in convicting the accused/appellant for commission of offence under Section 302 IPC, as the prosecution has failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. He would further submit that there is no direct evidence against the appellant and case of the prosecution rests only on circumstantial evidence i.e. allegedly accused was last seen together with the deceased, on the basis of memorandum statement of appellant, bank passbook of deceased was seized from appellant's house and Adhaar card and health insurance card of appellant was seized from the house of deceased. He submits that witness of last seen i.e. Premlal Sen (PW-3) is not trustworthy because he changed his version time to time and there are several contradictions & omissions in his evidence, as in examination-in-chief, paragraph 5, he has stated that while giving the statement before the police under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C (Ex. P-9), he stated that on 24.05.2018 at about 4.30 pm, deceased was having a quarrel with his second husband Khilawan Manikpuri and the sound of quarrel is coming loudly, then he went there and told them not to quarrel and also told them to vacate the house and also in his statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., he has further stated that Khilawan Manikpuri has told him that he will vacate the house tomorrow. In paragraph 9 of his court statement, this witness stated that he does not know how the incident had occurred and the police did not ask him to identify anyone. He also stated that he has no acquaintance with accused Khilawan Manikpuri and he does not know him. In paragraph 13 of his deposition, he admitted that at the time of incident, deceased Bindu Dhruv was alone
