9. From the material available on the record, it is evident that PW.1 and PW.2 had not claimed to be an eye witness to occurrence rather they deposed on the basis of an information having at the end of victim, PW.3 It is true that during course of her examination-in-chief victim had given a contradictory statement from PW.2, her father who had admitted Aslam to be tenant in the same flat where he was residing while victim had stated that he was on visiting term. She had further stated that she is not knowing where Aslam was residing. In para-6 there happens to be some effort in drawing attention towards her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C as during evidence, victim PW.3 had developed the story by stating that he also misbehaved with her along with Binesh. Furthermore, it is apparent that on subsequent date, due to non-appearance of the learned counsel, victim was discharged. During her examination-in-chief victim had substantiated her earlier statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and so, the same has been seen to perceive the earlier version therefrom it is manifest that Binesh was in love with her and wanted to marry but she was not inclined as he was of
