5. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the allegation against the petitioner is that he called the son of the deceased and after 15-20 minutes the informant received information that his son has drowned and Ashok Chaudhary tried to save him but he could not save him. Ashok Chaudhary during investigation stated that he saw the petitioner running away from the place. Some of the witnesses also talked about the presence but there is no eye-witness who saw the petitioner making any attempt or taking any steps towards drowning the son of the informant. The case of the informant is that his son was taken away by the petitioner and thereafter he drowned. In such view of the matter, the statement of the witnesses that the petitioner was seen in the vicinity is in consonance with the prosecution case that the deceased was taken away by the petitioner. Another remarkable part of the prosecution case is that though the FIR seems to have been lodged after some time, as per the FIR, the father of the deceased received information through Ashok Chaudhary, he came there and employed swimmers to trace the body. The dead body could not be traced and thereafter the FIR was lodged. In such a
