a case against the appellant. Mr. Joshi submitted that the discovery leading to the recovery of the bloodstained clothes is of no assistance to the prosecution. It is unlikely that the bloodstains would have been found on the clothes, recovered after an interval of 7 to 8 days of the occurrence. Moreover, chemical analyst has yet not reported that the bloodstains found on the clothes of Aniket (A2) were of the same blood group as that of the deceased. Nor the statement of Mr. Imran Shikalgar, recorded under Section 164 of the Code, is of assistance to the prosecution as there was no test identification parade and thus the claim of the said witness that the appellant had purchased scythe (parali) from him cannot be pressed into service to incriminate the appellant. A strong criticism was advanced against the utility of the statement of Mr. Onkar Undale, a coworker of the appellant, before whom the appellant allegedly made extrajudicial confession. It was urged that if the claim of the said witness that Santosh (A1) had offered Rs.50,000/- to him and Aniket (A2) to kill the deceased, was to be believed, then the said witness should also have been arraigned as an accused. Apart from the aforesaid circumstances, which are inherently of weak nature, there is no other material to connect Aniket (A2) with the crime, submitted Mr. Joshi.
