adjoining house of Nityanandal where the rest of the murders were
committed, she did not mention the name of the respondent as the
assailant for a day and a half. The murders were committed in the
night of 13th June, 1969 and yet she did not come out with the
name of the respondent until the morning of 15th June, 1969. It is
not possible to accept the explanation sought to be given on behalf
of the prosecution that she did not disclose the name of the
respondent as the assailant earlier than 15th June, 1969 on
account of fear of the respondent. There could be no question of any
fear from the respondent because in the first place, the respondent
was not known to be a gangster or a confirmed criminal about
whom people would be afraid, secondly, the police had already
arrived at the scene and they were stationed in the Club House
which was just opposite to the house of the witness and thirdly,
A.S.I. Madan Das was her nephew and he had come to the village in
connection with the case and had also visited her house on 14th
June, 1969. It is indeed difficult to believe that this witness should
not have disclosed the name of the respondent to the police or even
to A.S.I. Madan Das and should have waited till the morning of 15th
June, 1969 for giving out the name of the respondent. This is a very
serious infirmitywhich destroys the credibility of the evidence of this
witness.” and another case reported in (State of
Maharashtra v. BhanudasSommannaSangolkar) 1997 Cri LJ
3205 this Court held: