3 The learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants would submit that the motive for the commission of the offence is that the deceased was indulging in manufacturing illicit liquor and the jaggery for that purpose, was used to be supplied by A-1 through A-2 and in the process, A-2 developed illicit intimacy with the wife of the deceased, viz., P.W.4 and though the said act of A-2 and P.W.4 was castigated by the deceased, they continued the said relationship and having felt that the deceased is a hindrance to such a relationship, has hatched a conspiracy and accordingly, they procured a country made gun and murder was committed by A-1 by firing the gun upon the deceased, who on account of injuries sustained, died. The primordial submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants is that admittedly, the country made gun used for the commission of the offence, has not been recovered at all and except the testimonies of the interest witnesses, viz., P.Ws.1 and 2, none of the witnesses had supported the case of the prosecution and further, pointed out that even the scientific evidence did not probablise the fact of gun shot injuries and since the case projected by the prosecution is bristled with very many infirmities and inconsistencies, the Trial Court, ought to have awarded benefit of doubt to both accused and since the chance of success is very bright to both the petitioners/appellants, prays for suspension of substantive sentences of imprisonment.
