# Ramanand Verma & Anr v. State Of U.P

- **Citation:** (2016) 5 ILRA 67
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-05-26
- **Bench:** Arvind Kumar Mishra-I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ramanand-verma-anr-v-state-of-u-p-43903
- **Pages:** 10

## Text

5 All. Ramanand Verma & Anr. Vs State Of U.P.

67
already held in the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent petitioner. We
clearly find them to be applicable on the facts of the present case as indicated hereinabove.

24. The special appeal, therefore, would not be maintainable and is accordingly rejected.
----------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 26.05.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA-I, J.

Criminal Appeal No.- 86 Of 2011

Ramanand Verma & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
State Of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for Appellants:
Bhola Singh Patel, Praveen Kumar Verma

Counsel for Respondent:
Government Advocate

HELD:-

Delay in FIR fatal to prosecution
An unexplained and inordinate delay of about 24 days in lodging the FIR seriously dents the credibility of the
prosecution case, particularly where the explanation offered is not convincing.

Injured witness not automatically reliable
Although testimony of an injured witness ordinarily carries weight, it must still inspire confidence. Where
the evidence is improved, embellished, and contradictory, it cannot be relied upon without independent
corroboration.

Contradictions between Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements and court testimony
Material contradictions between the statements recorded during investigation and the testimony before the
court weaken the prosecution version and create reasonable doubt.

Non-examination of independent witnesses adverse to prosecution
When the prosecution itself claims the presence of 50-60 villagers at the spot, failure to examine even a
single independent witness casts serious doubt on the veracity of the incident.

Lack of corroborative physical evidence
Non-recovery of blood-stained clothes, soil, or other physical evidence, despite allegations of severe
assault, adversely affects the prosecution case.

Medical evidence not fully supportive
68 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Medical examination conducted one day after the alleged incident, coupled with doubts regarding the timing
of injuries, does not conclusively corroborate the ocular version.

Benefit of doubt in SC/ST Act cases
Conviction under Section 3(1)(X) of the SC/ST Act cannot be sustained unless the prosecution proves the
offence beyond reasonable doubt, with clear and cogent evidence of intentional insult or intimidation on
the ground of caste.

Conviction based on shaky evidence unsustainable
Where conviction is founded on unreliable testimony without independent corroboration, the same is liable to
be set aside.

Acquittal warranted
The prosecution having failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt, the appellants are entitled to
acquittal.

Case Law Cited:-

None

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, J.)

1. Heard Sri Bhola Singh Patel and Sri Praveen Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the
appellants, Sri Balkeshwar Srivastava, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. The instant jail appeal has been preferred by the appellants Ramanand Verma and Hansraj
Verma against the judgment and order of conviction dated 10.01.2011 passed by the Special Judge,
SC/ST Act, Barabanki, in Sessions Trial No.96 of 2010, arising out of Case Crime No.177 of 2009,
under Sections 323/34, 504, 506 IPC and 3(1)(X) SC/ST Act, Police Station Kothi, District
Barabanki whereby the appellants have been sentenced to six months' simple imprisonment under
Section 323/34 IPC, six months' simple imprisonment under Sections 504 IPC, six months' simple
imprisonment under Sections 506 IPC and six months' simple imprisonment under Section 3(1)(X)
SC/ST Act. Each of the above sentences of imprisonment are coupled with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in
case of default, the concerned convict will have to suffer additional imprisonment for three months.
All the sentences shall run concurrently.

3. The factual matrix of the case, as unfolded by the prosecution appears to be; that the first
informant Awadhrani wife of Ram Kewal, resident of Naseerpur, Police Station Kothi, District
Barabanki, lodged a written report at Police Station Kothi on 27.3.2009 against the appellants
regarding some incident alleged to have taken place on 3.3.2009 to the effect that the first
informant is "Dhobi" by caste and she used to tie cattle having driven pegs/stakes and manger in
front of her house for a long time.

