined twelve witnesses. 7.During the course of the trial, the prosecution examined twelve witnesses. Three of the said witnesses have been examined as eye-witnesses i.e. P.W. 1 Ashok Kapse who is also the complainant in the present case, P.W. 5 Raju Baburao Dighe and P.W. 8 Jagan Kisan Warde. Three of the witnesses are panch witnesses i.e. P.W. 2 Manoj Bapurao Pimpalse. P.W. 3 Anand Dattatraya Gole and P.W. 4 Balu Chabilal Patil. P.W. 2 Manoj Pimpalse has deposed about the panchnama relating to the scene of incident. P.W. 3 Anand Gole has deposed about the seizure of the blood stained clothes of the complainant. P.W. 4 Balu Chabilal Patil has deposed about the recovery of blood stained knife (article No. 22) at the instance of the appellant. By examining P.W. 7 Baburao Govind Gavand who is the father of deceased Deepali, who has deposed about the love affair between the appellant and Deepali, the prosecution has brought on record the motive for the appellant to commit the murder of Deepali. P.W. 6 Latabai Madhukar Tambe has stated that in the evening, she had seen the deceased going to the house of complainant Ashok Kapse. P.W. 10 Ramesh Shrawan Dhole has deposed on the aspect of seeing the appellant going towards the house of P.W. 1 Ashok Kapse at about 6.45 p.m. P.W. 9 Dr. Kanchan Narayan Wanere has performed the post-mortem on the dead body of Deepali. Besides, these two witnesses, two police witnesses have been examined i.e. P.W. 11 Chunilal Paradeshi and P.W. 12 Prakash Saindane. 8.We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record. In our view, there is sufficient evidence both direct and circumstantial which clinches the participation of the appellant in the crime. The direct evidence which incriminates the appellant has been furnished by P.W. 1 Ashok Kapse, P.W. 5 Raju Dighe and P.W. 8 Jagan Warde. We propose taking up the evidence of these witnesses first. 9.In short, P.W. 1 Ashok Kapse has deposed that he was working in the Nasik Municipal Corporation as a watchman. In addition, he was attending Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Vyayam Shala a Gymnasium in Walmik Nagar locality of Nasik. On 3-1-1998 his mother Jankibai had gone to Bombay to see her daughter and therefore, there was nobody in the house except the complainant Ashok Kapse. In addition, he was attending Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Vyayam Shala a Gymnasium in Walmik Nagar locality of Nasik. On 3-1-1998 his mother Jankibai had gone to Bombay to see her daughter and therefore, there was nobody in the house except the complainant Ashok Kapse. On that day, he returned home from work, thereafter in the evening he went to the Gymnasium. There the complainant Ashok Kapse was giving training to the boys who were attending the Gymnasium. In the evening, the appellant came there and asked him for the keys of his house i.e. house of the complainant Ashok Kapse, saying that he wanted to take rest at his house. P.W. 1 Ashok Kapse gave the keys to the appellant. The appellant told him that he should come home after he finishes his work. After P.W. 1 Ashok Kapse finished his work, he went home. He found that the door was closed. The light was on inside the house. Therefore, Ashok Kapse knocked on the door and said "Ananda open the door". From inside, Ashok Kapse heard a girl saying "Ashokbhau Mala Wachava". Therefore, Ashok Kapse tried to push the door but he found that it was locked from inside. The shutter of the window was closed. Therefore, Ashok Kapse inserted his hands in the gap between shutter which was from outside, and pulled it forcibly. The window opened. Ashok Kapse saw Deepali lying in the house. Ananda had assaulted her with knife. When Ashok Kapse opened the window., P.W. 5 Raju Dighe and P.W. 8 Jagan Warde also came there. Then Ashok Kapse abused the appellant. Thereafter the appellant opened the door and dragged Deepali upto the last step of the door. Ashok Kapse saw that Deepali had sustained injuries. The appellant left Deepali on the last step of the door and started running. Ashok Kapse started chasing him. A scuffle took place between the two. Many persons gathered there. Two policemen also came there. One of them was P.W. 11 Police Constable Chunilal Paradeshi. The policemen asked Ashok Kapse as to why they were quarrelling. Ashok Kapse told them that the appellant had killed the girl in his house. The policemen took the appellant and Ashok Kapse to Katya Maruti Police Chowky. The complaint of P.W. 1 Ashok Kapse came to be recorded and the appellant came to be arrested. The policemen asked Ashok Kapse as to why they were quarrelling. Ashok Kapse told them that the appellant had killed the girl in his house. The policemen took the appellant and Ashok Kapse to Katya Maruti Police Chowky. The complaint of P.W. 1 Ashok Kapse came to be recorded and the appellant came to be arrested. 10.We have gone through the evidence of P.W. 1 Ashok Kapse and we find that it inspires confidence. His evidence is also corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 5 Raju Dighe and P.W. 8 Jagan Warde. 11.The evidence of P.W. 5 Raju Dighe shows that he knew complainant Ashok Kapse (P.W. 1), deceased Deepali Gavand, the appellant, P.W. 8 Jagan Warde and others in that locality. He has stated that P.W. 1 Ashok Kapse was working as a Coach in Nehru Vyayam Shala. This witness and P.W. 8 Jagan Warde were attending the said Gymnasium and doing the exercises under the guidance of Ashok Kapse. This witness has stated that he knew Deepali as she was living in the same locality. Deepali had love affair with Anand (appellant). P.W. 5 Raju Dighe has further stated that on 3rd January, 1998 when he was in the Gymnasium, the appellant-Ananda called out to Ashok Kapse. The appellant asked Ashok Kapse for the keys of his house stating that he wanted to take rest. Ashok Kapse gave keys of his house to the appellant. After sometime, Ashok Kapse went towards his home. While going towards his own house, this witness i.e. Raju Dighe had to pass the house of Ashok Kapse. When he alongwith Jagan Warde reached there, they saw that Ashok Kapse was calling Ananda from the window of his house and was asking him to open the door. Ashok Kapse broke open the shutter of the window and asked Ananda as to why he was doing that. This witness and Jagan Warde went to that window and through that window, they saw that Ananda was hitting a weapon like knife or a suri on Deepali. Ashok Kapse asked the appellant to open the door. Thereafter, the appellant opened the door. They saw that his hands were drenched with blood. He was holding knife in his hand. Appellant dragged Deepali by holding her hair. He dragged her out of the house and left her on the foot steps and started running away. Ashok Kapse asked the appellant to open the door. Thereafter, the appellant opened the door. They saw that his hands were drenched with blood. He was holding knife in his hand. Appellant dragged Deepali by holding her hair. He dragged her out of the house and left her on the foot steps and started running away. Thereafter, Ashok Kapse chased the appellant. 12.The evidence of P.W. 8 Jagan Warde is similar to the evidence of P.W. 5 Raju Dighe. We have minutely perused the evidence of these two witnesses and we find no hesitation in relying on the same. We find their evidence to be totally cogent, consistent and reliable and their evidence corroborates the evidence of each other as well as the evidence of Ashok Kapse on all material particulars. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of any of these witnesses so as to disbelieve their testimony in relation to the assault by the appellant on Deepali. 13.The evidence of the above three eye-witnesses is corroborated by the medical evidence on record. P.W. 9 Dr. Kanchan Wanere who has performed the post-mortem on the dead body of Deepali, has stated that injuries caused to the deceased Deepali, are possible by knife (Article 22). We have already set out in detail the injuries noticed by Dr. Wanere in the earlier paras of this judgment, hence, we do not think it necessary to reiterate the same here. Dr. Wanere has further stated that all the injuries were grievous and the cause of death was due to multiple stab injuries and internal haemorrhage. The knife (article 22) was shown to Dr. Wanere. She has stated that all the stab injuries were possible by the said knife. 14.On going through the evidence of Dr. Kanchan Wanere, it is noticed that Dr. Wanere has deposed that all the injuries were grievous and the cause of death was multiple stab injuries and internal haemorrhage. However, Dr. Wanere has not stated that the injuries suffered by the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In our view, this would make no difference because the bare perusal of the injuries suffered by the deceased per se shows that they were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Dr. However, Dr. Wanere has not stated that the injuries suffered by the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In our view, this would make no difference because the bare perusal of the injuries suffered by the deceased per se shows that they were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Dr. Wanere has stated that the deceased had sustained two stab wounds over the right mammary region extending inside the chest and an injury in the right lung. Besides these injuries there were another two stab injuries over the left mammary region one and half inch extending inside the injury to the heart. The internal examination shows that there was stab wound on the heart and right lung had collapsed due to stab wound. These injuries also led to internal haemorrhage. It is common knowledge that the stab injury to the heart is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Thus, in our opinion, even if the doctor has not specifically stated that any injury or injuries suffered by the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, it would not affect the prosecution case in any manner. The view which we have taken is fortified by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of (Brij Bhukan and others v. The State of Uttar Pradesh)1, reported in A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 474. It is held in the said case that "Although the medical evidence does not say that any one of the injuries on the body of the deceased was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, it is open to the Court to look into the nature of the injuries found on the body of the deceased and infer from them that the assailants intended to cause death of the deceased. Even if none of the injuries by themselves was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of the deceased, cumulatively they may be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death". 15.It was expected of the learned Public Prosecutor who had conducted the trial, to have sought the opinion of the Doctor on the aspect as to whether the injuries suffered by the deceased, were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 15.It was expected of the learned Public Prosecutor who had conducted the trial, to have sought the opinion of the Doctor on the aspect as to whether the injuries suffered by the deceased, were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In a case of murder, in order to establish that it is a homicidal death, it is necessary to prove that the act by which death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused or with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In order to bring these facts on record, it is necessary to put the questions to the Doctor who has conducted the post-mortem. However, this was not done in the present case. However, looking to the nature of injuries suffered by the deceased in the present case, it would not make any difference or affect the case in any manner as already observed by us. 16.We shall now consider the circumstantial evidence which has been adduced by the prosecution against the appellant. We shall first deal with the evidence of P.W. 10 Ramesh Dhole. This witness was residing just near the house of P.W. 1 Ashok Kapse, Ramesh Dhole has deposed that on 3rd January, 1998 at about 6.45 p.m. he had seen the appellant proceeding towards the house of P.W. 1 Ashok Kapse. After about half an hour, he heard commotion and when he went to the house of Ashok Kapse, he found that Deepali was lying dead on the foot steps of the house of Ashok Kapse. P.W. 6 Latabai Tambe was running a stall by the side of the road in Walmik Nagar. P.W. 6 Latabai has stated that on 3rd January, 1998 in the evening, when she was present at her stall, she saw Deepali proceeding to the house of Ashok Kapse, sometime thereafter, she heard people shouting that murder was committed at the house of Ashok Kapse. Hence, she went there. P.W. 6 Latabai has stated that on 3rd January, 1998 in the evening, when she was present at her stall, she saw Deepali proceeding to the house of Ashok Kapse, sometime thereafter, she heard people shouting that murder was committed at the house of Ashok Kapse. Hence, she went there. From the evidence of both these witnesses, it is clear that the appellant called deceased Deepali to the house of Ashok Kapse, he also went to the house of Ashok Kapse after taking precaution to separately go to the house of Ashok Kapse so that suspicion should not be aroused. The appellant took advantage of the fact that the mother of Ashok Kapse had gone to Bombay on the relevant day and Ashok Kapse was the only person in the house. Moreover, at the relevant time, Ashok Kapse was busy in Gymnasium giving training to some of the boys in the Gymnasium. It is pertinent to note that both the appellant and deceased were the only persons in the said house at the time of incident. The eye-witnesses have clearly stated that they saw the deceased Deepali and the appellant in the house of Ashok Kapse and the appellant was giving stab blows to Deepali with a knife. Thereafter, the eye-witnesses have stated that they saw the appellant dragging Deepali by holding her hair till the foot step of the house of the Ashok Kapse and then he left her on the last step of the house and started running away. From all these facts, it is clear that it is the appellant and none other who has caused the multiple injuries to the Deepali which led to her death. 