Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

17.1. It may be mentioned that as PW-7 did not support the prosecution version, he was cross examined by the learned Additional PP but nothing of substance could be extracted.

17.2. Although, PW-7 stated that he used to visit the appellants‟ house as he was plying TSR and used to take the appellants‟ father to the hospital, as he had suffered paralysis in 2012 or 2013 ; and that he had visited the house of Neutral Citation Number 2023/DHC/000754 both the appellants/accused persons about 20 days prior to 11.04.2015, when their father namely Jagdish Prasad had met him, but the appellants/accused persons were not present at their house as they were away for work. PW-7 has categorically denied that he had visited the house of Jagdish Prasad, father of the appellants at A-873 on 10.04.2015 at about 4 pm and had noticed that the deceased Sunil Kumar was residing at house no. A-872 those days. PW-7 also denied that on that day (i.e. 10.4.2015), he had met Sunil Kumar at house no A-872 and at that time, the appellants/accused persons were also present with the deceased Sunil Kumar and were talking to him and the deceased Sunil Kumar appeared tired/lazy. Thus, the only witness of the prosecution (i.e., PW-7) of having last seen the deceased alive in the company of the appellants/accused persons did not support the prosecution case. No other evidence in this respect was led by the prosecution.