lodged on 03.02.2006 at about 10.30 p.m. Though explanation was given that on advise of the people, the delay was caused. Victim/complainant (Pw-2) examined in examination in chief and stated that she was filthily abused as on the date of the incident, the appellant was outside of her home and started abusing filthily saying her tonahi and many other words and said that he would beat her, in her cross-examination she stated that the appellant abused her saying prostitute, kisbeen, if the above things are not mentioned in my police statement, I cannot the tell the reason. The incident was witnessed by Nandlal Pant, Panchratan & Manharan. Thereafter, the report was lodged, spot map was prepared, and caste certificate was given. From the statement of this witness it appears that the incident was witnessed but two or three witnesses, Santram (Pw-4) is said to be an eye-witness. He has been declared hostile by the prosecution and from his statement it appears that he simply stated that some quarrel was being taken place between the appellant and the complainant. However, on material particulars he has not supported the case of the prosecution. Likewise, Panchratan (Pw-5) was examined and simply stated that the appellant came near my house in the drunken condition and he was abusing, complainant’s house is nearby my house, the appellant was abusing but he was not taking anybody’s name and he was not abusing the complainant, this witness was also declared hostile and after crossexamination also by the prosecution he has categorically denied that such an incident has occurred and the appellant has abused the complainant in the name of caste and saying tonahi. Likewise, Manharan (Pw-8) also does not support the case of the prosecution. Another witness Brahmanand (Pw9) has also stated that appellant has not stated anything to the victim and
