41 28.10.2008 he was sure that the culprits were accused Hari Om and his associates. The version given by PW2 Ompal Singh is, therefore, not free from doubt. (III) The sample fingerprints of accused Hari Om did not match with any of the fingerprints taken from the house of the deceased. (IV) With the acquittal of all the accused in respect of offences punishable under Section 412 IPC and under the Arms Act, there is no other material pointing towards the involvement of accused Hari Om. 28. Thus, out of three features which could possibly be put against accused Hari Om, the version given by the child witness being unworthy to be relied upon, we are left with the evidence of recovery of a knife, and the evidence of PW2 that he had spotted accused Hari Om near a red Tavera vehicle in the neighbourhood. The prosecution did not attempt to prove that the call received by Smt. Nirdosh Devi could be associated with accused Hari Om. Secondly, the time given by PW2 Ompal Singh again did not match with the time of the call received by Smt. Nirdosh Devi. Further, the evidence of PW2 Ompal Singh also contains inherent inconsistencies. In the premises, we do not find the material on record sufficient to record