occurrence, reliable witnesses were not put forth by the prosecution. The evidences put forth by the prosecution in this regard create doubts whether the alleged occurrence was happened as stated by the prosecution or not. On considering the said submission it is true that, the first investigation officer deposed in the cross examination that in the scene of occurrence, there was no blood stain soil was available. Further, he has stated that M.O.1 rPik XL was recovered without any blood stain. Further, he has stated that in the place of occurrence, no such occurrence had been taken place. While so, PW.1 stated in his evidence that there was blood stain in his belongings as well as in the body of the accused. Whereas, PW.2 who is the wife of the deceased stated in his evidence, after assault, the blood spreaded all over the clothes of my husband. Further, PW.4 being the eye witness to the alleged occurrence stated in his evidence that there was blood stain in M.O.1 and also on the clothes of the Pushpam-PW.2, who was the witness. In the said circumstances, the prosecution story projected by the Investigation Officer in respect of the scene of occurrence creates doubt as whether the observation mahazar and rough sketch had prepared in the scene of occurrence or not. The said doubt also goes in favour of the appellant. Therefore, in the light of the above discussion, particularly, due to the suspicion over the registration of the case, the weapon used in the commission of offence and with regard to scene of occurrence, the prosecution case would not stand as per the findings of the trial Court.
