From perusal of the evidence available on the record, it is crystal clear that it happens to be a case of no evidence. P.W. 1 and P.W. 3 have not supported the case of the prosecution and that being so, were declared hostile. More or less the conduct of P.W. 2 informant as well as, P.W. 4 the victim happens to be in similar facet. Though, during course of evidence P.W. 2 informant had reiterated the allegation whatever been incorporated in the written report, but she had not disclosed the name of villager from whom she came to know regarding enticing away the victim P.W. 4 by the appellant Harinder Sahni. Moreover, she had disclosed the age of the victim at the time of occurrence to be 19 years. During course of crossexamination she had admitted that she had not seen the occurrence. So far, P.W. 4, victim is concerned, she had not alleged against the appellant Harinder Sahni to have enticed away and that being so, examination of the Magistrate as well as, exhibit of the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is not going to improve the fate of the prosecution because of the fact that statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. does not happen to be the substantial evidence.
