JUDGMENT 1. Appellant had faced trial in FIR No. 320 dated 1.5.2014 registered at Police Station Mahaveer Nagar, District Kota City under Section 302, 309, 456 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'). 2. FIR was lodged at the instance of complainant Bhanwar Singh. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 1.5.2014 Deepu, son of the complainant, had got married to Neha. After marriage ceremony, the bride and bridegroom were to stay in the house of Baluram. The bride and the bridegroom went to the top floor of the house of Baluram. Appellant Bharat Singh also reached there and slapped Deepu. Then Deepu immediately called the complainant to the spot. When complainant reached the spot, he saw that Neha had suffered knife injuries and was lying on the ground. Bharat Singh also tried to inflict knife injuries to himself. Complainant caught hold of Bharat Singh. Bride was taken to the hospital, but she succumbed to her injuries. 3. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the appellant. 4. Charges under Section 302, 456, 309 IPC were framed against the appellant by the Trial Court on 25.02.2015. On 04.12.2017 additional charges were framed against the appellant under Section 449 IPC and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act, 1959. Appellant did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 5. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined twenty four 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. He further pleaded that Neha had called him to the spot. When he was talking to Neha, Deepu reached the spot. Deepu left the room saying that he was going to bring water, but he returned within two/five minutes and started quarreling with Neha. Deepu took out knife from his pocket and gave blows with it to Neha. When he intervened to save Neha, he was also inflicted knife injuries by Deepu. Thereafter, Deepu ran away from the spot. Appellant appeared in the witness-box as DW-1. 6. Trial Court vide judgment/order dated 07.12.2017 ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302, 309, 449 IPC and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act, 1959. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant. 7. Thereafter, Deepu ran away from the spot. Appellant appeared in the witness-box as DW-1. 6. Trial Court vide judgment/order dated 07.12.2017 ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302, 309, 449 IPC and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act, 1959. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Trial Court has erred in ordering the conviction and sentence of the appellant. Prosecution had failed to prove its case. In-fact, appellant had been called to the spot by Neha and thereafter, husband of Neha had inflicted injuries to Neha with a knife. When appellant had intervened, he was also inflicted knife injuries by the appellant. Since, complainant is a police officer, appellant has been falsely involved in this case. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narendra Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2014) Supp CrLR 358 , (SC) wherein, it has been held as under:- "In the present case, in our view, there are formidable circumstances discernible from the evidence which probablise the defence version which are as under: (a) Deceased Nathi and the accused were in love and they were intending to get married. Since they belonged to the same gotra, their relationship was not accepted by the villagers and they objected to the same; (b) About three months prior to the incident, Nathi and accused left the village and lived together for about 10-15 days and thereafter Nathi returned to her matrimonial house; (c) On 19.3.2003, the parents of the deceased went for work and PW-3 was also engaged in some events pertaining to Holi festival and Nathi was alone in the house; (d) When the accused came to the house of the deceased, he was not armed; he had taken the sword from inside the room of the house; (e) PW-3, nowhere stated that at the time of the incident his sister quarrelled with the accused. When the accused inflicted sword blows, deceased Nathi had not raised any alarm nor shouted for help; (f) the accused was also having the stab injuries on his person. When the accused inflicted sword blows, deceased Nathi had not raised any alarm nor shouted for help; (f) the accused was also having the stab injuries on his person. In the present case, the accused has taken the defence plea of suicide pact even in the trial court while being questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The defence version is probabilized by the above facts and circumstances of the case. The death of deceased was not premeditated and the act of the accused causing death of Nathi, in our view, appears to be in furtherance of the understanding between them to commit suicide and the consent of the deceased and the act of the accused falls under Exception 5 of Section 300 IPC. Since the accused intentionally caused the death; the appellant is found guilty under Section 304 Part I IPC. The appellant is stated to be in custody for more than 10 years." 