she had stated that her daughter had shouted from the shop of Md. Rahman. At that very time, 6-7 persons from their respective houses rushed. Then there happens to be detailed crossexamination over manner of occurrence whereunder she had stated that when they reached at the place of occurrence, at that very time victim was inside the shop of the accused persons. At that very time, accused Rahman had kept her daughter in his lap. At that very time, victim was wearing Salwar and Samij. She along with her husband and others gone inside the shop where, 6 -7 persons of Mohallawala also arrived and then, all of them rescued her daughter. They could not be able to apprehend the accused as, they escaped though, there was scuffle. She had further stated that when they rescued the victim from the clutches of Rahman, she had found mark of bite over her cheek, both side. Her daughter had also sustained injury over nose, forehead and back. However, she denied that she had not seen injury over other parts of body. The salwar of her daughter was completely torn but, it was not separated from the body. In Para-13, she had stated that accused persons after closing the shop, escaped. She had further stated that accused persons have closed their shop in their presence. when the accused persons were putting lock over his shop, she returned back to her house along with the victim and during midst thereof, accused persons escaped. In para-16, she had admitted that no other grocery shop is present in the vicinity. They used to purchase articles from the shop of the accused. Then had denied the suggestion that they were taking meat from the shop of accused. Then had denied the suggestion that they were taking
