occurrence took place during the festival, where large gathering of people. The evidence of PW1 that he was sitting behind the stage at the time when he was attacked is duly contradictory to other eyewitnesses version. Statement of PW1 before the medical officer is also contradictory to his evidence. Identification of the accused is also not established. Nature of injury found on the left hand of PW1 not even caused by using MO1. Admittedly, the medical officer noted only a crush injury. Further, it is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that the eyewitness evidence is improved in every stage only to implicate the accused, who are victim in previous occurrence, where the witnesses parties were accused. Hence, submitted that possibility of implicating the accused cannot be ruled out in this case. It is the further contention of the learned Senior Counsel that Deputy Superintendent of Police who allegedly conducted investigation for SC and ST Act is not authorised by the Superintendent of Police as mandatory under Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Hence, submitted that the prosecution theory in this case is highly doubtful and prayed for allowing the appeal. In support of his submissions, the learned Senior Counsel relied on the following judgment:-
