Learned counsel submits that without any substantial evidence brought on record, the initial version set up by Balwinder Singh, soon after the occurrence and also coming forth in the facts recorded in the inquest report, as such, has been changed, for no good reason. Rather, counsel submits that three material witnesses examined by the prosecution, are injured Amrik Singh and also complainant Balwinder Singh and Karnail Singh, who are the eye witnesses to the occurrence in question. However, all the three aforesaid witnesses are not at all trustworthy and reliable. In fact, they had changed their stand, with regard to the role earlier assigned to Narinder Kumar, at the time of registration of the FIR and they roped in Ajaib Singh, at a later stage, on the pretext of enquiry, fallaciously conducted at the instance of Sohan Lal, father of Narinder Kumar. Even, the enquiry report is not above board and it reflects about the police authorities to be all out to render assistance to Narinder Kumar, to wriggle him out of the criminal liability and ‘ fit-in ’ the role of Ajaib Singh, in causing the occurrence, while driving the tractor in question. He further submits that it is case of shoddy investigation.
