Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, what prima facie transpires from the material placed before the Court at this stage is that as per the averments made in the F.I.R., the informant is not an eye witness of the incident and she stated that she had come to lodged the F.I.R. after receiving information of the incident; that the F.I.R does not disclose as to who gave information of the incident to the informant; that in the statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she stated that a case arising out of beating is pending between the applicant and her family since the year 2013 and the accused persons had killed her husband because of the aforesaid animosity and in this statement also she stated that she reached on the spot upon receiving information of the incident, without disclosing the source of information; that police claimed to have arrested the applicant's son named Ravi Shanker Pathak and One Jamshed, who have recorded their custodial confessional statement and to have recovered the fire arm allegedly used in the incident on the pointing of Ravi Shanker Pathak (co-accused) and it is only in the additional statement of the informant recorded on 29.12.2022 i.e after about one month and one week after the lodging of the F.I.R, she stated that she had seen Jamshed sitting on a motorcycle along with Ravi Shanker Pathak on the date of the incident and it is only in her affidavit dated 14.12.2022, that the informant stated for the first time that she had witnessed the applicant, coaccused Ravi Shanker Pathak and Jamshed Siddiqui killing her husband by shooting him with a gun. However, even in this affidavit, she does not mention as to who of the aforesaid three persons had fired the shot. It is significant to mention that post mortem examination report mentions a single fire arm wound and a bullet was recovered from the dead body and the police have recovered a country made pistol on the pointing of co-
