narrated the incident to him. In his cross-examination, he admitted that his house is 150 to 200 feet away from the house of the prosecutrix. He also did not deny that he was behind bars for the murder of his wife. However, he denied the suggestion that the husband of the prosecutrix and his uncle were helping him in his case. However, P.W. 3, the husband of the prosecutrix, admitted in his crossexamination that he had stated to the Police that P.W. Ashok had come to his house, but he cannot assign any reason why it was not mentioned in his statement. The accused had proved the above omission from the Investigation Officer, P.W. 8. It was a material improvement in the testimony of P.W. 3 and does not corroborate the testimony of P.W. 5. Hence, hearing the screaming of the prosecutrix he came to her house and saw the accused running from in front of the school raises doubt. He appears to be a planted witness. For these reasons, he cannot believe that he saw the accused running from the road in front of the Zilla Parishad School road, and he ask him why he was running, and he did not tell him anything. His testimony does not appear natural and believable; hence, it does not inspire confidence. His presence on the spot was also false under the shadow of doubt. Hence, his testimony cannot be received as corroborating the prosecution case.
