29 Cri.Appeals 516, 281 n 468 of 2012.odt rt Khadke residing in front of the house and who was providing tiffin C ou to them to call the doctor immediately. Mr. Khadke came with doctor within 10 minutes. Police also reached the spot. Doctor examined Mansi and declared her dead. Then Aniket lodged FIR. The same is proved at Exhibit 41. Police seized articles lying on Aniket noticed that his clothes and gold ring were ig h the spot. missing. He identified those articles before the Court. Aniket was cross­examined by Accused H 21. Accused Nos.2 and 3 did not cross­examine him. No.1. Nothing ba y substantial could be elicited in the cross­examination of Aniket to disbelieve his testimony. The evidence of Aniket is thus consistent, trustworthy and believable. om 22. Another witness examined by prosecution is PW­1 Vivek Chandrakant Agrawal. B Sterlight Company, MIDC Vivek Agrawal was serving in Waluj, Aurangabad as Deputy Manager. Complainant Aniket was serving in the same company. It appears from the evidence of PW­1 Vivek that on 11 th June, 2009 he had been to company in the morning. Aniket also joined duty at about 09:30 am. PW­1 Vivek came home at 07:30 pm. At around 08:00 – 09:00 pm Vivek called Aniket on phone. Aniket ::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2016 19:36:28 :::