accused were not placed in the Test Identification Parade. The I.O. offered very weak explanation that he did not get T.I.P. conducted because the witness Atul Kumar was only 10 years old. Perusal of record reveals that the investigation has been haphazard, cursory and perfunctory. It thus appears that there are material improvements and contradictions in the evidence of PW1,2,4,5,6,7,8 & 9 and they are not the eye witnesses rather they developed the prosecution story and improved their versions during trial in the Court regarding threatening by accused Sumant and statement of deceased after sustaining injury that it was Sumant who got him shot. However, they did not whisper complicity or involvement of other accused persons in this occurrence. It also creates doubt in prosecution case regarding involvement of other accused persons. The law is well-settled that suspicion, however, strong cannot be the basis of conviction. Bearing in mind the principle of innocence that "let the thousands of culprits may go free but no innocent should be punished”when I approach the facts of the present case, I am of the firm view that the P.W.s 1,2, 3,4,5,6,7,8 & 9 are not credible. Situated thus, it is difficult to hold that the aforesaid circumstances which have no evidentiary foundation, is sufficient for convicting the other accused persons except Manish Dhan.”
