analysis of the evidence on record, we find that the chain of circumstances have several missing links which create grave doubt about the prosecution story. Though the incidence of previous assault and threatening by the accused has been narrated from the mouth of the informant, her mother and other witnesses, but as per the statement of P.W.1 herself on the fateful day 7th July, 2005 the accused had come to her house and was not carrying any object or rather any weapon in his hand. No such weapon has either been recovered by the police after crime. Her father had also left empty handed with the accused as per the statement of P.W.1. Though the mother of the informant P.W.5 was reportedly staying together with the deceased in the house of the informant but surprisingly she had not left the place along with her husband on the persuasion of the accused. She had taken a plea that there was only one umbrella but that umbrella has not been seized or recovered by the police from the place of crime or anywhere else. There is contradiction on the source of information of the crime to the informant. She at various places asserts different things in her statement. At one place she has stated that she has got information from the children of the village, but in her fardbeyan she has not named the children. No such children have been examined. On the other hand, she in her statement categorically named the accused himself as having come back and stated about the assault by some person upon his father and that he had fled away therefrom on being scared. But in the Court’s query she had completely denied that the accused had come back to her and narrated it. On the one hand, P.W.1 had described the place of occurrence about 1 kilometer from her house, her mother P.W 5 who also accompanied her to the place of occurrence described it as only 200 ft. away from her house. P.W.2 husband of the informant who come back in the evening and learnt about the incidence from the informant, states that the dead body was found on the hullah on the next date. These are major inconsistencies in the statement of prosecution witnesses which have caused severe dent to the prosecution story and casts a serious doubt on the circumstances which have been projected to prove its case.