4. On 03.03.2009 at about 8.00 a.m., Ramanand and Hansraj Verma sons of Asha Ram and
their wives, coming to her doors , uprooted pegs/stakes and removed manger and began to fix their
own manger on the spot. On being asked not to do the same, they abused filthily and said that they
5 All. Ramanand Verma & Anr. Vs State Of U.P.

69
shall not allow her to live in the village and they assaulted the first informant with 'lathi' and
'danda'. On alarm being raised, a number of villagers arrived on the spot and they intervened in the
matter and then only her life could be saved. The first informant sustained severe injuries and the
appellants fled away from the place of occurrence after threatening her with dire consequences. The
first informant along with her husband went to Government Hospital for her medical examination
and x-ray examination. Photocopy of x-ray examination has been annexed. Therefore, report be
lodged and action be taken. This written report is Exhibit Ka-1.

5. Entries of this report was noted down in Check FIR on 27.3.2009 at 10.30 a.m. at Crime
No.177 of 2009, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3(1)(X) SC/ST Act, at Police Station Kothi,
District Barabanki. Check FIR is Exhibit Ka-5. On the basis of entries made in the Check FIR, the
case was registered at Report No.16 of general diary dated 27.03.2009 at 10.30 a.m. at Police
Station Kothi. Carbon copy whereof is Exhibit Ka-6.

6. Record reflects that prior to lodging of this first information report, medical examination of
injured Awad rani was conducted by Dr. C.S. Sharma P.W.4 on 4.3.2009 at 10.20 a.m. Who found
following injuries on the person of Awadhrani - the first informant, which is reproduced as
hereunder:-

1. Lacerated wound of 4 cm x 1/2 cm x scalp deep on the head, 10 cm above the left
eyebrow.

2. Lacerated wound of 2.5 cm x 0.5 cm x scalp deep on the head, 6 cm above the right
ear.

3. Contused swelling of 5 cm x 4 cm on the head, 4 cm above right ear.

4. Contused swelling of 6 cm x 2 cm on the upper border of right scapula.

5. Contused swelling of 8 cm x 1 1⁄2 cm on the right scapula (vertically).

6. Abraded contusion on 6 cm x 2 cm on the lower part of right scapula.

7. Contusion 15 cm x 2 cm on the lateral side of right scapula (vertically).

8. Contused swelling on all over the left scapula.

9. Contusion of 15 cm x 2 cm along with the vertebral column on the back of body.

10. Complaint of pain on the front of the chest on right side near lower ribs.

11. Contused swelling all over the dorsal of right hand.
70 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

7. All injuries kept under observation. X-ray of head, chest and right hand advised. All injuries
were caused by hard and blunt object. Duration about one day old.

8. This medical examination report is Exhibit Ka-4 and has been proved by Dr. C.S. Sharma,
PW-4.

9. The Investigating Officer recorded statement of witnesses and prepared the site plan of the
incident, which is Exhibit Ka-2 on record. The Investigating Officer after completing investigation
filed charge-sheet against the appellants Ramanand Verma and Hansraj Verma, which is Exhibit
Ka-3 on record.

10. Thereafter the case of the appellants was committed to the court of Sessions from where it
was transferred to the trial court for disposal where the accused persons were heard on the point of
charge and charges under Sections 323/34, 504, 506 IPC and 3(1) (X) SC/ST Act were framed.
Charges were read over and explained to the accused-appellants, who denied charges and claimed
to be tried.

11. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced in all five witnesses. Awadhrani PW-1
is the injured and informant. She has proved the lodging of the first information report. Ram Kewal
is PW-2. He is husband of Awadhrani PW-1. He claims that he arrived at the spot after the incident
had taken place. Rajesh Kumar Saxena is PW-3. He is the Investigating Officer who has detailed
about the investigation and filing of the charge-sheet. Dr. C.S. Sharma is PW-4. He has conducted
medical examination of the victim Awadhrani. Constable Babu Ram Gautam is PW-5. He has
made entries in Check FIR and the concerned general diary and has proved the same as Exhibit Ka5 and Ka-6, respectively.

