Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

According to the learned counsel, the only act attributed to accused no.1 by the prosecution is restraining PW-1, while accused Ashish 19/35 1 APPEAL 452-17.doc nos.2 and 3 were trying to recover the money owed to them by the husband of Aruna, during which accused nos.2 and 3 threatened to kill PW-1. In any case, this act attributed to his client according to Dr. Chaudhary is only an attempt to commit extortion by threatening to harm PW-1, if the lady did not pay of. Merely because, accused no.1 tied PW-1 with a bedsheet do not lead to a necessary inference to fasten liability on him for committing an act of murder in the kitchen, which was exclusively done by accused nos.2 and 3 with no participation of accused no.1. It is his submission that there is nothing brought on record by prosecution that accused no.1 was even aware of their intention to murder and Aruna was murdered in an inside room, where accused no.1 did not even entered nor she was killed in his presence and according to him, it is not even the case of the prosecution that he was carrying any weapon or there is any recovery of weapon from him.