December 1998, though he claimed that the widow of the deceased was present when the assault was committed, this statement is an omission. PW-1, after recall, did not depose about the presence of the widow of the deceased near the place of the incident. The prosecution did not take any steps to examine Malti CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 467/2024 4Bai, the widow of the deceased, who was claiming to be an eyewitness. Even the trial court did not direct the police to record her statement and to examine her before the Court. The prosecution offered no explanation for not examining Malti Bai as a witness. Therefore, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the prosecution withheld the evidence of a material witness from the Court, which may be a ground for drawing an adverse inference against the prosecution. 8. The second event is that on 5th February 1999, nearly 01 year and 09 months from the date on which her deposition was recorded, PW-1 made an application to the Court stating that her