17.Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of P.W. 6 Latabai Tambe and P.W. 10 Ramesh Dhole so as to disbelieve their testimony. Besides the evidence of P.W. 6 Latabai Tambe and P.W. 10 Ramesh Dhole, the prosecution has also examined P.W. 11 Police Naik Chunilal Bhaulal Pardeshi. At the relevant time, P.W. 11 Pardeshi was attached to Panchavati Police Station. On 23rd January, 1998, he was on duty with Police Constable Mahale at Katya Maruti Police Chowky. At about 7.30 p.m. when he was regulating the traffic infront of the police chowky he found that people had collected and traffic was blocked at Waghadi bridge. Hence, this witness and constable Mahale went there. Two persons were found quarrelling. On 23rd January, 1998, he was on duty with Police Constable Mahale at Katya Maruti Police Chowky. At about 7.30 p.m. when he was regulating the traffic infront of the police chowky he found that people had collected and traffic was blocked at Waghadi bridge. Hence, this witness and constable Mahale went there. Two persons were found quarrelling. One of the persons had worn an ash colour half sleeve T-shirt and blue Jeans. The hands, clothes and shoes of the said person were blood stained. The other person who had worn blue coloured full sleeves shirt and black coloured pant, was telling the first person "Anandya you have deceived me, you have committed murder of Deepali in my house". The person in the black pant uttered these words and he was beating the person who was wearing Jeans. Then, Police Naik Pardeshi and Police Constable Mahale caught the said persons and asked them their names. The person who was wearing ash coloured half sleeves T-shirt and blue Jeans gave his name as Ananda Ramdas Shirsat (appellant) and the other person gave his name as Ashok Hiraman Kapse. Ashok Kapse told Police Naik Pardeshi that Ananda had committed murder of Deepali in his house with knife. Police Naik Pardeshi took the appellant in his custody and sent Police Constable Mahale to the spot to get it confirmed. Constable Mahale returned within ten minutes stating that Deepali was found lying there in the door of the house of Ashok Kapse. The clothes on her person were drenched with blood and stab wounds were found on her person. Hence, Police Naik Pardeshi took the appellant as well as Ashok Kapse to Panchavati Police Station. 18.The learned Advocate for the appellant has assailed the evidence of this witness i.e. P.W. 11 Pardeshi. He submitted that the evidence of this witness cannot be relied upon as the statement of this witness was recorded after three weeks. However, it is pertinent to note that P.W. 11 Pardeshi is not an eye-witness to the incident and he has merely repeated what Ashok Kapse had told him at the time when the intervened in the quarrel between Ashok Kapse and the appellant. It is pertinent to note that complaint of Ashok Kapse was recorded almost immediately at 8 p.m. i.e. almost immediately after the incident. It is pertinent to note that complaint of Ashok Kapse was recorded almost immediately at 8 p.m. i.e. almost immediately after the incident. The appellant has been named in the complaint as the person who had assaulted Deepali with knife. Thus, even though the statement of this witness was recorded after three weeks, we find no reason to disbelieve his testimony. Moreover, the fact that this witness brought the appellant and Ashok Kapse to the Police Station is not disputed on behalf of the appellant. 19.The prosecution has also examined P.W. 4 Balu Patil. He is the panch witness, in respect of recovery of blood stained knife (article No. 22) at the instance of the appellant. In respect of the recovery, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the recovery cannot be said to be a recovery at the instance of the appellant. He has submitted that the said knife came to be recovered on 4th January, 1998, however, prior to that the police had knowledge about the whereabouts of the knife. The police had gained this knowledge from the statement of P.W. 5 Raju Dighe which was recorded by the police on 3-1-1998. In the said statement Raju Dighe had stated that the appellant- accused had thrown the knife into Waghadi river bed. Thus, it was contended that the place which was shown by the accused where the knife was discovered was already known to the police and hence there was no question of discovery of knife on 4th January, 1998 at the instance of the appellant. Mr. Mundergi