9. The informant claims that she is an eye-witness. She says that in the morning at about 8:00 a.m. on 19.08.1994 she was near a well adjoining her house. At that time the accused persons came there, assaulted her mother-in-law, lifted her through a lathi and had gone towards the river. The accused persons are related to her. P unit Singh is uncle-in-law and Parmeshwar Singh is cousin-in-law of Tejni Devi. The informant has followed them towards the river. She says that the accused persons cut into pieces the dead body of her mother-in-law and thrown the corpse in the river. During her cross-examination, she has admitted that there are about twenty houses in her village and co-villager Hiraman Singh resides on the northern side of her house whereas on eastern side there are houses of Jagdish Mahto and others. She says that these persons, however, did not come to the place of occurrence but Bulaki Mahto has arrived there immediately. None of these witnesses including Bulaki Mahto has been examined by the prosecution. According to the informant, her husband was also not present in the house and about three days before the occurrence he had gone to Calcutta but no one from the vicinity has come forward to support her on this point. The informant has claimed that she had sent information to her husband through Kishun Mahto, but he has also not been produced during the trial. She has further stated that she had sent information through son of the choukidar and her brother-in-law as well as mukhia had also reached the place of occurrence but neither the son of the choukidar nor the mukhia or her brother-in-law Tulsi Singh was examined by the prosecution. The incident has happened in the early morning. It was month of August and it is not a case set up by the prosecution that it was raining or dark at that time. In these circumstances, non-examination of any person from the vicinity or the material witnesses such as Bulaki Mahto and Prem Mahto whose statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer during the investigation create a doubt on claim of the informant that she has seen the appellants committing murder of her mother-in-law.
