summoned through his father. The accused appellant turned up at the project and, upon being questioned by the witness about his absence from duty, he claimed to be tensed up and stated that he could not perform his duties and that he would be going back to his village on the same day. The witness (PW-17) was Prosecutor and cross-examined while by the Public answering the leading questions put to him, he admitted that he had stated before the police that the accused appellant told him that he could not work as he was tensed up and that he had made a mistake. The witness (PW-17) also agreed to the suggestion of the public prosecutor that the accused appellant divulged before him that he had been called by the police the day before and in reference thereto, he had committed a mistake. 58. The significant fact which requires mention at this stage is that the statement of Anil Mahatam 49 Criminal Appeal No(s). 1954-1955 of 2022