rely upon the same. One of the crucial discrepancy taken note of by the learned Magistrate is that, eventhough, he specifically stated that the assailants have assaulted PW2 as well, when PW2 was examined, he did not support the aforesaid aspects. Some inconsistencies were found in his statement when compared with the evidence of the doctor as well. The other ocular witnesses are Pws 2, 3 and 4. It is discernible from Annexure A1 judgment that all the aforesaid witnesses have turned hostile to the prosecution, as they had stated that they could not identify any of the assailants. It was in that circumstances, the learned Magistrate arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish their case by adducing proper evidence. On perusal of the entire materials and the observations/findings entered by the learned Magistrate, the only conclusion possible is that the same would have the impact of destroying the substratum of the prosecution case. Therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution as against the petitioner.
