State Of Haryana And Others vs Chotti Devi And Others on 12 March, 2012
He further
deposed that he had examined the knife with naked eye but he did not
SC No. 45/08 & SC No. 26/10 Page no. 16 of 28
State vs. Vinod Chotti & others
find any finger print. He admitted that he did not apply any chemical to
ascertain as to whether there was any finger print or not. He deposed
that since finger prints were not visible by the naked eye, he did not
summon the crime team. He admitted that when the knife was examined
in FSL Rohini, no blood was found on the said knife. Thus, it becomes
clear that neither any finger print of accused Vinod @ Chotti was found
on the said knife nor any blood of victim was found on the said knife,
thus, prosecution has miserably failed to connect the said knife with the
incident in question. At last but not least that even prosecution has failed
to bring Pritam Indoria in the witness box who allegedly produced the
knife before the investigating officer. In other words, the alleged recovery
of knife is not proved by the prosecution. Moreover, the alleged recovery
is not helpful to the prosecution in any manner to prove the culpability of
any of the accused persons.