12. Thereafter, evidence for the prosecution was closed and statement of accused was recorded
under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they claimed to be innocent and it was stated by accused
Ramanad Verma that he has been falsely implicated because of pending litigation qua landed
property. Appellant Hansraj Verma has termed his implication false due to enmity. No testimony
whatsoever has been led by the appellants before the trial court.

13. The trial court after hearing the parties, passed the aforesaid judgment and order of
conviction dated 10.01.2011 and, accordingly, imposed sentence.

14. Consequently, this appeal.

15. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently contended that implication of the
appellant in this case is highly motivated on the ground that there is pending litigation in the court
of Tehsildar regarding landed property between the first informant side and the appellants. The first
informant somehow wanted to exert pressure on the appellants, and with that view in mind, she has
cooked up a false story.
5 All. Ramanand Verma & Anr. Vs State Of U.P.

71

16. Learned counsel for the appellants has augmented his thrust by contending that the first
information report is highly belated and was lodged on 27.3.2009 after a lapse of about 24 days;
whereas, the incident allegedly took place on 03.03.2009. No reasonable explanation has been
given regarding such inordinate delay either in the first information report or before the trial court.
Even the Investigating Officer has not supported any such cause for lodging of the belated FIR.

17. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the victim is not worthy of
credit as her testimony is full of contradictions and improvements. In so far as her testimony before
the trial court and the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C, are
concerned, both are at great variance and the whole incident becomes doubtful and it cannot be said
that the appellants have in fact committed the offence. It has stated that a number of co-villagers
witnessed the incident and arrived on the spot but not a single independent witness has been
produced by the prosecution in order to prove and corroborate its case. Therefore, testimony of
Awadhrani PW-1 remains uncorroborated by any independent source. Corroboration though is not
rule but present context expects independent corroboration in view of overflowing material
contradictions in the testimony of Awadhrani PW-1.

18. Learned AGA has refuted the aforesaid arguments by contending that testimony of
Awadhrani PW-1 is consistent and inspiring confidence as she has proved the incident by
specifically stating that she was assaulted by the appellants. Dr. C.S. Sharma PW-4 has proved the
medical examination report of the injured. The contradictions appearing in the testimony of PW-1
are not vital but of trivial nature.

19. Considered above submissions as well.

20. The core consideration that engages attention of this Court in the instant appeal is confined
to the fact as to whether the testimony of the injured victim (PW-1) is worthy of credence and her
testimony can be believed as such, being free from material contradictions, and the prosecution has
been able to prove its charges against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt?

21. In this case, the star witness is the injured Awadhrani and she is injured eyewitness of the
incident. It is admittedly a case where no independent witness has been produced. To appreciate
evidence, a note of contents of first information report may be taken into account by this Court.
Perusal of the first information report reveals that it was lodged on 27.03.2009 and it refers to the
incident dated 3.3.2009 which took place at 8.00 a.m. In the very last part of this first information
report, it has been alleged that after the incident, the injured went to the Government Hospital in the
company of her husband for her medical examination and got her x-rayed. Thereafter, the report
was lodged. No worthy explanation or reason has been given in this first information report
(Exhibit Ka-1) for lodging this report at such a belated stage after the incident.

22. In this view of the matter, it would be relevant to look into testimony of Awadhrani,
injured PW-1 as to what reason she has assigned for lodging of the FIR at such belated stage on
72 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
27.03.2009. A peep into the testimony of PW-1 is thus helpful in arriving at correct position vis-avis attendant circumstances of the case.

23. Smt. Awadhrani PW-1 has categorically stated in her examination-in-chief that she got
scribed the report at the police station but her report was not lodged. Then she got herself medically
examined and x-ray examination of head, hand and chest was also done. Thereafter she went to the
police station, dictated the report to Diwan Ji. After hearing contents of the same, she impressed her
thumb impression on it. She has proved the written report exhibit Ka-1 on record.

24. This factual aspect qua lodging of the FIR has also been described in the testimony of Ram
Kewal PW-2, husband of Awadhrani PW-2. He has also stated that after the incident, he went along
with his wife to the police station for lodging of the first information report but the report was not
lodged there. Then on the next day medical examination was conducted at Government Hospital,
Barabanki.

