(15) S.C.No.463/2009 (Judgment) that Aniket has admitted that he did not find mobile of Mansi and even Police were also knowing about this fact. According to him, cross examination of Aniket Deshpande (PW­7) makes it clear that he was aware about the stolen articles. According to him, Police kept it secret up to 18.6.2009, since they wanted to trace out that mobile. Even the cross examination of Investigating Officer Shri Borse also shows that he must be aware regarding the theft of mobile of Mansi from the beginning. According to him, why this fact is not mentioned in the FIR by Aniket is no where explained. Hence according to Advocate Shri Ghanekar, because of these facts, no offence is proved against accused No.2 nor presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act is attracted here. Hence he has prayed to acquit accused No.2 also. 31/­ Advocate Shri Mote has also argued orally that the intention of commission of murder of Mansi is not established. According to him, the motive for committing the crime assumes importance and for that purpose, he has relied on the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Wakkar and another Vs. State of U.P, reported in 2011 AIR (SCW), 1215”. On this point, he has also relied