tried to explain the circumstances in which her first statement was recorded and she stated that she gave her first statement out of fear of accused persons as they had given threatening to kill her daughters but the aforesaid important circumstance was not put before the accused persons while their statements under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. were recorded and, therefore, no opportunity was provided to the accused persons to explain the aforesaid circumstance and, therefore, a serious prejudice has been caused to the accused persons. In support of his contention, he referred a decision reported in BLJR 2013 (Patna High Court) 285 . He further submitted that admittedly, the second statement of P.W. 5 was recorded on 28.02.1997 i.e. after long delay and no plausible explanation about the aforesaid delay was given. Furthermore, the first information report and other relative documents were put up before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger on 04.03.1997 violating the mandatory provision of the law and, therefore, the aforesaid circumstance also creates doubt about the genuineness of the prosecution story. He further submitted that P.W. 5 has admitted in her deposition that she had not made any statement in respect of the alleged occurrence on 28.02.1997 and, therefore, the aforesaid admission of P.W. 5 clearly indicates to this fact that socalled Ferdbeyan (Exhibit-3) is an engineered and manufactured document and no reliance can safely be placed on the aforesaid
