bicycle to the house of Ramdhan Mahto situated in front of a pond. Admittedly, P.W.1 had not seen the appellant and the deceased together. P.W.3 in his cross examination has denied seeing the appellant going with the deceased. P.W.4, who is the father of the deceased had come to know from his wife (P.W.6) that the appellant had taken away his son on a bicycle. So far as P.W.5 is concerned, he is also not an eye witness to the incident of the deceased being last seen with the appellant, though the appellant had admitted before him that he had left the deceased near the pond which would indicate about the acceptance of the appellant that he had taken away the deceased. However, such admission would not be of any consequence, as the same was stated under coercion and duress which is apparent from the evidence of P.W.5. He has also stated about the disclosure made by P.W.2 regarding the confession made by the accused persons of concealing the dead body of Punit Kumar Mahto, but such disclosure does not include the name of the appellant. P.W.6, however, is the only witness who had seen her son going with the appellant on a bicycle. There were several houses near the house of P.W.6 and the distance between her house and the place of occurrence is 500 yards. It was 5:00PM, when the incident of the appellant taking away the son of P.W.6 occurred and it indeed appears to be strange that the locality, though had a substantial populace, but none had seen the said occurrence. Moreover, it seems that though the other accused persons were frequenting the said hut, not much has been said about the appellant. In fact, the needle of suspicion has been consistently pointed towards Ramdhan Mahto, the owner of the hutment but he has been acquitted by the learned trial court. There does not appear to be any circumstance through which the appellant can be held guilty for the offence of murder. Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that Section 106 of the Evidence Act
