for long. 7.2 It is further submitted that the eyewitness PW2 is not reliable. It is submitted that PW2 had raised a loan by mortgaging appellant's second-hand motorcycle and that appellant and PW2 had heated exchange regarding the monetary transaction 15 days prior to the incident. 7.3 It is submitted that non examination of the wife of PW2 is fatal to the story of prosecution, as presence of appellant in the house of PW2 and appellant having left PW2’s autorickshaw along with him raises a serious doubt. It is submitted that the appellant’s visit to the deceased house is also not proved. 7.4 It is further submitted that there are material contradictions in the testimonies of PW1 and PW3 regarding the events that occurred on 28/06/2013, which casts a serious doubt on the reliability of these two witnesses. 7.5 It is further submitted that adverse inference has to be drawn against the prosecution for non-examination of material and independent witnesses, Narayan Ramrao i.e. owner of