convict Harvinder Singh, and, the father of convict Chhabag Singh. Even though, the said proximity of relationship inter se DW-2, and, the convicts (supra), cannot be of conspicuous importance in rejecting his testification. However, yet this Court is inclined to reject his testification, on the ground, that Major Singh, the father of Raman, with whom convict Harvinder Singh, allegedly established illicit relations, and, about which deceased became aware, and, thereby became purportedly goaded, and, instigated to commit suicide, rather never stepped into the witness box, to thus make speakings about his daughter Raman, for the period of time, as stated by DW-2, in his examination-in-chief, thus staying at the home of convict Harvinder Singh. He was the best witness to support the above fact. Therefore, his nonexamination belies the above exculpatory testification made by DW-2. Therefore, it is but for the proximity of relations between DW-2, and, the convicts (supra), that the said exculpatory speakings (supra), as, made by DW-2, in his examination-in-chief, thus lose their evidentiary tenacity, especially when reiteratedly the said speakings, though required corroboration, whereas, they remained uncorroborated, by Major Singh, the father of one Raman. Even the mother of Raman, or any her any other close relatives never stepped into the witness box, to support the speakings (supra), as made by DW-2, in his examination-in-chief, whereby the deposition of DW-2, becomes both an interested, besides a tainted testification.
