did not ravish anyone but threatened the first informant, Smt. K. The co-accused Shiv Lal, father of the two stood guard outside the applicant's home. It is pointed out that in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., recorded by the Magistrate, the prosecutrix Smt. K in the background of the same allegation of a dispute over sharing of crop between her and the applicant's father Shiv Lal, has come up with an allegation that the applicant's father along with his other son Jabar Singh came over to her house in the evening of the date of occurrence, where the applicant's father stood guard outside and his son Jabar Singh ravished the prosecutrix Smt. K. It is pointed out that in the said statement made before the Magistrate, the applicant's role, his presence at the place and time of occurrence, is not at all mentioned by Smt. K. It is submitted that by contrast in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., recorded by the Magistrate, the other prosecutrix Smt. S has said that on the date of occurrence, it was Shiv Pal, who entered their house and ravished her, as also her mother-in-law. It is submitted that there is much contradiction between the FIR authored by one of the two prosecutrix's and between the two statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C., where in one of these, there is no role assigned by the prosecutrix Smt. K to the applicant, who is said to be not even present at the place of occurrence, the prosecution story is apparently shaky, uncertain and contradictory on the strength of which the applicant cannot be detained, pending trial. It is further argued that the FIR has been lodged after a delay of five and a half month of the occurrence, without explanation, which assumes some significance in the background of the property dispute between parties and the varying versions of the prosecution in their statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and the FIR. It is also argued that in the medico legal report relating to the two
