10. With regard to the second contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, it appears that P.W.6 is the witness who attested the recovery mahazar. According to him, broken bottle used for the commission of offence was recovered through the appellant. In this regard as per the evidence given by the doctor, who treated P.W.1 it was mentioned that at the time of getting treatment, P.W.1 stated that he was assaulted by using knife. On the other hand, P.W.2 stated that he was assaulted through the weapon without any identification. At the same time, as per the case of the investigation, the appellant used the broken glass bottle and assaulted P.Ws.1 and 2. In this regard, on going through the evidence given by P.W.1 it is seen that he stated in the chief examination, by using the broken glass piece, the appellant assaulted him. As per the evidence given by the P.W.1 in the chief examination, he clearly stated that the appellant used only broken glass. The said evidence given by him is clearly corroborated through the evidence of another injured Dhilip Kumar. Further in this case, in support of the prosecution P.W.5 Vidya was examined as eye witness to the alleged occurrence. She also stated that during the time of alleged occurrence, the appellant used the broken glass and assaulted P.W.1.
