26 . Thus, from the aforementioned decision it is evident that the facts and circumstances of each case is to be dealt with separately. In the instant case, applying the said ratio it has to be seen whether it was necessary to examine these two witnesses (Mahendra Sao and Bhimlal Sao) or not and whether such witnesses were available to be examined and yet were being withheld from the Court? In the instant case, as per the prosecution except PW-6, i.e. the informant, there were other two persons namely Mahendra Sao and Bhimlal Sao, who were reliable witnesses of the prosecution to prove the payment of ransom. These two persons were definitely available to be examined but yet they were withheld. Since, these two witnesses were not examined, the only witness on the point of payment of ransom is PW-6, who is the informant, the father of the victim. This witness is a highly interested witness and some corroboration was necessary which could have easily been done by producing these two persons namely Mahendra Sao and Bhimlal Sao. Further, this witness is not completely trustworthy as because he is the author of the FIR, which is against unknown though as per his own evidence and as per the evidence of PWs-1, 2, 3 & 5, the identity of this appellant was disclosed to the informant much before lodging the FIR. Thus, for withholding these two witnesses an adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution. Withholding of these two persons casts doubt on the prosecution case that ransom was paid for release of the victim.
