never whispered that PW-1 and PW-4 were present at the place of occurrence and from deposition of PW-4 it is clear that it was never whispered that either PW-1 or PW-3 was present at the place of occurrence. In the present case, the star witness is the informant's mother whose presence at the place of occurrence cannot be doubted and she has not been examined. In this way, the presence of any of the prosecution witness at the place of occurrence is very much doubtful and it is very settled principle of law that benefit of doubt goes always in favour of the accused. In that situation, prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt even though the victim/informant's mother sustained injury and the doctor has already suggested that said injuries can be caused by falling on any hard substance and suggestion was also given by the defence side that she sustained injury on account of falling, though, the suggestion has been denied by the prosecution witness. In that situation, in the said facts and evidence of the case, prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Apart from that, the statement of factual witnesses i.e. PW-1, PW-3 and PW-4, though, they are claiming to be eye witness, their evidence are full of infirmities and contradictions on the point of place of occurrence, manner of occurrence and boundary of place of occurrence.
