- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. as well as Sri Sahabuddin, counsel for the first informant.
(2.) Perused the record.
(3.) Submission of counsel for the applicants is that only evidence against the applicants is that of motive as it is said that the sister of the applicants had some relationship with the deceased. The other circumstances are that as the sister of the applicants went missing for sometime and, therefore, the applicants along with other co-accused had gone to search for their sister and in that connection, they had also gone to the house of the first informant and asked about the whereabouts of the deceased and the sister of the applicants. Later on, the sister of the applicants returned back but the deceased never appeared. This episode took place on 13.11.2012. Later on, on 15.11.2012, the dead body of the deceased and a Gamchha, which was used in committing the murder of the deceased, were recovered at the instance of the co-accused Rameshwari. Further submission of the counsel is that except the fact that the applicants had gone in search of their? sister and had also asked about the deceased, there is no other evidence of having been seen along with the deceased by anyone. Nobody ever located the applicants along with the deceased anywhere. It was further submitted that the dead body of the deceased was discovered in village Mubarakpur while the applicants are the residents of another village. It was also submitted that if the applicants would have taken the deceased along with them then someone or the other must have had the occasion to see them but there is no such evidence to connect the applicants with the crime. It was next submitted that only evidence relied upon by the prosecution is the confessional statement of the co-accused Rameshwari, which, according to the counsel, is very tenuous link up evidence and has very limited scope of admissibility. The contention of the counsel is that the case of the applicants is clearly distinguishable from the case of the co-accused Rameshwari at whose instance the dead body of the deceased was recovered and the Gamchha which was used in strangulating the deceased, was also recovered. Further contention is that as this is a case of circumstantial evidence and the link of circumstances against the applicant being too inconclusive, no definite inference of guilt can be drawn on their basis. The case of the applicant stands on a distinguishable footing than the co-accused Rameshwari against whom there is sufficient evidence to connect him with the crime. Lastly, it was contended that the applicants have already spent three years in jail and they are languishing behind the bars since 17.11.2012. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicants have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicants that they are ready to cooperate with the process of law and will faithfully make themselves available before the court whenever required. It has also been pointed out that the accused are not having any criminal history and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.;