(13) S.C.No.463/2009 (Judgment) Mote on behalf of accused No.1 Jawed, and Advocate Shri Barlota, on behalf of accused No.3 Ram Bodkhe, have argued that the said evidence of panch witnesses is not trustworthy and reliable so as to prove the said memorandum­cum­discovery panchnamas as alleged by the prosecution. Advocate Shri Mote, by way of his written notes of arguments at Exh­199 has strongly contended that, therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the presence of accused at the scene of offence. According to him, there is no direct witness to the incident and circumstantial evidence against Javed is not forming complete chain so as to infer that it was nobody but the accused by name Jawed who entered into the house of informant and Mansi Deshpande in order to commit the offence of theft & robbery and accordingly he committed theft of gold ring, mobile phone and clothes of Aniket & cash of Rs. 450/­ and by giving threat to Mansi, he committed rape on her & committed her murder. Thus, in sum and substance, Advocate Shri Mote has submitted that charges levelled against the accused by name Jawed are not proved by prosecution beyond doubt. Advocate Shri Mote has also argued that the ownership of the ring is not established and unless and until it is so established, the offence of theft cannot be