including other private witnesses of the prosecution added some new word to the caste based abuse in their evidence which was not revealed by the informant in his fardbeyan. Thirdly, as per the allegation, made by the informant in his fardbeyan, the accused Bhikham Prasad assaulted him by means of lathi and the accused Sukhadi Prasad assaulted him indiscriminately by means of iron rod but the informant deposed before the trial Court that the accused Sukhadi Prasad assaulted at his left shoulder by means of iron rod and other accused persons assaulted him by using leg and fist and he did not reveal the fact of assault by means of lathi by the accused Bhikham Prasad as alleged by him in his fardbeyan. These contradictions cast a serious doubt on the prosecution story appearing from the fardbeyan of the informant. The important fact going against the prosecution story is that as per the statement of the father of the informant, who was examined as PW-1, he and some covillagers namely Tapsi Ram, Sunil Verma, Shivnath Ram, Umesh Ram and Manoj Ram arrived at the place of occurrence when the occurrence took place and they intervened and separated both the parties and during the occurrence the accused Mohan Prasad inflicted a lathi blow on him. The name of this witness and his co-villagers were not revealed by the informant
