12.Now turning to the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4, they claim to have been present at the time of occurrence, by chance. They have stated that they were coming in a motor cycle and at that time they found a group of people and then witnessed the entire occurrence. P.W.4, even in the chief examination, has stated that after the occurrence, he went to his house and he came to know that the deceased was declared dead in the hospital. He has further admitted that thereafter, for 20 days, he did not whisper anything to anyone and only after 20 days, he appeared before the police and claimed that he witnessed the occurrence. But, a perusal of his evidence would show that there is no explanation for such an inordinate delay. This conduct of P.W.4 is highly unnatural. If really he had seen the occurrence, he would have informed the same either to police or to anyone else who is closely related. Apart from that, P.W.1, during cross examination, has stated that nobody else had witnessed the occurrence except himself. From these facts, in our considered view, it is difficult to believe P.W.4. Further, P.W.4 is not an independent witness. He also belonged to the group of the deceased. Similarly, P.W.3 has also stated that after the occurrence, he simply went back to his house and then he came to know that the deceased died and thereafter he went to the hospital. But, he did not whisper anything about his presence and witnessing the occurrence to anyone. He was also examined after several days from the date of occurrence. During cross examination, he has stated that he had written notes when he was taken to the learned Judicial Magistrate for giving statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and only by reading the said written statement, he made the statement before the learned Judicial Magistrate. This would go to show that this witness has also been planted by the prosecution, as if he witnessed the occurrence. At this juncture, it needs to be repeated that P.W.1 has admitted, during cross examination, that neither P.W.3 nor P.W.4 was present at the time of occurrence. Thus, the presence of P.Ws.3 and 4, in the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence is highly doubtful and it is clear that these two witnesses have been planted as an after thought, belatedly, by the prosecution.
