RAM AVTAR ALIAS RAJU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) Trial Court recorded perused.

(3.) Learned counsel for the State admits that there is no eye witness in this case. The prosecution case is based upon circumstantial evidence which consists of the allegations that the petitioner and his co-accused used, to live with the deceased in the same jhughi and were doing some business in which some disputes had arisen. The prosecution is also relying upon the recovery of a broken bottle and a knife on which human blood was found but the blood group could not be matched with the blood group of deceased. The other circumstance that is being pleaded against the petitioner is that after the incident he was not found available for about 10 days in his jhughi. Material evidence has already been recorded in the Trial Court.