Md. Dudhu Miah vs The State Of Tripura on 19 June, 2024
"3. We have perused the evidence of all the witnesses referred
to above. They do not inspire any confidence at all. The denial
by PW 23, Madadevamma, of having had any illicit intimacy with
the deceased coupled with the fact that PW 15, Cheluvamma,
the ace witness of the prosecution, having not disclosed the
information at the earliest opportunity to anyone till November
10, 1978, has created serious doubts about the genuineness of
the prosecution case. Since, the Sub-Inspector admitted that he
had not even visited the house of any one of the accused-
respondents on November 9, 1978 to arrest them, the failure of
the accused-respondents to appear before the police cannot
give rise to any inference of their guilt and therefore the alleged
circumstance of absconding was not rightly used by the learned
Sessions Judge against the accused-respondents. The conduct
of PW 8, Madaiah, PW 14, Javariah, and PW 25, Cheluvaraju, is
so unnatural that it would not be safe to place any reliance on
their testimony. No explanation, much less a satisfactory one,
has been given by the prosecution for their long silence."