(PW 4), instead thereof, after covering some distance had gone to the place of Lalji Singh and from there, the informant was intimated. So, presence of PW-4 has become doubtful as had there been his presence, having house in front of house of informant, being full brother of informant, would have been approached first. It is further evident that in spite of presence of informant at a later part, neither he had contacted, Arun Kumar Singh (P W 4) rather he, after taking information from the victim and after verifying the same gone to police station. Further, PW-2 has humself said that after filing of case, informant came to this place and narrated the same. PW-3, informant deposed whatsoever been stated by his wife, victim, PW-1 and in order to lend assurance, had gone to the house of the accused which was pointed out by the victim. It is also evident that during course of evidence of PW-1, victim, though she has stated with regard to manner of occurrence, was not at all tested by way of cross-examination. It is needless to say that in order to challenge the testimony of a witness, crossexamination has to be conducted relating thereto, otherwise, it will be deemed to be admitted one as has been observed by the Apex Court in Gian Chand & others v. State of Haryana reported in 2013(4) PLJR 7 (SC) the relevant para is quoted
