resting on circumstantial evidence; the deceased was found lying dead with injuries on his head in a ditch. No suspicion was raised qua the involvement of any person much less the petitioner by the complainant at the time of lodging of the FIR and rather it had been alleged that some unknown person on entering the house of deceased brother had killed him while he was sleeping on his cot and thereafter out of fear on being caught had disposed of the dead body by throwing it into a ditch. Learned counsel has thus, submitted that it is but obvious that the complainant, who is the brother of not only the deceased but also the petitioner, has come out with a fabricated version, as later on, while getting his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC the complainant nominated him as an accused as the relations between the three including the deceased were strained on account of the distribution of land/ property. Learned counsel has still further submitted that as per the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC, the complainant stated that on the fateful night when the deceased was done to death by some unknown persons, he had seen the petitioner moving around in the neighbourhood with a hammar in his hand and hence, he suspected his involvement in the crime in question; the mother of the complainant (as well as the deceased), who too was stated to be a witness of last seen, had been given up by the prosecution. It has also been submitted that all the material witnesses including the
