in paragraph 20 of his cross-examination that it is not true that people of the place, where the deceased was married, had murdered her and caused her dead body to disappear. It appears from the cross-examination, as stated in paragraph 19, wherein P.W.3 has stated that he had not stated before the police that the informant told him that when the informant tried to protect the deceased, she was said to keep the mouth shut and was pushed to the room which was locked from outside. Further P.W.3 stated that he had also not stated before the police that the informant was peeking through the crack of the door and saw that the above named persons were taking away the dead body of the deceased on cot and thereafter disappeared the dead body. Therefore, it is evident from the deposition that for the first time this fact has been revealed by him during trial and, as such, the statements cannot be relied upon to sustain the conviction of the appellant. Further in view of such material contradictions arising out of paragraph Nos.1, 18 and 20 of the deposition of the said witness, it does not inspire confidence of the Court to sustain the conviction of the appellant. Further P.W. 3, P.W.7 and P.W.8 are hearsay witnesses. In respect of evidentiary value of hearsay evidence, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kalyan Kumar Gogoi vs
