one of the accused persons, namely Brahamdeo Dome was carrying in his hands. P.W.6 in paragraph 1 of her deposition (examination-in chief) has stated that he identified the accused persons in the light of Dhibri as well as from the light that was coming out from the torch which was being carried by one of the accused person namely, Brahamdeo Dome. She further states in paragraph 15 of her deposition (cross-examination) that she had shown the place to the Investigating Officer, where the Dhibri was kept and in paragraph 20 of her deposition (cross-examination) she stated that, at the time of recording of her statement before the police she mentioned that she identified the accused person in the light of Dhibri . With respect to the source of light being Dhibri , the Investigating officer (P.W.12), in paragraph 20 of his deposition (cross-examination) has categorically stated that he had not been shown any place where Lantern or Dhibri was kept in the house. In light of the material contradictions arising from the deposition of P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.12 the presence of Dhibri , as a source of identification becomes doubtful. With respect to the source of identification being the torch carried by one of the accused persons, we would like to rely upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tamilselvan v. State reported in (2008) 7 SCC 755 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraphs 8 and 9 has observed that:
