PW.2 has categorically admitted in his cross-examination that on only holidays he used to go for grazing of the goats and further admitted that the date of incident was Monday and the school was running on that day and he tried to state that it was a holiday on the date of death of his sister but subsequently he admitted about the working of the school. Admittedly, he is studying IV class as on that day and it is not his case that on that day he has not attended the school, even though it is working day. Moreover, the investigating officer, PW.10 in his cross-examination has admitted that PW.2 has not stated to him that he noticed the accused catching hold of tuft of his sister by holding a knife and dragged her into the bushes. Therefore, the said version of PW.2 about witnessing the accused holding knife and dragging his sister to the bushes and hearing the cries of his sister is an improvement made by him during the course of trial and the said fact was not stated before the police and PW.10 also further stated that PW.3 has not stated to him that PW.2 informed him that the accused caught hold of the deceased and dragged her into the bushes. Therefore, when the said fact was not stated by PW.3 in his statement recorded by the police, the question of PW.2 informing the same does not arise. Therefore, in the above circumstances, the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 cannot be believed. According to PW.1, he came to know about the incident and rushed to the scene of offence and enquired his son PW.2 and he informed that the accused caught hold of the tuft of the deceased and cut her throat. But as per the evidence of PW.10, PW.1 has not stated the said fact to him during the course of recording the statement of PW.1. Therefore, the prosecution could not establish PW.2’s witnessing the incident and informing the same to PWs.1 and 3.