25. Ram Kewal PW-2 has stated that he did not go to the police station second time for
lodging of the first information report but his wife had gone to the police station for lodging of the
same. No explanation regarding belated FIR has come forth either from PW-1 or PW-2 in their
examination-in-chief. Their testimony in this regard can be read together to mean that after the
incident had taken place on 03.03.2009 both PW-1 and PW-2 went to the police station for lodging
of the first information report but the report was not lodged. Thereafter medical examination of
Awadhrani was conducted at Government Hospital, Barabanki on 04.03.2009 and then only the
first information report was lodged against the appellants. If it is so, then in common parlance, the
report ought to have been lodged at least one or two days after from the date of medical
examination of Awadhrani-the injured. But this first information report was lodged after a gap of
23 days on 27.03.2009 which under circumstance is beyond comprehension of the Court. No
reasonable explanation and no circumstance justifying such delay has come forth. There is abysmal
silence on point of delay in lodging of FIR.

26. Further, how is it possible that on the second occasion, when the injured Awadhrani went
to the police station to lodge the first information report, she went alone without her husband and
her husband did not accompany her to the police station and injured got her report scribed by
dictating the same to one Diwan Ji. This creates doubt on the very lodging of the FIR itself. In this
factual background, it is established that the first information report is highly belated and there is
no plausible explanation for causing such inordinate delay.

27. Now meritorial aspect of the case qua the incident has to be analyzed. Obviously, it is a
case where as per the first information report, assault was caused to Awadhrani by the appellants
along with their wives.

28. As per testimony of Awadhrani PW-1, Ramanand and Hansraj Verma sons of Asha Ram
and their wives, coming to her doors, uprooted pegs/stakes and removed manger and began to fix
their own manger on the spot. When she asked not to do the same, she was rebuffed by the
5 All. Ramanand Verma & Anr. Vs State Of U.P.

73
appellants and they assaulted her with Lathi-Danda causing severe injuries to her. On alarm being
raised, a number of villagers arrived on the spot. They intervened and only then the victim was
spared. The assailants fled away from the scene after threatening the injured with dire
consequences.

29. In her cross examination, Awadhrani PW-1 has stated that she sustained injuries on her
head, hand and chest and blood oozed out from injuries and her whole body was seeped in blood
and the blood also spilled on the ground. Her 'Saree' and 'Blouse' were stained with blood and she
gave her blood stained clothes to Daroga Ji. She had also shown the place where blood spilled on
the ground but Daroga Ji did not take blood stained clothes and did not collect the blood stained
soil. She has also stated that 50-60 people of the village had arrived on the spot after she raised the
alarm during course of incident.

30. At this stage, it would be relevant to take account of testimony of the Investigating Officer,
Rajesh Kumar Saxena PW-3. He has stated that this case was registered on 27.03.2009. He carried
out investigation, took various steps, recorded testimony of witnesses and prepared the site plan. In
his cross examination, he reflected on certain contradictions in the statement of Awadhrani PW-1
recorded before the trial court and in the statement recorded by him under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He
has stated that Awadhrani has not given statement that she was tying her animals with pegs/stakes
when Ramanand, Hansraj Verma and their wives arrived at the spot.

31. Further, the Investigating Officer has testified that Awadhrani PW-1 did not give statement
that she had earlier come to the police station for lodging of the report and her report was not
lodged and then she got herself medically examined. After medical examination, she went to the
police station second time for lodging of the first information report. This witness has specifically
stated that in case any such statement has been given (by Awadhrani PW-1) in Court then the same
is false statement.

32. This witness has also stated that Awadhrani did not give him the blood stained clothes nor
did she show the place/ground where the blood spilled out. Similarly, this witness has exposed
material contradictions appearing in the testimony of Ram Kewal PW-2 by stating that he did not
give any such statement that the accused persons ever said to him 'Pakdo Sale Dhobi Ko' 'Tab mai
mauke se ghar me bhag gaya'. He has stated that in case any such statement has been given by him
(Ram Kewal PW-2), then he is telling a lie. He has further claimed that Ram Kewal did not give
statement that as soon as he (PW-2) reached on the spot, the accused persons were standing over
there possessing 'Danda' and iron rods in their hands.

