and enmity as against A-3, who is none other than the daughter-inlaw of the PW-1 and the deceased is also highly unbelievable. In fact, A-3 contested in the election in the year 2011, whereas this occurrence was allegedly took place in the year 2013, wherein A-3 allegedly instigated A-1, is also highly doubtful. The case of the prosecution that A-3 already shared common intention and had a pre arranged plan with other accused at the relevant time and abetted A-1 is highly shaky and doubtful. Therefore, this court is of the view that merely on the basis of evidence of PW-1 to PW3, which is also not established, the pre arranged plan between A- 2 and A-3 and other accused, charge under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC and 302 r/w 109 IPC cannot be inferred. Accordingly on the basis of some interested witnesses, who have some strong motive as against A-2 and A-3, as already discussed as motive is a double edged weapon it can be used either for false implication and also to prove the offence, every case has to be decided on its own facts and circumstances. Further, the evidence also clearly establish that A-3 married the son of PW-1, as against the wishes of the deceased and PW-1. In fact PW-1 to PW-3 also have grievance in that aspect. Hence, we are inclined to hold that the evidence adduced by the prosecution as against A-2 and A-3 to the charges under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC and 302 r/w 109 IPC is shaky and doubtful. The above evidence is not sufficient to establish the common intention of A-2 and A-3 for abetment.
