Hence, he is not trustworthy. The law, in this regard, is well settled that even if the case as reported in the F.I.R. is not proved fully, but from the evidence that was collected during the investigation, criminal liability of an individual or individuals are partly proved and it can be interfered with for the reason that the FIR story is inconsistent. If it is proved that the accused had committed the crime he can be definitely punished. P.W.1’s statement to the Court appears to be truthful, but the other parts of his testimony are mutually destructive. If a witness, does not support his own version, as recorded by the police during the investigation, even there after his testimony can be used for purpose of corroboration with substantive caution. We are convinced that P.W.1 did not see the occurrence, but he was reported by P.Ws.2 and 3. P.Ws.2 and 3, according to us, have made the truthful statements. P.W.2 has clearly testified that he saw the occurrence and he saw that the Appellant dealing several Tangia blows on the deceased’s head, shoulder, neck and another parts of the body. These witnesses, P.Ws.2 and 3, did not falter during their cross-examination as carried out by the defence.
