both the criminal appeals, contends that there are no direct eye witnesses to the incident and the prosecution case rests purely on the circumstantial evidence. She further contends that the prosecution has relied on three circumstances i.e., (1) motive, (2) last seen theory and (3) recovery. She further contends that as far as first circumstance i.e., motive is concerned, the prosecution has not examined the woman with whom A.1 was having extra marital relationship. She further contends that the prosecution has come out two versions with regard to the motive. One is that the deceased developed illicit intimacy with the concubine of A.1 and the other is that the deceased and PW.1 refused to cancel the agreement and to return the sand trench to A.1. She further contends that both these versions of motive have not been proved by the prosecution, except the oral assertion made by PWs.1 and 2. So far as the last seen theory is concerned, she contends that the prosecution has relied on the evidence of PW.3 and his evidence cannot be relied on, as his evidence is belated one. The other circumstance of recovery is concerned, the prosecution relied on the evidence of PWs.4 and 5, whose evidence is inconsistence with each other and their evidence would go to show that MOs.3 and 4 were recovered at the scene of offence itself and not at the instance of the accused. She further contends that PW.4 did not support the case of the prosecution. Though PW.5 supported the case of the prosecution, but his evidence goes to show that MOs.3 and 4 were seized at the scene of offence and not at the instance of the accused. She further contends that though there was no whisper from any of the prosecution witnesses about the conspiracy, the learned Additional Sessions
