shown to him for identification by the police from Police Station Timarpur. He had earlier given the date 26th August, 2008 due to some confusion. He had kept on coming to Delhi and, therefore, he did not remember if he had joined the investigation on 1st September, 2008. He had joined investigation on a few occasions. He could not remember whether the truck was in fact recovered on 1st September, 2008, since he did not remember the date. He, however, accepted as correct that his statement was recorded by the police on recovery of the truck and he identified the seizure memo marked Exhibit PW-5/B, which was signed by him at point ‘A’, and the date mentioned thereon is 1st September, 2008. Towards the end of his cross-examination by the public prosecutor, it is apparent that PW-5 again got confused, as he had deposed that after 26th August, 2008, he had stayed in Delhi as he was associated with the investigation. When again confronted, PW5 reiterated in his cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor that the date 26th August, 2008 was given by him due to confusion and lapse of time and the correct date was 1st September, 2008. In his crossexamination, PW-5 accepted that appellant-Khalid had pointed out the place of recovery of the truck and a pointing out memo of the spot was
