has stated that Durjan Singh was the person who was in motorcycle and Durgesh Singh was also with him, whereas PW-2 Kamal Sahu in statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. have not disclosed the identity of the accused so that he could identify the accused after many months of the incident. After a period of time the accused/respondents were arrested. Admittedly there is no test identification parade in the case. Statement of Kamal Sahu was recorded before the court on 19/03/2012 i.e. after more than one year. Further Kamal Sahu PW-2 stated in 161 statement that he went alongwith Mohd. Shafi Khan for service of summons whereas Mohd Shafi Khan who is examined as PW-11 has not corroborated this fact. Instead he has stated that Kamal Sahu alone had went for service of summons and he received information from Kamal Sahu which was recorded in rojnamcha sanha Ex.P-22. Therefore, there is serious contradiction in the statement of PW-2 and PW-11 who are police witness. Admittedly, independent witness PW-8 Gudda @ Hamid and PW-12 Sonu Baghel have not supported the case of the prosecution. Record suggest that ownership of the vehicle belong to one Rajendra for which sale agreement was entered with Durjan Singh. As per PW-11 Mohd. Shafi Khan when the cannabis were seized by Ex.P-15 and the sample was taken out of that packet, no panchnama was prepared, though it was stated that cannabis was separately kept in polythene bag and the malkhana register Ex.P-7 do not support the same as separately seized cannabis were deposited in the malkhana. Ex.P-9 is the receipt whereby alleged cannabis was sent to the FSL on 4/05/2010. Ex.P-7 which is malkhana register shows that cannabis were deposited and sample packets were deposited on 21/01/2010, therefore this fact is missing that when the sample packets
