daughter was not at home but they were doubting that Ram Sharan has enticed away the girl. She also affirms the fact that the family members of Ram Sharan, the accused, had challenged to bring the girl as their daughter-in-law of their house. Subsequently, she came to know that the appellant has kept the daughter in his house i.e., accused. In cross examination, the mother states that the date of birth of her daughter was recorded by her husband. Therefore, both the statements of the mother and father of the victim would show that some dispute took place between the appellant’s family and the victim’s family as the family of victim raised suspicion. The statement of father would show that the victim was recovered from the house of the appellant. The Recovery (Baramdgi) Panchnama, Ex.P-3, shows that the girl was recovered from custody of Ram Sharan, the accused appellant. Reading of the statement of the father at para 9 would show that a suggestion was made that when the victim was abused by the family members, at that time, she was in the neighbour house of one Jaipal, but he denied and stated that at that time, the victim was at their own residence. He further volunteered the fact that she was recovered from the house of Ramsharan Singh. He further admits the fact that recovery panchnama (Baramdgi) was written at police station and was signed by them there. He further admits the fact that whatever was written in such recovery (Baramdagi) Panchnama, he has not
