double edged sword. It may be a cause for false implication, it may be a cause for commission of an occurrence. In the background of the fact that there happens to be admission at the end of the prosecution party that they were inimical since before, reliability of witnesses were at stake, P.O. has not been properly fixed. In the aforesaid background, non-examination of I.O. as has caused not only prejudice to the interest of the appellants, rather also caused dent in the prosecution case, hence, the cumulative effect did not justify the finding. Contrary to it, the probability of the defence version, more particularly when PW-1 has admitted that on the alleged date and time of occurrence, Fulmani Devi had instituted a case prior to the present case regarding commission of rape wherein after investigation, chargesheet has already been submitted. So, really it was possible for the accused to have shot at the informant, who was a witness in that case and that being so, the whole episode if analytically approached, would not justify the occurrence, as suggested. In the aforesaid background, it was incumbent upon the learned lower Court to have properly
