32. Moreover, PW1 admitted in her cross-examination that there is a busstand, which is a busy place, near the place of occurrence. The shop run by the family members of the victim, PW1 admits, is opened around 7:00 a.m. and closes around 2:00 p.m. and thereafter opened again. Hence, during the occurrence of the alleged incident as per the victim’s version, the shop ought to have been open at 1-1:30 pm, which is the alleged time of occurrence. Although the victim, in her cross-examination, stated that she had disclosed the fact of the alleged incident to her mother at about 4/5:00 p.m., it was elicited in the cross-examination of the mother of the victim (PW1) that the victim told her about the incident at around 2:00 p.m.. Moreover, it was admitted by PW1 in her cross-examination that they went to the police station at around 2:30 p.m. on that date. Such admission is patently contrary to the admission of the PW2, the victim, in her cross-examination that she stated about the incident to her mother only at around 4/5:00 p.m., which is much after the victim’s family went to the police station, according to PW1, to lodge the complaint. Hence, the version of the PW1 and PW2 regarding the timings of the chain of events do not tally at all.
