proved, this Court would refer to the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Krishna Mochi & Others vs. State of Bihar , reported in (2002) 6 SCC 81, wherein it has been held that even if the first information report is not proved, it would not be a ground for acquittal but the case would depend upon the evidence led by the prosecution. In the present case, the occurrence, as narrated in the fardbeyan / FIR, has also been narrated in the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W. 8, hence, merely because the fardbeyan / FIR has not been exhibited in the present case, the same has neither caused any prejudice to the appellant nor it makes any material difference. As far as non-examination of investigating officer is concerned, we find that the Appellant has failed to demonstrate the prejudice caused to him, hence the same cannot in any manner effect the prosecution case . It is a well settled law that the persecution case need not fail solely due to non-examination of the Investigation Officer, as long as the eye-witness (prosecutrix in the present case) credibility stays intact. Reference in this connection be had to a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Behari Prasad & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar , reported in (1996) 2 SCC 317. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant to the effect that Section