8. Learned state counsel has opposed the appeal and has submitted that the prosecution had been successful in proving its case. In-fact, appellant had followed the newly wed couple and had inflicted injuries with a knife to the bride and had thereafter inflicted injuries to himself. Appellant and Neha were having a love affair. 9. Present case relates to murder of Neha and attempt to suicide committed by the appellant. 10. PW-11 Deepu Yadav deposed that he had got married to Neha on 1.5.2014. After marriage they had stopped at Keshavpura for ten minutes and thereafter they reached home and were to stay in the house of their neighbour Baluram. They went to the third floor of the house of the Baluram. While they had taken water, appellant came there. Appellant started telling Neha to go with him to the temple. He (witness) objected to it. Appellant immediately gave a knife blow in the abdomen and chest of Neha. Appellant slapped him. He immediately called his father. His father reached the spot and took away the knife from the appellant. In his cross-examination, he deposed that after appellant had slapped him, he had gone out and had called his father. Then he returned to the room and saw that appellant had inflicted knife injuries to Neha and had thereafter given knife injuries to himself. 11. Complainant- Bhanwarlal Yadav while appearing in the witness-box as PW-12 deposed that his son Deepu got married to Neha on 1.5.2014. Then he returned to the room and saw that appellant had inflicted knife injuries to Neha and had thereafter given knife injuries to himself. 11. Complainant- Bhanwarlal Yadav while appearing in the witness-box as PW-12 deposed that his son Deepu got married to Neha on 1.5.2014. After marriage they had decided that as per custom the newly wed couple would stay in the house of Baluram. His son and his bride went to third floor of the house. They were followed by the appellant. His son called him and he immediately reached the spot and saw that appellant had inflicted knife injuries to Neha and she had fallen down. On seeing him, appellant started inflicting knife injuries to himself. He took away the knife from the appellant and informed the police. 12. PW-10 Anitma Yadav deposed that her cousin brother Deepu had got married on 1.5.2014 to Neha. After marriage they were to stay on the third floor of the house of Baluram. While she was coming down stairs to change her dress, she saw that one person was climbing the stairs. The said person was talking on phone. When she went upstairs, she saw that the said person was giving knife injuries to her sister-in-law and had thereafter given knife injuries to himself. 13. PW-14 Dr. Ashok Bhudra deposed that he had conducted postmortem examination on dead body of Neha on 2.5.2014. He proved the postmortem report Exhibit P-16. A perusal of the postmortem report reveals that the deceased had suffered two stab wounds i.e., one on her chest and one on her abdomen. She has suffered one incised wound on chin and an abrasion near her right eye. 14. PW-15 Dr. Arun Sharma deposed that on 2.5.2014 he had medically examined appellant Bharat Singh and had found two injuries on his person. He proved the report Exhibit P-17. A perusal of Exhibit P-17 reveals that appellant had suffered two incised wounds. 15. PW-16 Baluram deposed that son of Bhanwarlal had got married and the bride and the bridegroom had stayed in his house. However, bride was murdered in the room on the top floor. 16. PW-21 Babita Yadav deposed that her daughter Neha had got married to Deepu on 1.5.2014. Her daughter was working in DOCOMO Company. Appellant was also working in the same company and used to travel with her daughter in an auto. However, bride was murdered in the room on the top floor. 16. PW-21 Babita Yadav deposed that her daughter Neha had got married to Deepu on 1.5.2014. Her daughter was working in DOCOMO Company. Appellant was also working in the same company and used to travel with her daughter in an auto. Appellant had bad intentions towards her daughter. On the day of marriage of her daughter, appellant was also present there as her daughter must have given him invitation card. After marriage, she left for her house at Kota. However, she came to know that her daughter had been murdered by the appellant with the help of a knife. Appellant was a married man. 17. The other witnesses have deposed with regard to investigation conducted by them. 18. Appellant while appearing in the witness-box as DW-1 deposed that he had received a phone-call on his mobilephone