A 4. The trial court relying on the evidence of PW-2 with regard to the motive and that he had seen his daughter in law Suguna in a compromising position with the deceased a day prior to the murder and the eye witness account of the other four witnesses held that the case against the respondent was B proved beyond doubt. The trial court also noticed that the FIR · did not refer to either PW-3 or Manemma as being present although the names of PWs. 4, 5 and 6 and several other persons, who had not been examined, had figured as eye witnesses. The Court observed that the prosecution story as c given in the FIR was slightly discrepant vis-a-vis the statements in court inasmuch that in the FIR the story projected was that the accused had stabbed Bhoomaiah on account of annoyance as Suguna had been sent away whereas in the evidence in court, it appeared that this story had been deviated from and the murder was attributed to the fact that the respondent had 0 be!'!n ogling at PW-3 and Manemma during the Panchayat. The Court observed that in the light of the above facts, the presence of PW-3 was· doubtful. The trial court, however, held that notwithstanding-this apparent discordance there was absolutely no reason whatsoever for the other witnesses to have falsely E named the accused as the assailant as they were truly independent. The trial court, accordingly, convicted the accused under Section 302 and sentenced him to imprisonmenlfor life. An appeal was, thereafter, taken by the accused to the High Court and the High Court, has, by the F impugnegjudgment, acquitted the accused primarily on the plea that there was rio evidence as to whether a Panchayat had been called to settle the dispute between Kistaiah and Ramulu and as PW3's name had not been mentioned in the FIR or in the inquest report as an eye witness, her presence was doubtful. G The High Court, while referring to PWs.4, 5 and 6 held that they too could not be believed for the simple reason that there appeared to be some discrepancy as to the motive for the attack. This is what the Court had to say:
