R.C. CHAVAN, J. :- 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: 3. 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. 4. On 03-12-1994, at about 7.30 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. 5. 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. 6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, to whom the case was assigned, charged the three respondents of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 20 I 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. 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. 7. We have heard Shri. D. B. Yengal, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, Shri. P. B. Patil, the learned counsel for the revision-petitioner, and Shri. A. R. Sharma, the learned counsel for the respondents/original accused. With the help of the learned counsel, we have gone through the entire evidence on record in order to examine whether the learned Trial Judge was right in proceeding to acquit the respondents. 8. The story about the victim's affair with accused No.3 Rambhau's daughter - Indu - has been deposed to by P.W.3 Shriram victim's uncle, who had proved his report to police at Exhibit 25. This report also mentions that Shriram suspected that the cause of the incident was affair with a girl. 9. P.W.2 Sahebrao, victim's father, states that Indu and Vishnu had a love affair. About three months prior to the incident, all the accused had met Sahebrao and asked him to tell Vishnu not to continue courtship and had threatened that otherwise, they would kill him. Sahebrao stated that he was to proceed to the Police Station for lodging the report, but the villagers had prevailed upon him not to give the report. P.W.3 Murlidhar, Vishnu's cousin, and his wife P.W.4 Rukminibai too stated about Vishnu's affair with Indu, which was not liked by the accused. It is, however, worthy of note that none of the witnesses had stated whether after the threats by the accused persons about three months before the incident, Vishnu had continued affair or not. 10. On behalf of the accused, one Kashiram was examined as D.W.1. He was President of Lonar Taluka Congress Committee. He stated that about 2 1/2 years before his deposition, Gram Panchayat election had taken place, where al1 seven panelists, including accused No.2 Gulab, were elected, whereas the group of one Pralhad, who was Sabhapati of Panchayat Samiti, Lonar, had been defeated. He was President of Lonar Taluka Congress Committee. He stated that about 2 1/2 years before his deposition, Gram Panchayat election had taken place, where al1 seven panelists, including accused No.2 Gulab, were elected, whereas the group of one Pralhad, who was Sabhapati of Panchayat Samiti, Lonar, had been defeated. He also stated that in elections for one Multipurpose Society at Lonar, accused No.3 Rambhau and Pralhad Patil had offered their candidatures and that his party, that is, to which accused Rambhau belonged, had challenged the claim of Pralhad Patil that he was from the economically weaker section for being eligible to contest the election. He further stated that on 03-12-1994, accused Gulab and Rambhau in fact accompanied him from 6.30 a.m. itself for a political deputation and that they worked together till 5.00 p.m. Thus, the evidence of this witness would show that the accused were falsely implicated on account of political rivalry. 11. Kashiram denied the suggestion in cross-examination that Vishnu had any affair with Indubai. Suggestions about the political rivalry had been made to P.W. 1 Shriram too who admitted that accused Gulab was Member of Gram Panchayat and Pralhad Tejankar was Chairman of one Ganesh Co-operative Society, but denied the knowledge about who was elected in the election or whether the elections of the said Society were held three months prior to the incident. He admitted that the number of families of Tejankars and Sirsats in their village is equal. In view of this, the possibility of existence of political rivalry between the parties cannot be ruled out. 12. P.W.1 Shriram and P.W.2 Sahebrao had obviously not seen the incident. Shriram stated that Annasaheb and Raosaheb had informed him that Vishnu had been killed. These Annasaheb and Raosaheb had been curiously kept away from the Court. He seemed to have received an information at about 7.30 a.m. and then proceeded to give report at the Police Station. P.W.2 Sahebrao was away from the village and was informed at the place of service about the incident. 13. P.W.3 Murlidhar and P.W.4 Rukminibai, his wife, both stated having seen the incident. Both of them were near the field of Saodatkar, from where they saw the incident, but curiously both of them did not state having seen each other. P.W.2 Sahebrao was away from the village and was informed at the place of service about the incident. 13. P.W.3 Murlidhar and P.W.4 Rukminibai, his wife, both stated having seen the incident. Both of them were near the field of Saodatkar, from where they saw the incident, but curiously both of them did not state having seen each other. On the other hand, Murlidhar stated towards the end of para 3 of his cross-examination that it was not true to suggest that his wife Rukminibai had come there. Thus, they exclude each other's presence. 14. P.W.5 Bhimrao had witnessed the panchanama of spot at Exhibit 30, which was conducted at about 12.35 noon on the same day. In cross-examination, he stated that Murlidhar and his wife were both present when the panchanama was being drawn up, but they did not state anything about the incident at that time and that Murlidhar was merely weeping. If they were eye-witnesses, they would have immediately told so. In view of this account given by P.W.3 Murlidhar and P.W.4 Rukminibai, it was rightly rejected by the learned Trial Judge. 15. P.W.6 Kisan stated about the disclosures made by accused Bharat leading to recovery of a knife, a shirt and a can vide Exhibits 32 and 33. He stated in cross-examination that P.S.O. Shere called him and he sat in the office of P.S.O., where the writing was done. Nothing else had taken place at the Police Station. Then he signed the papers at about 9.00 p.m. The panchanama at Exhibit 32 does bear the time of 8.45 a.m., whereas the panchanama at Exhibit 33, about seizures effected at Village Wadgaon Tejan, was complete between 9.05 to 11.40 hours. The panchanama of seizure at Exhibit 33 does not bear the signature of the accused. Recovery of articles under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is a weak piece of evidence. The articles are a steel knife, an open shirt and a kerosene can. The report from the Forensic Science Laboratory at Exhibit 41 curiously shows that even the kerosene can tested negative for presence of kerosene. There was no blood on the knife, whereas blood of group "A" was found on the plastic can, as per the report at Exhibit 40, which is incredible. The report from the Forensic Science Laboratory at Exhibit 41 curiously shows that even the kerosene can tested negative for presence of kerosene. There was no blood on the knife, whereas blood of group "A" was found on the plastic can, as per the report at Exhibit 40, which is incredible. This being the state of evidence, the learned Trial Judge justifiably came to conclude that the prosecution had not proved complicity of the three respondents in the death of Vishnu. In view of this, we see no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Trial Judge. 16. Consequently, we dismiss both Criminal Appeal No.36 of 1996 and Criminal Revision Application No.160 of 1995. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the respondents/ accused shall stand cancelled.