abused her repeatedly after the death of her mother. Not only he beat her up but also subjected her to forcible sexual intercourse taking advantage of his relation with the victim and the authority exercised over her i.e. his minor daughter. She has specifically stated in her examination-in-chief about being repeatedly subjected to physical assault and forcible sexual intercourse by the appellant on various occasions. In crossexamination also, she has held her ground and the defence has not been able to impeach her credibility in any manner. In fact, she has also stated that severest of punishment should be awarded to her father for the crime committed by him. She has clearly stated that on 16.09.2013 also, her father beat her up and then physically/ sexually abused her. Much emphasis was laid by learned counsel for the appellant on the fact that in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she had stated about an attempt by the appellant to sexually assault her whereas in her statement before the court she has stated about the appellant having actually had forcible sexual intercourse with her. This contradiction in her statement was relied upon to impeach her credibility, however, we find that she was never confronted in cross-examination on this point and therefore, it is not open for the appellant’s counsel to take this plea before this Court. Even otherwise, we find that in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which was recorded on 20.09.2013, no doubt, she has stated that he attempted to sexually assault her but in her tehrir lodged by her three days ago on 17.09.2013, she has clearly stated that when the appellant started forcible sexual intercourse with her she declined whereupon she was beaten up. Now, minor discrepancy in this regard as to whether she