night. From the cross-examination, it appears that when first time the Police arrived at the site then in the village, this witness was present. He did not make any statement to the Police about having seen the crime and that too in a totally different manner, then what was initially reported. According to him, he was returning from Bhagalpur where he worked in the shop of Kirti Upadhyay. It was night and a motorcycle was coming from Bhagalpur side in the light of which he saw the two appellants and four others grappling with the deceased. He saw the appellant Md. Muslim then shoot the deceased. He identified everybody in the light of headlight of the motorcycle. Strange it is that though he had all the time to see the accused persons commit the crime he states that the accused persons did not see him and he managed to escape to the village. In our view, if this is correct, then, how was he identified by the accused persons who then, managed to move him from house to house for over two months? This witness admits in the crossexamination that he had not disclosed being witnessed to the crime to anybody and according to him, the accused persons had not seen him. Then what was the occasion for the accused persons to move this witness from place to place put him up at different places for over two months, not leaving him alone for even answering natures call. Prosecution is unable to explain this. Then, we come to the case of appellant Md. Muslim. It is
