Learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant has been falsely implicated in FIR dated 07.08.2018, according to which, first informant is not an eye witness of incident and was reported on phone that his eldest son Ravindra @ Ballu who had gone to maize fields for securing harvest from cattle and when he was attending call of nature at 05:00 p.m. on 06.08.2018, applicant and co-accused Satya Prakash with the help of co-accused Mahesh Updhayay shot him, which was seen by Bhura @ Raj Kumar who was also attending call of nature nearby and seen the culprits fleeing away from spot and identified them, and names of assailants were reported by deceased to Premchandara Parasar; that entire prosecution story is absolutely false and incorrect; that applicant had no reason or motive to cause death of deceased and it is absolutely wrong to say that he fired at deceased along with co-accused persons; that there are material contradictions in statements of eye witnesses Bhura and Premchandra Parasar, who are relatives of first informant and whose statements have been recorded after inordinate delay of around three months on 22.11.2018; that eye witness Bhura states to have seen accused persons fleeing from spot, and stated that coaccused Satya Prakash was armed with firearm, while eye witness Premchandra Parasar has stated that deceased told him that Satya Prakash, Mahesh Updhyay and Umakant, all the three fired at him, which hit him behind his shoulder; that postmortem report shows that deceased sustained single firearm injury; that nothing incriminating has been recovered from applicant, rather recovery of firearm is alleged to have been made at the
