Short Note : 1. The facts of the case, in short are that on 28-2-1975 Bimlabai (P.W.16) aged below 15 years the wife of one Mahadeo and daughter-in-law of Pyaribai (P.W.8) was left alone in her house in village Bhopal while her husband and mother-in-law had temporarily gone, out to their fields. At about 3.00 pm., the accused-appellants Benibai and Narayan came to her and persuaded her to elope with the prisoner-appellant Shanker who they said was staying in their house. When Bimlabai (P.W.16) did not accede to their persuasion, the appellants Benibai and Narayan slapped her. Thereafter, the two, after breaking open the lock of a box stole ornaments including two pairs of batane one pair of ear-rings, six bichhias, one pair of payals, one jhumar, one silver rupee, two churas and 200 rupees in cash and took them away. In the evening at about 8.00 p.m., while Bimlabai (P.W.16) went to answer the call of nature outside her village near a garden she was caught hold of by the three appellants and forcibly taken away. Ultimately, she was entrusted to the prisoner-appellant Shanker who took her to a house in Sagar town where he had forcible sexual intercourse with her on two or three occasions. The second day while he had taken her to the bus-stand she came across Indrajgir (P.W.2) and Sumersingh (P.W.17) to whom she crying related the event. She was taken to Motinagar police station where she lodged the first information report. Held : In this case, clearly, there was no cross-examination of Bimlabai. Incidentally, similar is the case with Sumersingh (P.W.17) also. It appears from the order-sheet of the learned Additional Sessions Judge of 27-11-1975 that one Mr. Ashraf Ali, Advocate, was not available to cross-examine Bimlabai. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, without asking the three accused-persons to exercise their right of cross-examining Bimlabai (as also Sumersingh) had adjourned to case and cast the duty of calling Bimlabai, (as also Sumersingh, P.W.17) for cross-examination upon the accused persons. The fact, however remains that neither of these witnesses, particularly, Bimlabai could be cross-examined. It cannot be denied that cross-examination of a witness is an important weapon in the hands of the opposite party. By cross examination, the opposite party not only has the opportunity of destroying his opponent's case and establishing his own, but also of impeaching the credit of that witness generally. It cannot be denied that cross-examination of a witness is an important weapon in the hands of the opposite party. By cross examination, the opposite party not only has the opportunity of destroying his opponent's case and establishing his own, but also of impeaching the credit of that witness generally. In this case, that opportunity appears to have been clearly denied to the accused peasons, and due to no fault of theirs. The result is that whatever Bimlabai has stated does not fulfil the requirement of section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act and hence cannot be made the basis of any conviction. Apart from her evidence there is no evidence either direct or circumstantial that the appellant Benibai or the appellant Narayan had anything to do with the kidnapping part of Bimlabai (P.W.16). It could as well be that Bimlabai of her own accord with ornaments had gone away without relating the event to anyone, under the pretext of answering the call of nature to meet the prisoner appellant Shanker who on cycle, later on, had taken her away to Sagar. Appeal allowed.