that these discrepancies / inconsistencies / contradictions in the case of the prosecution falsify the testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.2 qua involvement of the appellant in the crime.7 10.2. It was further argued by the learned counsel that the only eye-witness to the occurrence viz., Mangti - wife of the deceased and the Sub Inspector of Police, who conducted investigation, were not examined, which are fatal to the prosecution case. She further submitted that the motive for murder i.e., the accused demanding jaggery, the deceased denying the same and the accused committing the crime, appears to be very vague. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the prosecution has not established the charge framed against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Without analysing the evidence in proper perspective, the Sessions Court erroneously convicted the appellant alone and sentenced him for the offence under section 302 r/w 34 IPC, and the same was also affirmed by the High Court.