there was Panchayati, wherein it was resolved to marry, which has been declined. Furthermore, after Panchayati, the accused persons indulged in criminal activity after coming to the house of the victim whereunder they unsuccessfully tried to administer medicine to facilitate abortion, but on account of spiting thereof, by the victim, could not swallow. It is also evident that during course of trial, she begotten a child, who died. Be that as it may, aforesaid theme is out of controversy, has never been challenged at the end of the appellant. So far Panchayati is concerned, it may be a surrounding circumstance, however, PW-1 in Para-5 has not been cross-examined, at whose place, Panchayati was convened, though he had substantiated the same. PW-2 at Para-8, 9 has been cross-examined and during course thereof, she had stated that she was not present in the Panchayati, but had divulged the resolution taken in the Panchayati. PW-3, during cross-examination at Para-6, Para-7, Para-8, was cross-examined over the Panchayati wherein he detailed and further, identified the place of Suleman where Panchayati was convened. PW-5 had stated during his examination-in-chief, that he came to know about the occurrence during course of Panchyati and on that very score, from Para-3 of his cross-examination, it is evident that he reiterated the same. PW-6, the victim, during course of her examination-in-chief at Para-4, had detailed the event of Panchayati and she has been tested under Paras-
