Pune: The defence counsel in the Nayana Pujari case argued on Wednesday that the evidence furnished so far by the prosecution, including the chargesheet with supporting documents and the deposition by 37 witnesses, has not been able to clearly establish the motive behind the crime.Defence lawyer Biju A Aloor argued that the prosecution evidence lacks credible proof regarding the motive which can be attributed and established against the accused -- Yogesh Raut, Mahesh Thakur and Vishwas Kadam. Aloor was continuing with his final arguments in the trial before additional sessions judge L L Yenkar.Pujari, an engineer with a software company in Kharadi, was kidnapped on the night of October 7, 2009 while she was waiting for transport to return home from the Kharadi bypass. Her body was found in the Zarewadi forests on October 9, 2009. The three accused are being tried for kidnapping, gang-rape, robbery and murder, among other offences, while the fourth accused, Rajesh Chaudhary, has turned an approver and is a key prosecution witness.Aloor sought to pick holes in the police investigations and argued that the prosecution did not produce any CCTV footage of the toll naka near Indrayani river from where the car, in which the accused carried the victim, had passed on the night of the incident. After passing the toll naka, the accused had allegedly thrown the victim's purse and other belongings into the river. Aloor argued that neither the CCTV footage was furnished nor any employee of the toll naka was examined by the prosecution.He further argued that even the CCTV of the bank ATM, from where the accused are alleged to have used the victim's debit card for effecting cash withdrawals, was not furnished to establish who made these withdrawals and at what time. The prosecution's theory that the victim was kidnapped with the intent of robbery, gang-rape and murder in pursuance of a criminal conspiracy was not supported by strong evidence, Aloor maintained.Citing the Indian Evidence Act, Aloor argued that the onus of establishing the motive behind a crime lies squarely on the prosecution and the latter cannot push the responsibility on the defence. He also argued that the statements of some of the prosecution witnesses were recorded 10 to 15 days after the alleged crime.ends | Vishwas

Stay updated with all the Pune Latest News headlines here. For more exclusive & live news updates from all around India, stay connected with NYOOOZ.