DEFENCE ARGUMENTSIN FAVOR OF ACCUSED ASHOK MANE.

1. Only on the basis of circumstantial evidence session court convicted my client Ashok Mane beyond reasonable

doubt has following concerning matters of facts and matter of law:

a. Allegedly crops of Ashok were destroyed by Prakash. As stated by kamala w/o Ashok that it wasn’t clear as to who

destroyed the crops. Therefore killing Prakash only on presumption is farfetched theory. In fact death of Prakash

would have taken away his probability of winning civil suit as the heir of Mr Prakash ie Raghav would have inherited

all his immovable property.

b. On the other hand Raghav stands to gain his father’s total immovable property including the house he was eying at.

Different PWs have also corroborated the fact that Prakash and the son Raghav were not in good terms with respect

to the way, therefore Raghav should also have been one of the prime suspect as he had a motive and stands to gain

on his father’s death. Your honour IO has ignored this aspect.

c. It took more than 120 days to file FIR, much beyond mandatory 90 days and the accused should have been released

on bail.

d. Facts of the case conclude that only on the basis of circumstantial evidence accused was proven guilty beyond

reasonable doubt. Your honour may like to refer to judgement of CG high court in high profile murder case of

Abhishek Mishra, state of CG vs Vivek jain Ors where the accused Vivek Jain and his uncle were convicted on the

basis of circumstantial evidence by the lower court and released by High court in absence of direct evidences. Case

no---------- dated 11th March 2024.

2. There are many anomalies and contradictions in statements of the witnesses which were ignored by the honourable

court, such as :

a. In framing up charges the Hon’ble court ignored the fact that no corroborating evidence were produced by the IO

despite long investigation time for filing Charge sheet. Absence of motive and lack of evidence should have been

kept in mind by the honable session’s court.

b. Examination report annexed on P9 sent to the senior inspector dated 11th March 2022 was received 5 days later on

16th March 2022 with most important evidence ‘the Axe” was received in tempered and open envelope. It indicates

that analysis started on 14th March 2022 and completed on 18th March 2022 , How can the report be received on 16th

March 2022.
c. In FIR on P5 complainant age mentioned is 34 yeras while in examination-in chief on 26/07/2022 P10 it 35 years.

d. It raises a doubt that why complainant did not report the threatening by Ashok (brother of deceased) to the police

despite advice from sarpanch Sh Ganesh to do it P21 para #3 Exam-in-chief of sarpanch.

e. When sarpanch was present P22 para # 6 at the site while collecting evidence by police why sarpanch was not a

party to the PanchNama.

f. Contradiction at para 4 cross exam of complainant and his wife P20 para #4 about ‘leaving the dinner in the middle

of it’.

g. It raises an obvious doubt on the complainant

h. Prakash friend Ramakant in exam-in-chief P14 para # 4 stated that he was informed about the death of Prakash at

0400 by Raghav when he was 20 km away at police station reporting the incident. Obviously it must have been

informed by cellphone no CDR towards this effect is taken, Further accused Ashok was contesting Gram Panchayat

election against Ramakant P15 and they had verbal fight during election campaigning, raising doubt about

involvement of Ramakant also.

Ramakant completed his walk to temple and back to home P15 X exam of Ramakant within 15 min from

0930pm to 0945pm and saw ashok 5 min distance away from Prakash house wearing a Gamcha. Further

statement of Anju (daughter of Raghav) P16 para 4 and Ramakant are contradicting about time when

she saw Ashok entering house of Prakash, angrily with axe in hand at 0930pm she also identified the axe as

same that was found near the body.

 In cross exam P17 para 6 she admitted that she stated that it was very dark and it wasn’t possible to identify

the person. This contradiction should have been noticed.

Further in exam in chief she stated that her mother woke her up and informed about the death of Parkash,

contradicting it on P17 para 7 , Baba woke her up was the statement.

Also she changed her statement in X exam about she saw Prakash assaulting Ashok.

i. Obviously she has been tutored to change statement which wasn’t investigated. Her statements cannot be taken at

face value.

j. Supriya (wife of raghav) statement that they didnot quarrel with husband and father in law is in contradiction with

neighbours wife chhaya statement Exam-in Chief P23 Para #2 who found them regularly quarrelling and Raghav

is trying to get fathers property in para #3. But in X exam she changed her position P24 para #2 that Ashok was
 trying to capture prakash property and Raghav family were taking care of father Prakash. Such contradictions cannot

be ignored by the honorable court.

k. At 0945pm Ramakant saw Ashok at 5 min distance from Prakash House smoking cigarette implying that Ashok would

have killed the deceased in between this 15 mins, but Ashok was wearing gamchha obviously it cannot be the same

gamcha which was found blood stained with the body. Had Accused intended to kill the deceased why would he

stand on main road wearing Gamcha visible to Ramakant in such an obvious manner. Ramakants involvement should

have been investigated.

l. Doctor of KK hospital has clearly mentioned in his X exam P28 para #2 that the injury causing death could have been

done by any other object other than Axe.

m. IO could not explain P29 to 31

how the most crucial evidence , the Axe was found in unsealed envelope.

Could not establish where was Ragav who should have been prome suspect for 1000pm to 1100 pm.

Raghav may be falsely implicating Ashok on the property dispites and wanted to kill two bird with one stone

ie Ashoks claim on property and fathers inheritance.

In view of above

PRAYER

In light of above it is prayed that :

A. The accused may be given benefit of doubt in absence of conclusive proof and be aquitted.