for the reason that no proper explanation or justification has been given by the said witness for not disclosing this fact to any person in the village or for that matter to the Police authorities in spite of knowing so much of details in respect of the commission of the offence. The fact that he for the first time makes a statement before the Police authorities after 2 months by itself is a highly improbable story that he intends to float and therefore his disposition should not have been taken as a substantive piece of evidenc^ for convicting the Appellant. Likewise, as regards P.W.-l Kartik Ram the alleged witness to the last seen theory learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the deposition of this witness it is totally ambiguous without any clarity nor is there any detail in respect of when, at what time, on which date and the exact place where he had seen both the accused'?'persons in the company of the deceased or near the deceased. According to the Counsel for the Appellant in the absence of these details the statement so made by P.W.-1 Kartik Ram also would be hard to rely upon. The Counsel for the Appellant submits that once when the deposition of these 2 prime witnesses got demolished the question of further entertaining merits of the case does not arise, judgment of conviction needs to be recalled by setting aside and quashing the same.
