fine he was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The said conviction and sentence have been assailed in the present appeal. 3. Many fold attacks were made by Shri S.K. Sharma, Advocate, ld. counsel for the Appellant on judgement recorded by the Trial Court. In one prong of attack, he asserts that the police officers, examined by the prosecution, are not worthy of credence. To substantiate his point of view, he made us to go through the discrepancies, emerging in their depositions, made before the Trial Court. In the other count he claimed that the circumstantial evidence, adduced in the case, nowhere forms a complete chain of evidence, suggesting that it was the Appellant and none else who committed the crime of murder. There are gaps in the evidence, sufficient enough to show that it is inconclusive of his guilt. No evidence has been put forward to show an intention on the part of Appellant to commit murder of Giani, agitates Shri Sharma. His motive to commit the crime has not been proved, which is a fact that is fatal to the prosecution. Independent witnesses do not raise an accusing finger on the Appellant. The totality of the circumstances is sufficient to infer that the appellant has been framed in the case, argued Shri Sharma. Contra to it the ld. Additional Public Prosecutor strongly argued, claiming that the guilt has been brought home to the hilt.
