SUDHIR @ SUDEEP KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Crl.M.B.No.10119/2014

(2.) Learned counsel for the parties concede that it would all depend upon the testimony of Ms.Meenu PW-5, for the reason if she is discredited, the recovery of the knife Ex.P-3 at the instance of the appellant, which was opined to be the possible weapon of offence and blood being detected on the pant Ex.P-4 worn by the appellant would be insufficient circumstantial evidence to point towards the appellant's guilt.

(3.) We therefore have perused Meenu's testimony.