more dimension to the contradiction at one stage of the cross­ examination. He claimed that after registering the case he visited the occurrence spot same day at 9:00­9:30 at night. But subsequently he claimed as follows: “First I completed the inquest proceedings and inspected the occurrence spot subsequently, after two hours of the inquest proceedings on 09.03.2012 itself”. 50. Moreover the inquest ought to have been conducted at the place where the dead body was found. PW­1 claimed that he did not bring the dead body to the house and that the police personnel who had come to the spot, took away the body. But according to PW­6, the relatives had taken the dead body to the house and that he saw the dead body only in the house. If that is so, the inquest proceedings should have been conducted there and not elsewhere. It is quite strange that PW­6 claimed during cross­examination to have first completed the inquest and thereafter inspected the occurrence spot. Clothes on the body of the victim, recovered by the police. 24