at about 7/7.30 p.m. on 1.5.2014 from Neha and she had called him to the spot. When he went to the spot, Neha was sitting in the room dressed as a bride. Her husband Deepu was also present in the room. When he entered the room, Deepu inquired from Neha about him (appellant). Neha told him that she had called him to the spot. Then, Deepu left the room on the pretext that he was to bring water. However, Deepu came back after two/five minutes with a knife and abused Neha and gave knife injuries to her. When he intervened to save Neha, Deepu inflicted knife injuries to him also. In his cross-examination, he deposed that Neha had got married on the same day. It was correct that he was a friend of Neha, but did not want to get married to her. He knew that name of husband of Neha was Deepu because Neha had told him about Deepu prior to her marriage. 19. Thus, in the present case, it is not in dispute that Neha has died on account of stab wounds. It is also not in dispute that appellant had also suffered incised wounds. 20. The question that requires consideration is as to whether, appellant had murdered Neha and thereafter inflicted injuries to himself or the plea taken by the appellant that Neha as well as the appellant had been inflicted injuries by Deepu, is correct. 21. It is also not in dispute that appellant had also suffered incised wounds. 20. The question that requires consideration is as to whether, appellant had murdered Neha and thereafter inflicted injuries to himself or the plea taken by the appellant that Neha as well as the appellant had been inflicted injuries by Deepu, is correct. 21. Deepu husband of Neha while appearing in the witnessbox as PW-11 has categorically deposed that appellant had entered the room and had told Neha, his wife that she should accompany him. When Neha refused to go with the appellant, he inflicted knife injuries to her. As per PW-11, Neha had declined to go with the appellant and due to this reason, appellant got upset and inflicted injuries to Neha with the knife carried by him. 22. PW-21 Babita Yadav, mother of the deceased has deposed that appellant had also attended the marriage of her daughter. Appellant has also admitted in his crossexamination that he knew that Neha was to get married to Deepu. Hence, it is evident that appellant had followed Neha after the marriage ceremony and had entered her room where she was to stay with her husband. 23. The plea taken by the appellant that he had been called by Neha on phone is not established on record. The said plea is not corroborated by any call-details on record. Hence, the plea taken by the appellant that he had been called to the spot by Neha appears to be an afterthought. Moreover, there was no occasion for Neha to have called appellant to the spot after the marriage ceremony to her in-laws house. PW-21 has deposed that appellant was a married man. Appellant has also deposed in his cross-examination that he was only a friend of Neha and did not want to get married to her. It appears that due to this reason, Neha got married to Deepu as appellant had no intention to perform marriage with her. Hence, there was no reason for Neha to have called appellant to the spot immediately after her marriage knowing fully well that all the family members of her husband were present there. 24. Statements of prosecution witnesses PW-10 Antima Yadav, PW-11 Deepu and PW-12 complainant-Bhanwarlal inspire confidence to the effect that the appellant had committed murder of Neha and had thereafter inflicted injuries with knife to himself. 24. Statements of prosecution witnesses PW-10 Antima Yadav, PW-11 Deepu and PW-12 complainant-Bhanwarlal inspire confidence to the effect that the appellant had committed murder of Neha and had thereafter inflicted injuries with knife to himself. The said witnesses were crossexamined at length but their testimony with regard to the manner of occurrence could not be shattered. Statement of the appellant fails to rebut the testimony of PW-10, PW-11 & PW-12. All the said prosecution witnesses have deposed in categoric terms that the appellant had given knife injuries to Neha and thereafter had inflicted injuries to himself. Recovery of knife used by the appellant at the time of commission of crime was effected from the spot. 25. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant fails to advance the case of the appellant as it is not even the plea of the appellant that he had inflicted injuries to Neha with her consent and had thereafter inflicted injuries to himself as they had both decided to die. 26. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, learned Trial Court has rightly ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant with regard to the charges framed against him. 27. Hence, no ground for interference by this court is made out. 28. Dismissed.