available there. It was dark by 10.30 p.m. Nothing was visible as to who had come to that plot/ground. It is further in her evidence that both Parmeshwar and his brother Krushna were residing in Ramnagar area. It is further in her evidence that she would go to sleep by 08.00 p.m. or 08.30 p.m. after taking dinner, everyday. On 07.08.2019, as usual, she took dinner and retired for bed by 08.30 p.m. On the next day, she woke up as usual. She, however, denied that whatever she testified in her examination-in-chief was not true. Her evidence that she would go to sleep by 08.00 p.m. everyday and even on the given day also, she went to bed by the same time and woke up as usual in the morning, lead us to observe that her evidence about having seen the appellants and Krushna (deceased accused) to have taken Bapusaheb (deceased) to the open ground and assaulted him, inspires no confidence. It is true that the appellants, after having assaulted the deceased, returned to her and threatened with dire consequence, has not been specifically denied in the cross-examination. The last sentence of her crossexamination, however, indicates that the defence has denied her evidence in its entirety. Learned APP would, therefore, not be justified in contending that the trio had threatened her after having assaulted Bapusaheb (deceased), went unchallenged and therefore, her evidence needs to be accepted.
