village, which information was furnished to the police on 24.09.2010. His admissions also show that there was a police case against him which was closed. He also admits that though he knows the accused but there is no friendship. From the evidence of this witness, it is clear that no investigation was made by the police with regard to the call said to have received by PW.8 on the intervening night of 22/ 23.09.2010. No effort was made to seize SIM Card and send the same to expert, to find out as to whether such a call emanated from the cell phone of accused No.1. It appears that since the caller stated his name as Rammurthy, the witness is trying to fix the culpability on accused No.1. At the same time, it is also to be noted that the evidence of PW.8 appears to be false for the reason that when there was no friendship with the accused, the accused could not have asked for a sum of Rs.7,000/ - from PW.8, which he deposed in his chief itself. Therefore, the circumstance of accused No.1 making telephone to PW.8 and furnishing information about killing the deceased appears quite improper. Further, as seen from the record there was no friendship between accused No.1 and PW.8. That being the position, there was no necessity for the accused No.1 to inform PW.8 about killing of the deceased. Therefore, the evidence of PW.8 neither be relied upon, to base a conviction nor can it be used as a link in the chain of circumstances to establish the guilt of the accused.
