these two witnesses. 7.5 It is further submitted that adverse inference has to be drawn against the prosecution for non-examination of material and independent witnesses, Narayan Ramrao i.e. owner of the tea stall located near the scene of incident; 1 (2019) 15 SCC 575 2 (2011) 14 SCC 674 6Prakash Pawar and Jitendra Chaugule i.e. persons residing near Savkar Hospital and Babu Patil (ward boy of Savkar Hospital), despite their statements being recorded by Rajesh Arkhade/investigating officer/PW10. 7.6 It is submitted that even those persons who came to the spot after PW2 shouted for help, are also not examined by the prosecution. The learned counsel relied on the judgments in Jaikam Khan v. State of UP3, Jagadish v. State of Haryana4, Hem Raj v. State of Haryana5 to contend that non- examination of independent witness by the prosecution is a serious infirmity and is fatal to the case of the prosecution. 7.7 It is submitted that evidence of Dr. Vikrant Savkar/PW5 is not trustworthy and