33. Not only this, the Investigating Officer PW-3 has also gone to the extent that he did not
investigate on point as to why the first information report was lodged after such inordinate delay.
These contradictions are fair enough to show that the victim is constantly improving her version of
the incident in the court which version of the incident, if read conjointly with her statement given
under Section 161 Cr.P.C., does not inspire confidence and therefore, cannot be believed without
any independent corroboration. Here independent corroboration becomes judicially imperative.
74 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

34. Obviously, in this case as per testimony of Awadhrani PW-1, her saree and blouse were
steeped in blood after the incident had taken place in the morning at 8.00 a.m. As per her
testimony, she was severely assaulted by the assailants. If it was so, then how and why the injured
kept waiting for more than 25 hours for getting herself medically examined. This by itself creates
doubt about the time of the incident and on the factual assertion of the victim that she sustained
injuries at 8.00 a.m. on 03.03.2009. This anomaly regarding time of injury being caused and the
medical examination conducted on 04.03.2009 creates lot of doubt on the authenticity of the time
and place of the incident itself.

35. At this stage, it would be proper to look into testimony of Dr. C.S. Sharma PW-4 who
conducted medical examination of the victim Awadhrani. Dr. C.S. Sharma PW-4 has proved fact
that he medically examined Awadhrani on 04.03.2009 at Government District Hospital, Barabanki
at 10.20 a.m. wherein he has detailed 11 injuries on the person of victim Awadhrani.

36. Perusal of injury report exhibit Ka-4 reveals that the duration of these injuries have been
stated to be about one day old. In his cross examination, this witness has categorically stated that
these injuries can be caused both in the morning of 03.03.2009 and in the evening of 03.03.2009.
Thus, it is obvious that it cannot be said that the injuries so caused on the person of victim were in
all probability caused at 8.00 a.m. on 03.03.2009, whereas, as per opinion of doctor, injuries can be
caused even in the evening of 03.03.2009. What kept the victim confined at her home all day on
03.03.2009 after she was seriously injured. This particular aspect of time gap between incident and
medical examination has neither been explained nor stands explained under circumstances of the
case. Even no supplementary medical report was obtained.

37. It has been stated by Awadhrani PW-1 in her cross examination that 50-60 villagers
arrived on the spot after she raised alarm but not a single person was produced for corroboration of
her testimony. Suggestion has been given by the defence/appellants that the accusation is false and
motivated on account of pending litigation qua landed property in the court of Tehsildar. This
suggestion has also been stated by the appellant Ramanand Verma in his statement recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. Perusal of testimony of PW-1 also reflects that she is constantly improving her
testimony and she has tried to embellish the incident with improved version which renders her
testimony wholly unreliable.

38. In cases where testimony of victim does not inspire confidence instead creates doubt then
corroboration of incident by independant testimony or circumstance is the general law. Here
testimony of PW-2 Ram Kewal also reflects that 10-20 co-villagers had gathered on the spot during
the incident but no one was produced for corroboration of the incident. Though it is trite law that
number and plurality of the witnesses will not decide the merit of the case but it is the quality of the
witness in a criminal case and evidence as a whole is to be weighed and not counted. If the
evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy only then it may form basis of
conviction and in case evidence as a whole does not inspire confidence and is doubtful then the
court should normally insist for its corroboration. Here the quality of testimony of PW-1 is
5 All. Ramanand Verma & Anr. Vs State Of U.P.

75
discovered to be sketchy, vacillating, improving and the same cannot be believed to be true
in the absence of independent corroboration.

39. It is one of the circumstances that statement of the victim also involves
participation of appellants' wives in the incident. However, after investigation their
complicity and involvement in the incident was found not correct and charge sheet was not
filed against them. Her statement (PW-1) is self contradictory and does not befit in the
circumstances of the case. She has lodged the first information report at great convenience
after inordinate delay on 27.03.2009, whereas, the incident took place on 03.03.2009.
Though she claims to have been severely assaulted and she sustained serious injuries but
there is no proof on record that the injuries so caused were either serious or fatal. Ram
Kewal PW-2 is unable to tell names of villagers whom he saw on the spot when he arrived
on the spot after the incident.

