that non-examination of the owner of the tea stall located near the scene of crime; non-examination of the ward boy of Savkar hospital; non-examination of independent witnesses who had assembled near the scene of crime on hue and cry being raised by PW-2; was fatal to the prosecution case. Though at first blush, said arguments looks attractive, on deeper examination it has to be answered against the appellant as it is settled principle of law that non-examination of independent witnesses by itself would not give rise to adverse inference against the prosecution. It would only assume importance when the evidence of eyewitness raises a serious doubt about their presence at the time of actual occurrence.7 15. Yet another plea was raised that due to financial dispute between appellant and PW-2, he (PW-2) had falsely implicated the appellant. During course of examination, it was suggested to PW2 that there was some dispute between him and the appellant on account of monetary transaction.