accused No.2 as her mother, she has not stated anything in support of the prosecution. Incidentally, the prosecution did not ask about the identity of accused No.1 to this witness. It did not even ask as to whether accused No.1 was visiting their house regularly or frequently. However, after reading the evidence of PW-1 in its entirety, we may have to presume that complainant was knowing accused No.1. Thus, at the threshold, the prosecution has not asked any important and material question for bringing out the alleged fact of the complainant knowing the accused. Even after getting the witness treated as hostile and giving permission to cross-examine the witness, the prosecution except making few suggestions about facts of alleged sexual assault upon her, as has been shown in her alleged complaint at Ex.P1, did not made any attempt to elicit further details about the alleged incident which could have supported the case of the prosecution. Thus, even in the cross-examination, the prosecution has given a clear go-by to its own case, except complying the formality of cross-examining PW-1.
