instruction of police, he dug two places at village Kurva, where they did not find anything and on third place, they found dead body (of Meghnath) in a sack. Tokendra (P.W. 25), who is son of deceased Bharat Janghel has deposed in para 12 that he had gone along with Rakesh, Bheshaj, police personnel and various other villagers, to Badi of Uttam situated at village Kamanbod, where on the basis of suspicion, Badi of Uttam Sahu was dug, from where parts of motorcycle were recovered vide seizure memo Ex. P-35. Thus, aforesaid evidence shows that police were already aware about the places from where dead body of Meghnath and damaged motorcycle / parts thereof, were alleged to have been recovered, that too, from open place. Therefore, it has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt that dead body of Meghnath and motorcycle/parts thereof were recovered at his behest. It is further submitted that even police have not prepared any recovery panchnama or seizure memo of dead body of Meghnath from alleged place. Any motive of appellant Panda Sahu for alleged crime has also not been proved by the prosecution. Therefore, in view of above facts and evidence, the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside, so far as it relates to conviction of appellant Panda Sahu.
