under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has nominated one Chunnu as the precipitater of the crime. Subsequently in his third statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C, the first informant has taken a summer shot and now expressed suspicion against present applicant and coaccused Keshav Kevat and Shiv Ranjan (his cousin brother). With reference to above, the learned counsel for applicant submits that in view of the inherent inconsistency in the statements of the first informant, no credence can be attached to the same. Subsequently, the statement of Chunnu was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 18.04.2022. However, this witness/accused has completely denied his complicity in the crime in question. Similarly, the statement of another witness namely Rameshwar Mali has supported the first and second statements of the first informant but has ultimately not supported the third statement of the first informant. The theory of last seen against the applicant has emerged in the statement of one Rohit Shukla. Referring to following two judgments of the Supreme Court (1) Jaswant Gir Vs. State of Punjab (2005) 12 SCC 438 and (2) Jabir Vs. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 32 , the learned counsel for applicant contends that no conviction can be maintained on the basis of last seen. The motive that has emerged against applicant for committing the crime in question is by itself not so sufficient so as to infer the guilt of the applicant. Referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Nandu Singh Vs. State of M.P., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1454, the learned counsel for applicant contends that motive plays an important role in the link of circumstances in a case based on circumstantial evidence. Since there is no strong motive has emerged against applicant, therefore, applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
