( 1 ) XXX xxx xxx

( 2 ) XXX xxx xxx

( 3 ) XXX xxx xxx

( 4 ) XXX xxx xxx

( 5 ) XXX xxx xxx

( 6 ) XXX xxx xxx

( 7 ) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge has not believed the eye-witness examined by the prosecution. As found and held by the learned Additional Sessions Judge the incident took place at about 9. 30 p. m. In the street in Vania Vadi area where the incident is alleged to have taken place there are no electric poles of Municipality. Therefore there was no possibility to identify the assailant. The name of the assailant has not been disclosed in the initial stage when entries were made in the station diary at 9. 55 p. m. that there was time to concert story and involve the accused falsely. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has relied upon the photographs of scene of offence in street No. 4 Varnia Vardi area Exhs. 15 16 18 19 and 20 for coming to the conclusion that there was no electric light in this street. The witness who deposed about sufficient light being there at the place of incident were not telling the truth because the photographs did not show any such electric pole at the place of incident. This is the main reason why the evidence of the eye witnesses has been discarded. Therefore it is necessary to consider the evidence with regard to the scene of offence.

( 8 ) THE evidence with regard to the scene of offence consists of panch-witness Kishor Pranlal (Exh. 38) panchnama of the scene of offence (Exh. 39 which has been drawn within hour of the incident i. e. between 11. 30 p. m. and 12. 00 midnight of 8/10/1981 The panchnama has been prepared as shown by witness Vajubhai Dahyabhai (Exh. 40 ). Evidence of the investi- gating officer P. S. I. Dalpatsinh H. Rathod is also relevant on this point As far as map (Exh. 14 prepared by Rasiklal Circle Inspector (Exh. 13 is concerned it is required to be borne in mind that the same has been prepared by him on 9/04/1982 while the incident has occurred on 2/10/1981 Panch witness Kishor Pranlal (Exh. 38) states that he is residing in Vania Vadi Street No. 6. He has stated that Vania Vadi Street No. 4 opposite Hari Krupa building was the place shown by witness Vajubhai as the place where the incident took place. In his deposition he has stated that there was light outside the building. In his cross examination he has stated that the pole was at a distance of five to six feet from Hari Krupa building. He has also stated that at the cross-section of Street No. 5 and 4 there is chawk and there was light. As deposed to by him panchnama was drawn in the light emitted from the tube light. Panchnama Exh. 39 also refers to the fact that the panchnama has been drawn in the light which was projected outside Hari Krupa building. Witness Vajubhai (Exh. 40) who has been examined as Court witness) has also stated that when they were proceeding from crosssection of street No. 5 and 4 on the road of street No. 4 the accused had come from the opposite direction and had infected knife blow on the de- ceased. He has in terms stated that there was sufficient light and the light outside Hari Krupa building was on. In cross-examination he has also stated that it was Navratri festival and on account of this festival at each house there were small oil lamps and sufficient moonlight was also there and there was street light too. It is true that this witness has admitted in cross-examination on seeing photographs Exhs. 15 and 16 that no electric pole is visible. But he has reiterated in para 26 of the cross-examination that there was sufficient light so that one could recognise the female who was with the assailant. However he stated that he had not recognised the said woman because he had not seen towards her.

( 9 ) AS against the aforesaid direct evidence there is evidence in the shape of photographs Exhs. 15 16 18 19 and 20. It is on the basis of these photographs and questions put in relation thereto in cross-examination of witness Rasiklal Vallabhdas (Exh. 13) and witness Nautambh