6, i.e., the house in which the incident took place, however, in the same breath, he has stated that he saw the appellant coming there for the first time on 27.06.2014. Thus, his testimony reflects that it is full of contradictions on the material aspect i.e. as to whether the appellant had visited the deceased on 27.06.2014. The another prosecution witness Shri Vishnu Rai (PW-6) has, during his cross-examination, stated neither to have seen the appellant meeting the deceased nor, to have heard that they used to meet. The remaining prosecution witness in this regard, i.e., Shri Rajendra Jain (PW-28), has stated, in his examination-inchief, that Shri Avni -brother-in-law of the deceased, used to come for last 2 - 3 years to meet her and two days prior to the fateful day, an another person came and they both quarrelled with each other. He has further stated that the deceased had asked his driver- Mukesh not to permit that man to come again. He has also stated that in the footage of the CCTV camera installed at his house examined by the police in his presence, he identified that person to be the same person who had come once about 6-7 years ago to meet the deceased. He has further deposed that when the deceased apprised him that he used to harass her, he had scolded that person and identified the accused-present in court as the same person. Conspicuously, the prosecution has neither produced the footage so recorded in the CCTV camera installed at this witness’ house nor, any explanation has been offered for this failure which renders the testimony of PW-28 doubtful. In view thereof, an adverse inference has to be drawn against the prosecution.
