evidence has stated that on hearing the shout, he and his friends entered the hotel and saw the assault on Ajit and thereafter, when Shivprasad intervened, the assault on Shivprasad; whereas, in his crossexamination PW2 has deposed that the incident took place in the parking area of the hotel. It is the prosecution case that the incident actually took place on the service road, however, neither PW3, the panch to the spot panchanma, has spelt out the details of where exactly the incident had taken place. As noted above, admittedly the blood stains/soil from the spot, had not been collected. Thus, we find that the prosecution has not proved the spot where the actual incident of assault on deceased – Shivprasad had taken place. Admittedly, PW6-Ajit (injured eye-witness) has turned hostile. According to the prosecution, the said witness had sustained injuries in the said incident, due to the assault by the appellants on him with a sword and by fists and kick blows, however, the medical certificate of the said witness i.e. PW6, has not been brought on record, by the prosecution.
