the allegation. In support of his submission, the learned counsel referred para-16 of the case diary wherefrom it is evident that on 22-02-2014 at about 08:30 P.M. Investigating Officer was informed by the Officer-in-charge that victim was at the clinic of Dr. Ramashankar Prasad where the I.O. had gone and found the victim. Not only this, when the victim was examined under Section 164, she had stated that she was taken away by Wahid Nadaf, Jahid Nadaf and Mansoor Nadaf about two days ago and at that very time, she was alone at her house. She remained at their house whole night and during course thereof, she was administered sedative. On the following day at about 05:00 P.M. she regained sense and found herself at her house. It happens to be a mysterious circumstance how the victim during course of unconsciousness was lifted from the house of petitioners to her own house and that has not been explained by the prosecution during course of investigation although charge sheet had already been submitted. This indicates that petitioners fell victim of false implication as the witnesses have categorically stated that the parties are on strain relationship since before the occurrence. Moreover, none of them so examined under paras-7, 8, 9, 10 happen to be an eyewitness to occurrence though the occurrence has been disclosed to have committed in broad day light as well as from place of occurrence, the houses of so many persons is found.
