Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The Informant is P.W.2, who happens to be the father of the victim (P.W.4) in clear terms, has stated that in the evening of 25 th December, 2012, her daughter (victim-P.W.4) had been to witness the dance programme to Village-Prem Nagar and around mid- night, he (P.W.2) and his wife (mother of the victim-P.W.5) as well as their younger daughter returned home leaving the victim (P.W.4) there. He has further stated that it was around 3.00 a.m., his daughter (Victim-P.W.4) returned home and then she was under depression and she informed about the incident that the accused persons intercepting her on the way, gagged her mouth and forcibly took her away to Village-Litibeda where they committed rape upon her. He has also stated to have noticed the wearing apparels of her daughter (P.W.4) to have been stained with mud and bangles to have broken. It is his evidence that first the victim (P.W.4) told the incident to her mother (P.W.5) and then he (P.W.2) was informed about the same by his wife (P.W.5). The FIR (Ext.1) has been lodged promptly thereafter and so also the victim has been medically examined after recording of her statement by the I.O. (P.W.16) under section 161 of the Cr.P.C. Despite cross-examination, we find nothing to have been elicited from him to entertain any doubt with regard to the factum of disclosure of the incident by the victim (P.W.4) before her mother (P.W.5) and then to him (P.W.2). The mother of the victim (P.W.5) has spoken the something on oath. There is no such significant variance in their evidence.