registered at the instance of the mother (crime No.605/2019) is said to be at 9.00am on 30.4.2019, whereas the time of occurrence of the crime registered on the basis FI Statement of the son in Crime No. 603/2019 is said to be in between 11 and 12.00 hours. If that be so, there is no proper explanation from the prosecution as to the said conduct of the defacto complainant/victim who is said to have been assaulted by the petitioners in having used the ATM card of the 1st petitioner later at 2.30pm on the same day. This has been so observed by this Court in the context of the factual assertion made by the petitioners that the CC TV kept in the ATM counter would reveal that the defacto complainant in Crime No.603/2019 had used the ATM card of the 1st petitioner from the ATM counter of the Bank concerned at about 2.30pm on 30.4.2019. Further, the respondentPolice Authorities in paragraph 9 of their statement dated 30.6.2019 filed in BA No.3279 of 2019 has stated that, the allegations regarding withdrawal of the money using ATM card of the 1st accused by the defacto complainant in Crime No.603/2019 is true, and that the said defacto complainant has stated before the Police that it was so done as demanded by the accused and that he had returned the ATM card. The said version of the prosecution appears to be quite anomalous and contradictory inasmuch as, the specific case of the defacto complainant is that he was assaulted by the petitioners (accused)
