Mujaheed came to the wine shop, purchased whisky along with PW.3. The evidence of PW.3 has been contradicted by the evidence of PW.19-Kruthika N., Scientific Officer, Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Mysore, who has stated that during examination of the stomach contents of deceased, she had not noticed the alcoholic residues, but the trial court erroneously discarded this vital aspect of the matter. It is contended that the trial court convicted the accused on the basis of recovery of blood stained clothes of accused viz., MOs.11 and 12, allegedly worn by him at the time of incident. The delay in recovery of MOs.11 and 12, the blood stained clothes from the possession of the accused ruled out the possibility of participation of the accused in the crime. Further, the recovery of blood stained clothes has not been established by the prosecution through independent witnesses. The trial court wrongly observed that the accused has not given proper explanation as to his blood stained clothes. It is contended that, it is the duty of the prosecution to exclude all the probabilities and in this case, the prosecution has not discharged its burden by examining the blood group of the accused. Further, the motive for commission of murder of deceased by the accused was that, there was dispute between
