In his police interview, Permal said he was "sitting in the car all the time", while his co-accused dragged the body up a bank and doused it in petrol.
Earlier today, Kumar's lawyer Ron Mansfield criticised the Crown case saying its alleged version of events had changed since the start of the trial.
He said the original explanation was that Mr Prasad had been alive and conscious at the time he was set alight but the evidence over the past three weeks had undoubtedly proven he was unconscious and lying on his back when the fire was lit.
Yesterday, the Crown said it was most likely the victim had been assaulted in an unknown location before being bundled into the boot of a car and being burned to death at the rural spot.
Mr Borich agreed with Mr Mansfield that there was a "vacuum of evidence" to support that theory.
Mr Mansfield told the jury his client had received the money from Mr Prasad moments after he had taken it out of the bank, meaning the meeting later that day was not a premeditated, violent robbery as it was painted by the Crown.
He described Kumar and Permal as "birds of a feather" but Mr Borich portrayed his client as more of a reluctant follower.
He said Kumar had "a seductive character".
"These people, no matter how he treats them, want to be with him."
Mr Mansfield accepted burning the body was "reprehensible and shocking" but said Kumar thought Mr Prasad was dead.
"It would be perfectly natural, sadly, for Mr Kumar to see if he could weasel his way out of it, even doing something as shocking as they did: Burning Mr Prasad's body to save themselves," he said.
"A dishonest person doesn't make a murderer."
