53 Likewise, he improves upon his statement, by deposing in court that the girl had asked two boys to one injured seriously to the hospital. In addition, his contradictions as to what led him to the police station on 20.0.2011 – obtaining a gumasta license, or to report the crime; and his presence at the scene of the crime – as a property broker checking vacancy of a property, who admittedly had no license for this business, are material. These contradictions are serious inasmuch as they strike at the root of the witness’s credibility. His prevarications and improvements especially about the presence of a girl are too serious and fundamental to overlook. Very crucially this witness appears to be a stock witness. For all the aforesaid reasons the depositions of PW-10 cannot be accepted. V. Identification of Manoj by PW-8 96. The prosecution relied on the testimony of PW-8 Achyutmal Tejwani to say that Manoj had obtained treatment from him. The witness, during his deposition stated that he had studied from a Science College in Pakistan. He admitted to not being licensed to practise medicine, by the Medical Council of India; he also admitted that he did not hold any permission to practise as a doctor, but ran Kavita clinic. He identified Manoj in court, and said that on 19.06.2011, Manoj had secured treatment for an injury on his elbow, and another boy (who spoke in Sindhi) accompanied him. He proved Ex. P37, the slip issued by him, containing the prescription for Manoj, which was seized on 25.06.2011 (Ex. P36) by the IO (PW-31), who deposed to it. 97. This court is of the opinion that PW-8 is not a reliable witness. Apart from the fact that he is admittedly an unqualified professional, and an unlicensed one - at best a quack, counsel for the appellants quite correctly point out that his previous links with the police cannot be ruled out, for the reason that he migrated, later than during Partition, from Pakistan. The probability of him practising his profession under the shadow of police patronage, for some kind of