the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted and rightly so that the prosecution has not strictly proved that the knife (Article No. 22) was recovered at the instance of the appellant. We have noticed that the trial Court has also accepted the contention of the defence in respect of recovery of the knife and has not taken the recovery of the knife into consideration. However, even if the circumstance of recovery of knife is excluded from consideration, in the present case there are three eye-witness whose ocular testimony is cogent, consistent and reliable, which clearly shows that the appellant has committed the murder of Deepali. Thus, this lacuna in relation to the discovery of knife at the instance of the appellant would not affect the prosecution case. Thus, this lacuna in relation to the discovery of knife at the instance of the appellant would not affect the prosecution case. 20.At this stage, we would like to advert to one other circumstance which goes against the appellant. Immediately after the incident, P.W. 11 Police Naik Pardeshi had seen P.W. 1 Ashok Kapse and appellant quarrelling. When the appellant was trying to run away from the spot, P.W. 1 Ashok Kapse immediately chased him and caught him near the Waghadi Bridge. There was scuffle between the two. At that time, P.W. 11 Police Naik Pardeshi came to the spot and questioned both of them. At that time, Ashok Kapse told P.W. 11 Police Naik Pardeshi that the appellant had assaulted Deepali in his house. At the said time, Police Naik Pardeshi found that the clothes and shoes worn by the appellant-accused i.e. T-shirt, Jeans and shoes (Article Nos. 7, 8 and 9) were blood stained. The clothes and shoes came to be seized vide panchnama Exhibit 31. The panchnama Exhibit 31 has been admitted by the defence under section 294 of Code of Criminal Procedure. These three articles were sent to C.A. and they were found to have blood stains of O group. The blood group of Deepali was also O. The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the blood group of the appellant is also O group. However, neither in the cross-examination of any witness nor in the statement of the appellant under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, anything has been brought on record so as to show how the clothes and shoes of the appellant came to have blood stains. There were no injuries on the body of the appellant of such a nature so as to cause large number of blood stains on his shirt, jeans and shoes. Thus non-explanation on the part of appellant, provides one more link in the chain of circumstances which clearly shows the complicity of the appellant in the present case. 21.The prosecution has also examined P.W. 7 Baburao Gavand who is the father of deceased Deepali. This witness is his evidence has stated that about 4 to 5 months prior to Deepalis death, he learnt that she had love affair with Ananda. Therefore, he himself and his brother Chhabu had advised Deepali and Ananda that they should not indulge in such love affair. This witness is his evidence has stated that about 4 to 5 months prior to Deepalis death, he learnt that she had love affair with Ananda. Therefore, he himself and his brother Chhabu had advised Deepali and Ananda that they should not indulge in such love affair. He told Ananda that he was going to settle Deepalis marriage very soon. He also advised Ananda (appellant) that he should get married. Baburao Gavand settled Deepalis marriage with a boy from Indore. He had also settled 9th May, 1998 as the date of the marriage. Baburao Gavand has further stated that on 3rd January, 1998 in the eventing, his wife and daughters Deepali (deceased) and Rupali were at home. At about 6.15 to 6.30 p.m. Deepali left the home telling her mother that she was going to her aunt. Then at about 7.30 p.m. one boy named Dighe came to him saying that his daughter was lying in the door of Ashok Kapse and she was assaulted by Ananda (appellant) with a knife. He went there and saw many person collected there. His evidence has remained unshaken as he was not cross-examined on behalf of the appellant and thus the prosecution has proved the motive for the appellant to commit the murder of Deepali. 22.Thus, in our opinion, in the present case there is sufficient evidence to show that it was the appellant and none other, who had committed murder of Deepali. We find no infirmity and illegality in the judgment and order passed by the Court below. 23.In the result, we confirm the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offence punishable under sections 302 and 201 of I.P.C. and dismiss the appeal. The appellant is in jail and he shall serve out his sentence. Appeal dismissed. -----