doubt. The evidence led by the prosecution is wholly unreliable and untrustworthy. The first version given by complainant Ravinder Singh was based upon suspicion. He named A-1 and A-3, who had called the deceased from the house in the early hours of the day, for morning walk. It has not been explained that after the day of occurrence, why these two accused, who were residents of the same village, were not arrested even for more than one month. Further, during investigation, A-3 was found innocent. However, subsequently, on a private complaint filed by the father of the deceased, A-3 was also summoned as an additional accused. Learned counsel submitted that Jit Singh (PW.14), while appearing in the court, had categorically stated that only A-1 and A-3 were responsible for the murder of his son. He further argued that Jabir Singh (PW.8), who had allegedly seen the occurrence, had not supported the prosecution case. According to him, at the time of the occurrence, some migrant labourers from Bihar were surrounding the deceased. Except them, no other person was present at the spot. Though in his statement (Ex.PR) before the police, he stated that at that time, A-1 was standing on the other side of the road, but while appearing in the court, he has not supported the said part of his statement. While referring to the statement of Smt. Krishna, who was also a witness of the last seen, learned counsel argued that according to this witness, only A-1 met her in the way. At the spot, the deceased was lying unconscious and at that time, there was no person present there. According to the learned counsel, statements of PW.7 Ravinder Singh, PW.8 Jasbir Singh, PW.13 Smt. Krishna and PW.14
