37 them about the entire incident. As a matter of fact, PW1 Kotwal Singh went to the extent of asserting that it was through Dr. Satyapal Singh that he came to know about the incident. v) Thus, the version given by PW5 Ujjwal that he had narrated the entire incident to PW1 Kotwal Singh, PW4 Shankar Lal and Darogaji was not supported by any of them. Moreover, the other person namely Dr. Satyapal Singh to whom similar narration was given by PW5 Ujjwal, was not even examined by the prosecution. vi) The charge-sheet did indicate Dr. Satyapal Singh to be one of the relevant witnesses, and yet he was not examined. On the other hand, the charge-sheet did not even speak of PW5 Ujjwal to be a relevant and material witness. 24. Having culled out the essential features emerging from the record, we must state that we find it difficult to place reliance upon the testimony of PW5 Ujjwal and in our view, the said version can not be made the basis of conviction of Hari Om. It is true that the assertion made by him that Hari Om used to be a tenant in their house was supported by PW2 Ompal Singh. Even if we