40. Above discussion makes it obvious that the testimony of the sole witness (PW-1)
does not inspire confidence and the same is sketchy and improved one and in the absence
of independent corroboration, it would not be safer to repose trust in the same.

41. Consequently, the description of incident as stated by the victim PW-1 in her
statement before the trial court is not worthy of credit and the witness is motivated on
account of enmity due to pending litigation and her testimony on the whole becomes
wholly unreliable. The trial court while appraising the testimony on record failed to take
into account and appreciate the quality of the evidence vis-a-vis attendant circumstances
and it was not justified in recording finding of conviction based on such shaky evidence/
testimony.

42. In the final count, the impugned judgment and order of conviction dated
10.01.2011 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Barabanki, in Sessions Trial No.96 of
2010, arising out of Case Crime No.177 of 2009, under Sections 323/34, 504, 506 IPC and
3(1)(X) SC/ST Act, Police Station Kothi, District Barabanki is hereby set aside.

43. Consequently the instant appeal succeeds and is allowed, accordingly. Appellants
are found not guilty of the charges under Sections 323/34, 504, 506 IPC and 3(1) (X)
SC/ST Act and are acquitted of the same.

44. In this appeal, both the appellants are on bail. Their personal and bail bonds are
cancelled and sureties discharged They need not surrender before the court concerned.
However, they will furnish bonds before trial court within 15 days in compliance of
Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

45. Let a copy of this judgment be certified to the trial court for intimation and
necessary follow up action.
---------
76 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 02.05.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURENDRA VIKARM SINGH RATHORE, J.
THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA-II, J.

Criminal Appeal No.- 97 Of 2011
&
Connected With Other Cases

Kalp Narain ...Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for Appellant:
R.N. Shukla, Maneesh Kumar Singh, Rishid Murtaza,Udai Pratap Singh

Counsel for Respondent:
Govt. Advocate

This criminal appeals are arising from the judgement and order dated 24.12.2010 passed by learned
Additional Session Judge, Court No.4, Barabanki in Session Trial No.456 of 2005 arising out of Case Crime
No.104 of 2005 and Session Trial No.458 of 2005 arising out of Case Crime No.119 of 2005, whereby the
appellants Shivkaran Shukla and Kalp Narain Sharma have been convicted for the offence under Section 302
IPC and were sentenced with imprisonment for life and also with fine of Rs.20,000/- each, with default
stipulation of one year's additional rigorous imprisonment.

Learned counsel raised certain points during the arguments The origin of the FIR was doubtful. No blood was
found on the shirt or on the motorcycle. time of death also appears to be doubtful keeping in view the
stomach contents as reported by the doctor. It has also been argued that the evidence of Nanhkau a witness
of inquest by itself shows that the entire prosecution story was false but all these factors were not properly
appreciated by the learned trial court which has rendered its judgment unsustainable under law. No
independent witness of the vicinity could be examined by the prosecution in support of its case. It has also
been argued that the salesman of the liquor shop from whose shop the appellants have taken the liquor and
have not paid its price was the best witness but he has been withheld by the prosecution.

While appreciating the evidence the court cannot ignore the ground realities. In the present day world, people
avoid to become a witness to a crime as they consider it as a civil dispute between the two parties. This
apathy of the public is a great hurdle in the administration of criminal justice. The reasons for such apathy of
the public are well known. No one wants to invite the enmity of the accused persons because still no effective
mechanism exists to ensure safety of the witnesses of a crime.

Court observed that Hon'ble Apex Court in several judgements stated that apathy of the public has
repeatedly held that non-examination of independent witness would by itself be not a ground to discard the
evidence of the witnesses on which the prosecution has placed reliance provided their testimony is found
reliable. Thus the evidence of the witnesses of fact cannot be discarded on the ground that salesman has not
been examined. The salesman of a liquor shop, was a petty employee. So his conduct not to come forward to