the name of P.W.1. If the said agreement ought to have taken place on 20.07.2003, executing the document on 01.08.2003 is not possible. 9. Apart from this, there is another cryptic issue in this case. According to the prosecution, stamps were purchased by the accused on 20.07.2003, whereas stamps were purchased in the name of P.W.1. So, reading together, it creates a lot of doubt with regard to the genuineness of the Ex.PI agreement itself. Even P.W.2 stated that the accused/respondent went out of the hotel and brought the 100 rupee N.J. stamp papers and executed the agreement, whereas it already stated that the agreement stamp papers were purchased in the name of P.W.1 and that the so-called agreement took place at the hotel of PW.4 at Machilipatnam, whereas the stamps were purchased at the stamp vendor, Vijayawada. Besides PW.1 and P.W.2, there is PW.3, who is another signatory to Ex.PI as an attester. He runs a general store at Buttaipet. According to him, the so-called agreement took place between 5 p.m. to 6 p.m. and P.W.3 states another version that a draft was prepared and thereafter it was typed on a stamp paper, where it is not stated even by P.W.1. 10. Admittedly, PW.4 is the owner of the hotel in Machilipatnam. He also states the same in the lines of PW. 1 and PW. 2. But , PW. 3 gives different version, and PW. 4 also gives another different
