name of the father of the accused. He goes to the extent of saying that he did not know as to how the name of the father of the accused was mentioned in the FIR. Furthermore, learned counsel for the appellant has stated that the PW-2 had given, on 4.11.1996, an affidavit which was placed by the defence on record as evidence that the PW-2 was wrongly implicating the accused persons. However, from the record, PW-2 had shown that on 2.12.1996 he had given a statement that he was withdrawing the earlier affidavit dated 4.11.1996. Thereafter learned counsel for the appellant states that with regard to the coercion in getting himself photographed, the PW-2 has stated that he had reported that matter orally to the Police in Punjab. Further learned counsel for the appellant states that in the FIR, he had stated that the deceased and the PW-2 were standing at the shop where the puncture was being repaired but subsequently in the cross-examination he had stated that they were standing in front of another shop, the shutter of which was down and was locked. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that this he probably was saying because there were, in the site plan, bullet marks on the shutter of the closed shop. Learned counsel, therefore, states that if the statement made in the FIR was different from the statement made in the cross-examination then the witness become unreliable. Learned counsel for the appellant has further stated that if the PW-2 was bleeding profusely, then the complaint which he had filed should have some blood marks.
