Having heard the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of material brought on record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence as well as complicity of applicants, accusation made coupled with the fact that present case is a case of circumstantial evidence, therefore, there is no eye witness of the occurrence, the guilt of an accused in a case based on circumstantial evidence, has to be inferred in accordance with the parameters laid down by Apex Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda, Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 Supreme Court 1622, however, none of the parameters laid down by Apex Court in aforesaid judgement are satisfied against applicants upto this stage, the recovery of the country made pistol on the pointing of applicant Atul Rai @ Sintu prima facie appears to be false and implanted inasmuch as the said recovery is said to be made on 25.4.2023, whereas the applicant Atul Rai was arrested on 27.4.2023, the F.S.L report does not establish that the weapon recovered on the pointing of applicant was used in the commission of crime, the incriminating circumstance, that has emerged against applicant Nandini Chaubey was last seen in the company of deceased, however, simply on the basis of evidence of last seen, no conviction can be made in view of the following judgements of Supreme Court:- Jabir Vs. State of Uttrakhand, 2023 SCC
